Menu UI should (hierarchically?) sort static pages

[Denis-de-Bernardy]

When you've multitudes of pages, nested hierarchically all over the place, the Menu UI offers pages in a seemingly random order.

They should at least be sorted alphabetically. Showing the hierarchy would be nice too, in order to differentiate between pages with identical name but different parents.

[filosofo]

The behavior should be the same as that of browsing the edit page pages, in that the ancestors of the pages are present.

I don't understand how it could be both sorted alphabetically and hierarchical. Could you elaborate, please?

[Denis-de-Bernardy]

I was meaning using the order from edit pages, yes. The one that defaults to hierarchical + menu order, alphabetical.

[johnonolan]

Denis is right, it is sorted alphabetically and hierarchically, see ​http://drp.ly/10dvaw and he's also right that this isn't being translated across to the pages metabox on the menus screen, see ​http://drp.ly/10dw6Z[[BR]]

On my install the page which has a child (Page Five) also isn't even showing up in the metabox at all.

[johnonolan]

​http://drp.ly/10dw6Z <== link got caught up with BR tag

[filosofo]

I'll do this. I know exactly where and why it's happening.

[filosofo]

Patch sorts pages in sidebar by menu order then title.

The big chunk that's removed I put in there originally when we were actually nesting pages in their hierarchy, so it made more sense for a page down in the hierarchy not to be orphaned (something the admin edit pages avoid, too).

However, at some point the nested hierarchy was removed so handling orphans like that no longer makes sense from a UX point of view. And I believe no one is pushing for pages to be ordered by publish date as Jane originally requested.

[automattor]

(In [14744]) Order pages in menu box by menu_order, title. Props filosofo. see #13329

[ryan]

Losing hierarchy is a bummer though. Any other approaches to showing parentage without having to mess with hierarchies? Maybe show parent title as a parenthetical?

[koopersmith]

I'm not up to speed here, but see #13217.

[ryan]

We'll live with it as is for 3.0.