This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the use of WP: shortcuts to point to user essays in userspace be deprecated?
Despite the declaration on WP:SHORTCUT that The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline. that disclaimer is not visible to anybody clicking on a shortcut. They arrive at the user essay with the mistaken impression that the user essay is actually a guideline carrying much more weight than it actually does. Even if the essay actually represented a community approved guideline having it in userspace would imply some ownership of the guideline. In either case the shortcut is unintentionally and unnecessarily misleading.
I propose deprecating the use of WP: shortcuts to point at user essays in userspace.
Existing shortcuts should be replaced with a short page containing the disclaimer above with a link to the essay. If the essay passes an RfC and is accepted by the community then the shortcut should be replaced by the essay or a redirect to its approved version in WP: namespace. Bazj ( talk) 17:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the entire section could use an informed review, especially about what enjoys "broad community support." What I am posting specifically about is something that doesn't make sense in this section's discussions of WikiProjects. It states:
In addition to the above, WikiProjects have shortcuts using spaces in the title. The following naming conventions are common:
But what follows has no spaces in it:
The following naming conventions are common:
WikiProject
WikiprojectWikipedia:WikiProject
Sorry I can only post this, but even though I see it could be an easy fix I don't want to get it wrong and have little oomph to double-check this. (BTW, the following part beginning, "Portals also use spaces in shortcuts," might be better structured with boxes so it has parallel construction with the earlier parts and so the reader's eye can pick it up more quickly.) All outta oomph now! So thanks in advance, Geekdiva ( talk)
Consensus appears to favor the proposed change. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
The guideline currently contains the following wording:
The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (indeed, that's what Special:WhatLinksHere is for); instead, they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects.
This guideline has been largely ignored by the community for almost ten years and for good reasons, so I changed this to
The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (indeed, that's what Special:WhatLinksHere is for); instead, they generally should list
only one or twothe most common and easily remembered redirects.
but was reverted.
I thus formerly propose this change be implemented as it reflects standard and current practice as evidenced by WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:DEL, WP:EP and WP:NPOV to name but a few core policy pages. While listing all possible shortcuts is overkill, it's also WP:COMMONSENSE that there should not be an artificial limit. If a page has four common shortcuts, they should be listed and if it only has one, so be it. Removing shortcuts solely for the sake of removing a certain number strikes me as following the letter of the rules for the sake of following the rules without thought of whether doing so really improves the project (something, ironically, I have been accused of in the past).
This RFC is only about whether the wording should be changed from "only one or two" to "the most".
Pinging editors who were involved in removing shortcuts: Johnuniq, Carl Tristan Orense, Galobtter, Izno.
Regards So Why 07:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
At least for my edits, I didn't make changes because of a dogmatic adherence to the guideline but because I felt removing the shortcuts were an improvement - most pages have one shortcut that is used 90+% of the time (e.g WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:ANI etc) and it makes sense IMO to show that main shortcut rather than having say 3-4 shortcuts on display. 4 or more shortcuts can of course be displayed if indeed they are commonly used but as a general guidance I think having 1 or 2 shortcuts works well ("they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects." does not put a limit, but says to do so "generally", which it makes sense). Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I am irritated with off-wiki nonsense at the moment so will leave only a grumpy message (more later): WP:2SHORTCUTS is often used as a rationale to resist the tendency of many editors who feel compelled to add every redirect as a shortcut. The fact that exceptions exist does not change the fact that 2SHORTCUTS is generally good guidance and is just a guideline which people are welcome to ignore when appropriate. Policies like WP:V and WP:NOT have multiple shortcuts so the appropriate one can be chosen for the task. What 2SHORTCUTS is really aimed at are places like WP:5P which does not need WP:5 and all the other cute redirects listed as shortcuts. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
How about a compromise? "...instead, they generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects (usually one or two)." -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
they generally shouldis referring to all shortcut boxes, leaving it entirely unclear as to whether the
most common and easily remembered redirectsis intended to recommend one or multiple shortcuts per shortcut box. These things should be idiot-proofed. You can kind of guess the meaning in the current wording but the proposed change is more ambiguous. – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
For all of those who voted in favour of relaxing the limit on the number of shortcuts, take a look at the consequences at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 13#WP:OTHERTALK. I hope you're pleased with yourselves. -- RexxS ( talk) 13:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This is likely a case of "so obvious we forgot to actually say it" but here goes.
The guideline has very little to say regarding the creation of shortcuts - it comes across as directed at users of shortcuts. But I can't find any link to another page where the creation of shortcuts are regulated, so here I am.
I can't find anywhere on the page any actual creation restrictions. Two in particular:
Both #1 and #2 can be boiled down to one simple question: can* I create a shortcut to my user talk page, and is there any policy/guideline/community consensus that prevents me from using, say the WP prefix, for it?
Let's try it out. What do you say about WP:CAPNZAPP? (link leads to my user talk, at least at the time of writing.)
Please understand that my main aim is to improve our article, NOT get personal advice. That is, replying here "yes you can do that" or "no you can't do that" is not as helpful as actually editing the article so I and everybody else can read the answers there. (Feel free to discuss if a consensus decision is not obvious though! And or course feel free to give me pointers if the answers are already there and I merely missed them...)
*) Not asking if I am technically able to, but if there is any policy or guideline or recommend against it...
Thank you CapnZapp ( talk) 10:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, I'm asking - do we have any policies (etc) that restrict shortcut creation? Can anyone create a shortcut anywhere, or are shortcuts restricted to specific namespaces? Do I need to match prefix to namespace, or can I create a "WP" shortcut that links to, say, the user talk space? CapnZapp ( talk) 18:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Johnuniq: Thank you for contributing, but you've read the talk page, you know I'm struggling here. So please do not merely revert my efforts without giving me some hint of how to improve. Okay so WP is a built-in namespace alias, so what? Isn't a shortcut a shortcut? Why does the technical nature of the prefix matter? Specifically, where on this page (or another page!) is the difference between a "built-in namespace alias shortcut", and a "redirect shortcut" discussed? Please help me actually improve our documentation. Thank you CapnZapp ( talk) 09:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
First use case: I come across a Shortcut and want to know if it is within policy (guidelines etc). Second use case: I want to create a shortcut, and want to know how to keep to rules and regulations. Specifically, I don't want my shortcut to be reverted after the fact by some random user for some arbitrary reason.
In short: This page seems to suffer from "the unwritten rules" - that is, there ARE conventions and accepted practices regarding Wikipedia Shortcuts but not written down. Not fixing them on paper makes them impossible to question or discuss or change. I came to this page to look up specifically if prefix and namespace must match, and generally if I can create a shortcut "to anything". The lack of any newbie-friendly language on these topics is a drawback to the page.
To me the page could do with a refresh; simplifying the language, shunting technical details away from section headers, explaining the difference between shortcuts-as-redirects and shortcuts-as-aliases, and to clarify things like whether a "WP:ANYTHING" shortcut should lead to the Wikipedia namespace or if it could lead anywhere (such as to User Talk).
CapnZapp ( talk) 13:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
'+enwiki' => // T8313
'WP' => NS_PROJECT,
'WT' => NS_PROJECT_TALK,
],
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the use of WP: shortcuts to point to user essays in userspace be deprecated?
Despite the declaration on WP:SHORTCUT that The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline. that disclaimer is not visible to anybody clicking on a shortcut. They arrive at the user essay with the mistaken impression that the user essay is actually a guideline carrying much more weight than it actually does. Even if the essay actually represented a community approved guideline having it in userspace would imply some ownership of the guideline. In either case the shortcut is unintentionally and unnecessarily misleading.
I propose deprecating the use of WP: shortcuts to point at user essays in userspace.
Existing shortcuts should be replaced with a short page containing the disclaimer above with a link to the essay. If the essay passes an RfC and is accepted by the community then the shortcut should be replaced by the essay or a redirect to its approved version in WP: namespace. Bazj ( talk) 17:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the entire section could use an informed review, especially about what enjoys "broad community support." What I am posting specifically about is something that doesn't make sense in this section's discussions of WikiProjects. It states:
In addition to the above, WikiProjects have shortcuts using spaces in the title. The following naming conventions are common:
But what follows has no spaces in it:
The following naming conventions are common:
WikiProject
WikiprojectWikipedia:WikiProject
Sorry I can only post this, but even though I see it could be an easy fix I don't want to get it wrong and have little oomph to double-check this. (BTW, the following part beginning, "Portals also use spaces in shortcuts," might be better structured with boxes so it has parallel construction with the earlier parts and so the reader's eye can pick it up more quickly.) All outta oomph now! So thanks in advance, Geekdiva ( talk)
Consensus appears to favor the proposed change. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
The guideline currently contains the following wording:
The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (indeed, that's what Special:WhatLinksHere is for); instead, they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects.
This guideline has been largely ignored by the community for almost ten years and for good reasons, so I changed this to
The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (indeed, that's what Special:WhatLinksHere is for); instead, they generally should list
only one or twothe most common and easily remembered redirects.
but was reverted.
I thus formerly propose this change be implemented as it reflects standard and current practice as evidenced by WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:DEL, WP:EP and WP:NPOV to name but a few core policy pages. While listing all possible shortcuts is overkill, it's also WP:COMMONSENSE that there should not be an artificial limit. If a page has four common shortcuts, they should be listed and if it only has one, so be it. Removing shortcuts solely for the sake of removing a certain number strikes me as following the letter of the rules for the sake of following the rules without thought of whether doing so really improves the project (something, ironically, I have been accused of in the past).
This RFC is only about whether the wording should be changed from "only one or two" to "the most".
Pinging editors who were involved in removing shortcuts: Johnuniq, Carl Tristan Orense, Galobtter, Izno.
Regards So Why 07:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
At least for my edits, I didn't make changes because of a dogmatic adherence to the guideline but because I felt removing the shortcuts were an improvement - most pages have one shortcut that is used 90+% of the time (e.g WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:ANI etc) and it makes sense IMO to show that main shortcut rather than having say 3-4 shortcuts on display. 4 or more shortcuts can of course be displayed if indeed they are commonly used but as a general guidance I think having 1 or 2 shortcuts works well ("they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects." does not put a limit, but says to do so "generally", which it makes sense). Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I am irritated with off-wiki nonsense at the moment so will leave only a grumpy message (more later): WP:2SHORTCUTS is often used as a rationale to resist the tendency of many editors who feel compelled to add every redirect as a shortcut. The fact that exceptions exist does not change the fact that 2SHORTCUTS is generally good guidance and is just a guideline which people are welcome to ignore when appropriate. Policies like WP:V and WP:NOT have multiple shortcuts so the appropriate one can be chosen for the task. What 2SHORTCUTS is really aimed at are places like WP:5P which does not need WP:5 and all the other cute redirects listed as shortcuts. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
How about a compromise? "...instead, they generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects (usually one or two)." -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
they generally shouldis referring to all shortcut boxes, leaving it entirely unclear as to whether the
most common and easily remembered redirectsis intended to recommend one or multiple shortcuts per shortcut box. These things should be idiot-proofed. You can kind of guess the meaning in the current wording but the proposed change is more ambiguous. – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
For all of those who voted in favour of relaxing the limit on the number of shortcuts, take a look at the consequences at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 13#WP:OTHERTALK. I hope you're pleased with yourselves. -- RexxS ( talk) 13:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This is likely a case of "so obvious we forgot to actually say it" but here goes.
The guideline has very little to say regarding the creation of shortcuts - it comes across as directed at users of shortcuts. But I can't find any link to another page where the creation of shortcuts are regulated, so here I am.
I can't find anywhere on the page any actual creation restrictions. Two in particular:
Both #1 and #2 can be boiled down to one simple question: can* I create a shortcut to my user talk page, and is there any policy/guideline/community consensus that prevents me from using, say the WP prefix, for it?
Let's try it out. What do you say about WP:CAPNZAPP? (link leads to my user talk, at least at the time of writing.)
Please understand that my main aim is to improve our article, NOT get personal advice. That is, replying here "yes you can do that" or "no you can't do that" is not as helpful as actually editing the article so I and everybody else can read the answers there. (Feel free to discuss if a consensus decision is not obvious though! And or course feel free to give me pointers if the answers are already there and I merely missed them...)
*) Not asking if I am technically able to, but if there is any policy or guideline or recommend against it...
Thank you CapnZapp ( talk) 10:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, I'm asking - do we have any policies (etc) that restrict shortcut creation? Can anyone create a shortcut anywhere, or are shortcuts restricted to specific namespaces? Do I need to match prefix to namespace, or can I create a "WP" shortcut that links to, say, the user talk space? CapnZapp ( talk) 18:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Johnuniq: Thank you for contributing, but you've read the talk page, you know I'm struggling here. So please do not merely revert my efforts without giving me some hint of how to improve. Okay so WP is a built-in namespace alias, so what? Isn't a shortcut a shortcut? Why does the technical nature of the prefix matter? Specifically, where on this page (or another page!) is the difference between a "built-in namespace alias shortcut", and a "redirect shortcut" discussed? Please help me actually improve our documentation. Thank you CapnZapp ( talk) 09:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
First use case: I come across a Shortcut and want to know if it is within policy (guidelines etc). Second use case: I want to create a shortcut, and want to know how to keep to rules and regulations. Specifically, I don't want my shortcut to be reverted after the fact by some random user for some arbitrary reason.
In short: This page seems to suffer from "the unwritten rules" - that is, there ARE conventions and accepted practices regarding Wikipedia Shortcuts but not written down. Not fixing them on paper makes them impossible to question or discuss or change. I came to this page to look up specifically if prefix and namespace must match, and generally if I can create a shortcut "to anything". The lack of any newbie-friendly language on these topics is a drawback to the page.
To me the page could do with a refresh; simplifying the language, shunting technical details away from section headers, explaining the difference between shortcuts-as-redirects and shortcuts-as-aliases, and to clarify things like whether a "WP:ANYTHING" shortcut should lead to the Wikipedia namespace or if it could lead anywhere (such as to User Talk).
CapnZapp ( talk) 13:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
'+enwiki' => // T8313
'WP' => NS_PROJECT,
'WT' => NS_PROJECT_TALK,
],