Wikipedia talk:List of shortcuts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Discussions before 2006 1.1 Making this page 1.2 Shortcut template 1.3 WP:~~~~~ 1.4 Category:WP Shortcut 1.5 Fix links, Question for Update 2 Reorganization 3 Linking to page and not to shortcut 4 Portal shortcuts 5 Should subst: be used with this? 6 Wikipedia:Don't panic 7 WikiProjects 8 WP:GF 9 Changing shortcuts 10 New policy? 11 Move to Wikipedia:List of Shortcuts? 12 Requested move 12.1 Survey 12.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 12.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 12.2 Discussion 13 m: 14 CNR 15 Nice table formatting 16 Some changes that need to be made 17 proposal to delete all policy redirects

This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

[edit] Discussions before 2006

About Wikipedia:Shortcuts (edit talk links history)

[edit] Making this page

Thank you Patrick for making this page. I was wondering if were some I didn't know about. I moved it from WP:WP as that is officially in the article namespace. I think it's ok to have redirects in that namespace, but as this was an actual article, I thought it should go in the Wikipedia namespace. Angela 20:57, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Thanks. - Patrick 19:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I like these shortcuts, I think I will start a WT:WT list for some of the most used Wikipedia talk pages. Dori | Talk 17:51, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

RfA takes you to Requests for Adminiship too. Why not put that even shorter shorthand there instead? - Mark 04:13, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the reason only WP: ones are listed is because they was supposed to be part of a pseudo namespace, whereas things like RfA are in the main namespace, and generally discouraged. Unfortunately, there was opposition to making [[WP:]] pages automatically redirect to [[Wikipedia:]] ones as it was thought to be too Wikipedia-specific to go into MediaWiki. Angela. 22:04, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't know much about MediaWiki, but isn't it offered in a "patch" form? That is to say, should a security fix be released for the software, shouldn't it be possible to just replace those parts of the code that are vulnerable to the patch? The way I see it, this could easily be implemented just on Wikipedia. From what I've seen, there are other modifications to Wikipedia when it's compared to other wikis based on the software - to start with, the logo at the top-left of every page, and the fact that it says "edit this page" at the top of each page rather than just "edit" as in most wikis (like Wikibooks).

[edit] Shortcut template

See the discussion at Template_talk:Shortcut.

[edit] WP:~~~~~

Is WP:~~~~~ another shortcut? ~~~~~ gives the system time see here: 21:43, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC). Regards Gangleri 21:43, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

That's automatic conversion of wikitext, not a shortcut. Angela. 15:52, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Angela! ~~~ expands to the signature Gangleri | T | Th is also automatic conversion of wikitext. Regards Gangleri | T | Th 01:55, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

[edit] Category:WP Shortcut

Now that Categories exist, why not attach [[Category:WP Shortcut]] to shortcuts and let the Category system list/arrange the shortcuts? (SEWilco 08:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC))

A category wouldn't show where the shortcut goes to, so it wouldn't be very useful. Goplat 16:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fix links, Question for Update

I fixed the links for Guide to Deletion. Should the links and redirects for VfD be updated for AfD? Psy guy ^(talk) 18:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

Its good to see these working out so well, but I'd like to see these reorganized to weed out redundancies - particularly the multiple links to WP:BJAODN, etc. Something like: Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense - WP:BJAODN || WP:-) Sound like a good idea or no? -Ste|vertigo 10:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

About half done - all the basic sections are there. Stuff needs to be sorted from the various section to the specific sections where they belong. Shouldnt be too much ambiguity - if there is, leave it under various. I used Vim in a vertical split (side by side) editing of the same article, which allows for easier handling of large articles. -Ste|vertigo 11:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks great! I'm currently trying to move the WP:1000 and WP:Top1000 to the same line, as they link to the same place, but I don't seem to be able to get through to the server... -Falcorian 18:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've started a major reorganization. Sadly, I don't have time to finish now, but I'll be done ASAP (probably in two days). What I'm first doing is placing the name of the page before the redirect. The reasons for this are:

1. Easier alphabetization—otherwise, as there are multiple redirects for each page, we'd have multiple entries for each page.
2. Easier to find page.
3. Easier to eliminate duplicates.

I'm then going to delete duplicates and put everything in the right section (there's a few more that need to be created as well). I'm really sorry that I can't finish now what with Christmas Eve and all, but it'll be done in the next few days, I promise. Blackcap (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've finished moving the pages before the redirects. I'll be alphabetizing, deleting duplicates, and checking the redirects in the next few days. Blackcap (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've finished! The section that needs the most work now is #General information, help, and tutorials, and just needs to be split up a bit more. Other than that, I think it's all right. Blackcap (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Great job Blackcap. The only niggle I have is I think 'Redirects to page' should just be 'Redirect(s)'. -Ste|vertigo 09:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I don't have time to do so right now myself, but please go right ahead and change it if you so please. Blackcap (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to page and not to shortcut

It doesn't make sense to, when showing a shortcut such as WP:CSD, have the link pipe to the actual page (in this example, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). Since that's how this is being done, there's two links directly to the page and no links to the shortcut, even under the shortcut header. I'm changing that so that there's one to each in the logical places—please revert me and accept my apologies if this has already been discussed and deemed stupid for some reason. Blackcap (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Done! Blackcap (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portal shortcuts

Now that portals have their own namespace, is there any reason not to create portal shortcuts with only "P:" (like P:Trains) instead of "WP:" (WP:Trains)? I was tempted to just go ahead and add the shortcut for the Trains portal, but I don't see anyone else doing that with other portals yet. Slambo (Speak) 01:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that that sounds like a good idea. Why not go ahead and try it? Redirects are cheap, anyhow, and if there's a reason we should stop then they can always be re-redirected or deleted. Blackcap (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should subst: be used with this?

I've been getting conflicting feedback on when to use subst: and when not to. Is this a case where it should?--◀Puck^talk▶ 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Use subst with what? If you just need general info on substing, see Wikipedia:Template substitution. Blackcap (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Don't panic

There is a new page Wikipedia:Don't panic. It is suggested for policy, but not yet accepted. Its shortcuts are WP:PANIC and WP:DON'T. Where should it god? Daniel (☎) 13:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProjects

Should Shortcuts to Wikiprojects be added; why not right? I dont know if this hasa already been decided though. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 22:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:GF

Hi all, User:Omniplex changed the link to WP:GF to Wikipedia:Grapefruit. I changed it back explaining the link to WP:AGF was much more valuable. He reverted saying my edit was vandalism. Notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't know the definition of vandalism, and reverting without justifying his position is fairly rude, I do believe the link to WP:AGF is more valuable. Thoughts? - Taxman ^Talk 11:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I changed it after it was added here (not by me) claiming to stand for Wikipedia:Grapefruit as confirmed on that page, but actually leading to the unrelated WP:AGF. The GF page is no nonsense, I've never edited it and didn't know it before. A shortcut should certainly work as expected if it's listed here. WP:AGF already has two shortcuts, it has no business to grab a third. -- Omniplex 13:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I never thought to check here before changing the redirect to something more useful. The link here should be changed to and so should anything else pointing to WP:GF. WP:AGF is obviously much more valuable to link to as it is a very important core guideline, and Wikipedia:Grapefruit is just an essay that isn't linked to from many things. On a wider note, please substantiate your edits and don't call things vandalism that aren't. - Taxman ^Talk 13:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not planning to use WP:GF often, reading it once is fine but also enough, and I probably won't use the shortcut in discussions. The same is true for WP:AGF and WP:FAITH.

The page I'm really interested in, as visible in the edit history and the (failed) nomination as featured list, is WP:WP - I try to make sure that the nonsense doesn't get out of hand, and that added shortcuts actually work as promised. That wasn't the case for WP:GF, because somebody stole it for an unrelated page. Therefore I fixed it. Determining the "value" of pages by the number of their shortcuts is a dubious idea, but if you insist on it just create an unused third shortcut for WP:AGF, don't steal WP:GF. Maybe WP:ASGOOD is free (?). -- Omniplex 14:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Working as promised can simply be covered by fixing what it links to here. It was not stolen, it was changed to link to the more important page. The issue isn't getting more links to AGF, it is getting shortcuts to link to the most important, logical thing someone would be looking for. Grapefruit is not it. You have done nothing to justify the link to Grapefruit, so I'm changing it back and I'll fix all the links and references to it. - Taxman ^Talk 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just checking the links to AGF I found several redirects from the main namespace to it, plus a third shortcut WP:ASG. The fourth shortcut WP:AFG. I've added them. The Wikipedia:Grapefruit page still says WP:GF, maybe you're not yet ready with fixing all links via WP:GF (?). -- Omniplex 13:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing shortcuts

Technically that's easy, click on the shortcut whereever it is, on the page it leads to (a shortcut is a redirect) click on the "redirected from" link (forcing &redirect=no), edit the target #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Whatever]], add {{R from shortcut}} if necessary, ready. But there are some potential traps and pitfalls:

1. If it's already listed on WP:WP or a similar list like WT:WT please update that entry showing the new target page.
2. If the old target page mentions its shortcut that also has to be updated, often in a {{Shortcut|[[WP:WOTTA]]}} template.
3. Above all check the shortcut backlinks with "what links here", changing a shortcut used elsewhere can be highly disruptive.
4. If it has no backlink folks might still use it directly with search forms, if you're not 100% sure that the old target is unused maybe ask on its talk page.
5. For controversial cases there is a "redirects for deletion" procedure WP:RFD.

-- Omniplex 13:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New policy?

Hi; I've drafted a new proposal to make shortcuts easier on readers: Wikipedia:Full policy links. Let me know what you think. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Wikipedia:List of Shortcuts?

This article is a listing of shortcuts, Wikipedia:Shortcut is a description of what shortcuts actually are. Wouldn't it be less confusing to move them to less similar names? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly agree - I came to the talk page to propose the exact same thing. Lists should always be titled as such - Jack (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Sounds like a good idea to me too. It would help avoid confusion. delldot | talk 23:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Requested move (rather than just doing it myself, as WP: articles tend to be controversial) - Jack (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] m:

What is m: , wikt: , and so on ? Where can I see a help, manual or similar page about them ?. Regards. --193.144.127.248 12:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I believe you're looking for Wikipedia:Interwikimedia link. Prolog 12:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CNR

I brought up this request on Category talk:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit a while ago and haven't heard anything from anyone, so I figured I'd bring it here. I'd like to make a shortcut to Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, something like CAT:COPY, CAT:CE, WP:CEDIT, or WP:COPYED. They would be cross namespece redirects, but I'd find any of them useful (I can never remember that thing's name). Any objections to me making them? Thanks, delldot | talk 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently no one is violently opposed, so I'm going to go ahead. Let me know if there's any problem. delldot | talk 06:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice table formatting

Whoever did the graphical improvements to the list, really did a good job. The tables are easy to read and to reference. Kudos. The Transhumanist   13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes that need to be made

I don't know how to properly edit the table. WP:V and WP:NOR have been replaced by WP:A, this ought to be reflected in this article. --Xyzzyplugh 01:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the two "old pages" and added Wikipedia:Attribution. WP:V, WP:OR etc are put as the shorcuts of that page. I think it's fixed now. PeaceNT 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposal to delete all policy redirects

Where would I make the proposal to delete all policy redirects (or propose a policy that dictates to mark them up as text, at least on article talk pages), because I believe capitalized letters are thrown around far too often (as in the rather uncivil one-word response "WP:CIVIL") or the apparently bad-faithed WP:AGF) and frequently add to the escalation of content disputes? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)