Wikipedia talk:Shortcut/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC: To deprecate WP: shortcuts to user essays

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?

Discussion

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)

Was there something that precipitated this discussion? Some evidence of user confusion? –xeno^talk 18:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the outcome of this won't prejudice that issue and I'd rather this discussion didn't get bogged down in one specific case. Bazj (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance#Fresh example and Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Consensus for adding A7 to Uw-hasty both seem related. I'm wondering if we might have a WP:MULTI issue here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The issues being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance (3 or more sections, not just Fresh example) rest on several disputed/misunderstood areas of policy/guidelines. I had hoped that examining each issue on its own merits would allow them to be discussed with a little more light and a little less heat. An examination of this issue on its own merits (and the other component topics), yielding firm results, would allow a more concrete discussion to take place there. It's not WP:MULTI, they are separate issues. Forcing the discussions together will just result in them being as inconclusive and unproductive as they have been for the last couple of weeks. Bazj (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Deprecate

• Support as proposer. Bazj (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• Such shortcuts ar very useful. This is a case of WP:CREEP and WP:BURO. Anyone who fails to follow a link and assumes that the presence of a shortcut means that the page linked is a policy or a guideline doesn't know how Wikipedia works well enough to be having much influence on a policy debate anyway. Anyone who goes to an essay page and fails to notice the large 'This is an essay, not a policy or guideline' notice is, well ... not very observant. DES ^(talk) 02:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• While I understand that this is (at least) an occasional source of confusion, and while it's impossible for anyone to recognize all of the shortcuts (I believe that there are on the order of 20,000 shortcuts these days – maybe more), I don't think that deleting cross-namespace shortcuts is a good approach. In particular, if a page started in the Wikipedia: space and was later moved, then deleting the old shortcut means making old discussions unintelligible; soft-redirecting them (Bazj's proposal) merely adds to annoyance, without preventing the bad assumption in the first place.
  As a partial solution, anyone who finds shortcuts confusing should strongly consider turning on WP:NAVPOPS in the first section of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Then you can see some information without needing to click through to the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think this would particularly solve any problems. There are always going to be some essays in the Wikipedia namespace that represent somewhat controversial material: making the suggested change distinction will, in my eyes, give them a larger impression of consensus than they deserve. I think that the majority of users reading essays (especially those using WP: shortcuts) are going to be at least somewhat experienced, and will recognise an essay as an essay rather than as policy, not least because of the heading banner. Deciding the degree to which an essay represents consensus is sometimes tricky for anyone coming across a new essay, but I think this is too clumsy a way to solve that problem. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 21:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Something wrong about WikiProjects in Wikipedia:Shortcut § Pseudo-namespaces

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 Wikiproject

Wikipedia: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)

RFC: Remove recommended numerical limit for amount of shortcuts on a page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 two the 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 SoWhy 07:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. Regards SoWhy 07:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
2. This is something that needs a local consenus. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
3. This can only lead to edit warring over which two shortcuts are the most significant. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Airbornemihir (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
5. It's a bit over-controlling to expect users to stick to a specific number, especially given that this is in WP space, not mainspace. Also, this wording reflects current practice, and these things should reflect current practice rather than try to alter it unless there is a compelling reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
6. NOTBUREAU, and many times 3+ shortcuts need to be displayed. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
7. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
8. Per Mr. Guye Tazerdadog (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
9. Proposal makes sense and is a pretty minor tweak. Bit over-bureaucratic this had to go to an RfC for me. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
10. This is common sense and reflects current practice since there are too many "exceptions" already. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
11. Setting arbItrary number is meaningless. Leave it open, treat it on a case-by-case basis. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
12. Reluctantly supporting, because I would in fact support a hard numerical limit—it's just not a limit of two. I'd suggest four. The 18 (!) shortcuts currently listed at WP:SOAP are ridiculous. It would be different if we were deleting the redirects, but it's hardly like WP:NOTPROPAGANDA or WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE are easy and quick mnemonics we want to be promoting. If that's a couple of users' go-to, good, and if someone types it in just to see if it works, good, but there's no need for it to be in the shortcut box. (It occurs to me that my position is probably the same as most of the opposers, which indicates to me that a proposed change slightly less lax than "the most" may gather more of a consensus.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
13. It makes sense to leave the amount of shortcuts open, different pages will need different amounts. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 00:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
14. Sometimes it makes sense. No need for a fixed number. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
15. Support - We're more than capable of dealing with this on a case-by-case basis according to common sense. Enforcing a numerical limit is a bit ridiculous, and the opposers are pretty unconvincing. Particularly the assertion that those little boxes create "barriers to readability". Please, no one even notices them most of the time, if you're unable to comprehend a page because there's four shortcuts listed instead of two, you're likely a CIR case anyway. Swarm ♠ 23:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
16. Support - I see no harm in listing useful shortcuts, and a disservice to the reader is not doing so. "Barriers to readability" is a red herring, case-by-case with no pre-defined number is fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
17. Support - not seeing any reason that this would be a bad idea. The number of shortcuts should be a case-by-case thing, as sometimes more than 2 shortcuts are used extremely often. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
18. Support: oftentimes more than three shortcuts would be useful, and there shouldn't be any need to limit to 2 for now (although flooding the page with shortcuts is a bad thing too). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
19. Support. Policies and guidelines should reflect actual practice - doubly so when the actual practice matches common sense. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
20. Support no reason not to link all relevant redirects, which may be more than one or two. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
21. Support as per the others here, limiting to 2 seems too restricting and should be handled case-by-case. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
22. Support. Often two is fine, but for many pages, multiple shortcuts are used and should be considered on a case by case basis. There's no reason why longstanding, frequently used redirects should be removed solely because of a guideline, especially when that would only incentivize artificially splitting pages into sections to get around this. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I looked at WP:Not and it looks like that page is a catalyst for this discussion. I tend to agree with the other editors that want to trim the excessive and distracting use of shortcuts there. I don't think we should change the wording of the guide to encourage even more shortcut bombing and the use of generally covers edge cases anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

   Would you mind explaining how you came to the realization that 1 or 2 is the correct number and not 1 to 3 or 2 or 3? Regards SoWhy 10:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

   I am not arguing for a correct number. One or two just seems like the most logical fit. Saying 2 or 3 would not work as some will only have one. You could say 1 to 3 if you want, but that was not the proposal. From what I have seen I would veer on the side that less is mostly better and would like wording that encourages that. The use of generally and the fact that this is a guide gives us enough flexibility anyway if there are a few extra external links that editors feel must be mentioned. AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

   That's just it. When a vast majority of pages use more than two shortcuts, it's clear that "generally" is not correct. All I'm proposing is removing the numbers because it carries the risk that anything more than 2 is seen as excessive and needs a special reason. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

   That is kinda what I am getting at. I am not stuck on two as a magic number, but feel we are better discouraging excessive numbers. To the right is the linkbox for Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. When they get to that stage they start to distract from the actual policy itself. I would dispute that the vast majority have more than two. I went through a selection of policies listed at Category:Wikipedia policies and the vast majority had only the one or two links per linkbox, with a few having three. That is not even considering wikiprojects that almost always just have one or two. AIRcorn (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose watering down LINKBOX control. Linkbox clutter is jargon creating barriers to readability by newcomers. Two advertised shortcuts are more than enough. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
   I have been trimming WP:LINKBOX advertised SHORTCUTs for some time. In most cases, the uncrontrolled practice of letting anyone add any new idea for a SHORTCUT has led to ridiculous situations. Mostly, it is policy sections, sometimes even sentences within paragraphs of sections. Every page has LINKBOX advertised shortcuts, then every section. Often, the shortcuts are not short, but are big shouty slogans. These LINKBOX shortcuts are supposed to be for ease of reference and common recognisability, but this is lost when there are a multitude of options. For the ostensible purpose, one should be enough. Two is pushing it. More is ridiculous. WP:NOT is an example of LINKBOXes having adopted an entirely different purpose of bold shouty slogans, a bit like election posters on voting day, and a bit like the in-your-face style of WP:ENC, which is for linking for stubborn recalcitrants who just wont get it when calm explanation, WP:NOT is not the example to follow. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
   Barriers to reading. AKA sign clutter. And jargon. Simple to those familiar. Newcomers, are they meant to read the big bold blue, or the black text? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

   Oppose This is something that needs a local consenus. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

   @Billhpike: Please clarify. This proposal does not negate the fact that the question whether certain shortcuts should be included is subject to local consensus when there is disagreement. It just replaces an arbitrary number with a more open-ended wording. Regards SoWhy 13:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

   Misread the RFC, so striking and moving my !V — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

3. I'm going to oppose this RFC per my comment below. There might reasonably be some consensus text, but removing entirely the "here's something [arbitrary] to shoot for regarding your shortcuts" isn't it. --Izno (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Per Izno. Not sure why we'd need that many shortcuts listed anyway. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
5. I've encountered this issue several times and in some cases it just seems that editors just add their prefered style. Ignoring the basic fact that it just looks bad, this causes actual discussion issues. It's hard having a discussion on guideline related issues (such as move or deletion requests) when editors just link to various shortcuts, some leading to the same exact place and keeping track to what was said. In the example given here on the right, these all say the same thing, but used in a discussion would give an illusion of stronger point. In my opinion these should not only be limited but the redirects should be as well, as without it it's not a full solution. --Gonnym (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
6. It's a guideline and should provide guidance that generally applies. Exceptions such as WP:NOT list several shortcuts for a good reason. For example, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA might be too strong for a particular situation where WP:NOTADVOCACY would be better. The proposal is an invitation to add all redirects as shortcuts and let others prove that "most common" does not apply. More shortcuts mean more confusion and overchoice. Wikipedia:Five pillars has long been a favorite for those adding shortcuts including WP:5, WP:5P, WP:FIVE, WP:FIVEPILLARS, WP:PILLARS, WP:WPIS. Two is generally enough! Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

   I actually disagree with your example of WP:NOTPROPAGANDA and WP:NOTADVOCACY. In that situation the excessive use of shortcuts is even more apparent as both of those shortcuts lead not only to the same section, but to the same bullet-point. So while someone might be using one and someone else the other, they are both saying the same things, but give the illusion as if they are linking to different things. If both of those names are sub-par, a better name can be found which fits that section more, but there really is no need for 2 shortcuts to the same point. --Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

7. Most of the time one or two; exceptions can be made for pages like WP:NOT. More than two, maybe three, is clutter and not generally appropriate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

The WP:NOT sections are a bit of a special case where each point has a shortcut commonly used but even there the shortcuts might do with a bit of a trimming Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Why does 1 or 2 work well and not 3? WP:V has three and had so for years. WP:ANI has four and had so for years. I'm not in favor of adding shortcuts for the sake of adding shortcuts but I fail to see why the guideline should contain a certain number, seeing as it leads - as evidenced by recent edits - to removals based on amount alone. Regards SoWhy 08:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Has it needed 4? For all those years? Probably not. (Consensus is not decided solely by silence, nor solely by precedent, especially when someone objects.) That's the point of the guideline, regardless of the fact we might use the WP:2SHORTCUTS shortcut or otherwise. WP:ANI is really all it needs, though one might reasonably add WP:AN/I. I fail to see why we shouldn't have a certain number, to remind editors "hey, here's a number". --Izno (talk) 04:23, 13 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)

I generally agree with this sentiment. --Izno (talk) 04:20, 13 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)

• I feel that the phrasing could use some tweaking for clarity. The plural they generally should is referring to all shortcut boxes, leaving it entirely unclear as to whether the most common and easily remembered redirects is 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)
• I don't really understand why the objection to my edit was to call for an RFC for a guideline which has generally been used as the guideline figure it is. I removed less than half of the shortcuts at WP:NOTSOAP because they duplicate other shortcuts in all but the word "NOT". The point of the policy, of course, is NOT, not what it is (i.e. NOTSOAP, rather than SOAP), so I thought it was fairly reasonable to trim the ones that called for the latter rather than the former. (I have no issue of course retaining the redirects.) The fact that the count of shortcuts in the guideline is arbitrary doesn't mean we don't need the count--it just means we know we have a number to shoot for. In some cases, we won't get to that number because of consensus on the talk page or whatever. Generally, how I've treat it is "advertise 2, accept many", but for something like NOT where there may be 6 items per section, I think I quite reasonably got to "advertise each bullet OR SO, accept any number of others". --Izno (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  I fail to see the confusion. This discussion was not started in response to your edits but to such edits by a number of users. However, as I pointed out, a guideline should reflect consensus and WP:NOT as well as countless other pages demonstrate that the "number to shoot for" is not followed by many editors but carries the risk that some editors start removing shortcuts merely for numerical reasons. In the end, this proposal merely aims to delegate the question of how many shortcuts ought to be used to the pages they are used on because there is no inherent "correct" number that possibly makes sense for a majority of policy or guideline pages. Regards SoWhy 07:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The WP:NOT example described earlier may look like a great example to mention as some sort of WP:LINKCRISIS, but that guideline describes promotion as it occurs under fairly diverse activities (as mentioned earlier here by Galobtter). The guideline lists 5 categories, with 3 of those 5 listing multiple other categories. By my count, 10 types of soapboxing. While many could be condensed, others may present a challenge: Is recruitment the same as scandal mongering? Is marketing the same as gossip? Is advocacy the same as a press release? While some editors could legitimately argue that these are really all the same thing, others won't see it that way, and having a bit of specificity with regards to a phenomenon that goes by so many names to begin with can be useful.  spintendo  22:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Those criticising the boxes at WP:NOT (or at least, me) are not arguing for deletion of any of these redirects, but for trimming of the shortcut box. You can still think "this user is continually adding content written in the style of a press release—that's one of those things Wikipedia isn't—I'll see if WP:PRESSRELEASE gives me the right page". You just wouldn't see WP:PRESSRELEASE as a prominently highlighted redirect if you arrived at that page through different means. But if you were looking at the policy page and thought "I'll remember this for future", you're better off remembering WP:PROMOTION because press releases are a subset of promotional material, so wherever you use WP:PRESSRELEASE you can always use WP:PROMOTION instead. And in fact, you won't even find the words "press release" mentioned on the policy page. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed strongly. As others above have pointed out, on quite a few pages the threshold for which shortcuts get included is too low. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

While some shortcut boxes might be excessive, there is no magic number and removal should be done carefully - e.g. this edit was clearly done by someone who doens't know how this page is referred to - it removed WP:XNR which is one of the two most used shortcuts, but left WP:CROSS which is less used. Significantly better than drive-by removal would be to discuss on the talk page whether the editors of a page agree that there are too many shortcuts, and if so which are the least helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Or just remove after checking relative usage counts, say if a redirect has <30 uses while the others have hundreds or thousands, which is what I did after that. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

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)

Shortcut prefixes and namespaces

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:

1. Does a WP:WHATEVER shortcut have to link to the Wikipedia namespace? That is, does the guideline tell us to match prefix to target namespace? (WP --> Wikipedia, UT --> User Talk etc)
2. Are shortcuts restricted to certain namespaces? The text kind of suggests most of them go to WP and H, but are all namespaces open?

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)

See Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting #8. Implausible. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This topic has nothing to do with speedy deletion criteria, CambridgeBayWeather. You were invited here to participate in a discussion about rules on shortcuts: are there any? CapnZapp (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

For the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces (only), abbreviated forms are provided as WP: and WT: respectively. These are automatic, being built into the MediaWiki software. Hence, the page for which this is the discussion page is Wikipedia:Shortcut but I could equally write WP:Shortcut and the link will work without any redirect being necessary. The reverse is similarly true; above you provided the link WP:CAPNZAPP but Wikipedia:CAPNZAPP behaves exactly the same. For other namespaces, any shortened form of the namespace needs to be set up manually by means of a redirect: see the lists for H:, UT: etc. There is plenty in the archives of this page as to why we don't encourage namespace shortcuts, and some of them concern ambiguity - does T: mean Talk: or Template:? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how this addresses the questions I raised. What, if any, rules (restrictions, recommendations etc) on shortcut creation are there, and do this page detail them adequately? CapnZapp (talk) 16:22, 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)

I'm not aware of any such policies. There are hundreds of redirects such as WP:3QUITS that link to a user essay etc (see Category:Redirects to user namespace), however such redirects should only be created if they are likely to be useful and aren't normally to talk pages. DexDor ^(talk) 20:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• WP:WHATEVER is very often taken to be a shortcut to something in projectspace.

It may be to a page, or a page section.

When challenged essays are userified, it is usual to delete the WP: shortcuts.

Many well supported Wikipedia-directed essays have WP: shortcuts. An example, one I recently use a lot, is WP:THREE

I would say that "Cross namespace shortcut redirects should be discouraged, but there will be exceptions"

The WP:CNR rule is merely that mainspace should not link out of mainspace.

I often argue that there are too many shortcuts, and more so, that there are too many WP:LINKBOXES advertized shortcuts. Occasionally I cut them back. Some people have an affection for these SHOUTYONEWORDSLOGANS that are used to bully and bluff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• It seems like you're suggesting that some text should be added to WP:SHORT, but bear in mind WP:CREEP. You say "so obvious we forgot to actually say it", but maybe it's more accurate to say "so obvious we don't have to say it", or "so innocuous, we haven't had to write a rule about it". Unless you see an actual or hypothetical scenario where this has caused or would likely cause editors confusion on how to proceed, I'd say there's nothing to be done here. Colin M (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming there are no hard rules. Editing page to make this clear. CapnZapp (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Using WP:ELLINKS as an example of a shortcut using the WP prefix despite linking into the "UT" namespace. Please do not remove example now that we have established this is not prohibited/discouraged by any rules unless you actually add such a rule to the project guideline! Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 12:30, 6 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)

The namespace aliases are as listed, but there are only two of interest here, namely WP and WT—everything else, such as CAT and UT, is made up. This guideline hints that creating, for example, UT:Example as a redirect to User talk:Example would result in the former being deleted (because it's not listed under the "following prefixes may be used freely"). Indeed, any page created might be deleted if a discussion thinks it is not helpful—that is, there is no guarantee that a shortcut created in one of the recommended forms would be kept. The reason that UT is probably not acceptable is that people don't want an ever-expanding list of cute acronyms that need to be remembered. Further, UT is too obscure for new editors and is not needed sufficiently often to make the obscurity worthwhile (just write User talk:Example when needed). Since UT is not acceptable, the only options for a shortcut are WP or WT or one of the "used freely" made-up prefixes. There are well over one million editors and we each have to make do with links like User talk:Example since creating shortcuts for such purposes would be pointless overhead. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing the applicability of your response, Johnuniq. It seems all you're saying 'we should not create "UT:ABCD" shortcuts'...? How does that justify reverting my contribution?! Please, let's focus on making the article answer the questions I pose in this talk section. See above. Instead of replying here to me, it would be better if you directly edited the page to provide the answer, if only to avoid my edits getting reverted again. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem with this page has been identified. Anyone wanting to make changes needs to justify those changes. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean, "no problem has been identified"? Didn't you read this subsection? We're having this discussion because you reverted me. As a courtesy to your fellow users in order to not waste my time and effort, I ask why, and how I can proceed without triggering more reverts. Being terse and cryptic isn't helpful, and let this be my final attempt at assuming good faith from your side, Johnuniq. CapnZapp (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think what they're saying is that we shouldn't add to this guideline unless that addition remedies a problem that readers are likely to face. And I would tend to agree with them, that a need hasn't been clearly identified here. I think it would help if you could identify a user story. i.e. "Editor X wants to _____, but they're stuck because ____". From there, it might be easier to discuss whether there are changes we could make here (or on another page) that would help such an editor. Colin M (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought that obvious, but thank you for pointing out it maybe wasn't. Okay:

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)

I've found where they're configured: it's in lines 3659-3662 of InitialiseSettings.php where we find the lines

		'+enwiki' => [ // T8313
			'WP' => NS_PROJECT,
			'WT' => NS_PROJECT_TALK,
		],

so phab:T8313 is relevant here, and this references Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 4#WP: pseudo-namespace. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"Usurp"

@ItsPugle: Wikipedia has a precedent for using the word "usurp" in a non-negative context: WP:USURP for user accounts and WP:USURPTITLE for article titles. This describes the same sort of thing, so I think the same word is appropriate. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Hey! Thanks for pinging me. Your two examples, WP:USURP and WP:USURPTITLE, detail specific processes for unconsented or undiscussed overrides of usernames and article titles respectively, whereas the reference to usurpation in this article is exclusively about discussed moves that have generated a consensus from editor. As such, I continue that "usurp" is not quite the best term to use here. I'm happy to use pretty much any other term, but using usurp is just plain incorrect to me - otherwise, you'd be saying that something like a requested move with consensus is a usurpation... which it isn't. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 04:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the usurp point was added on 5 February 2011 by OlEnglish. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

When I originally added it, I believe the default was to just take the shortcut (usurp) without discussion, hence why I added that. However I also wrote in my edit summary, "feel free to edit/reword", and that still applies. May I suggest "appropriate"? -- œ^™ 06:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with the term "appropriate"! Only thing is that I connect it to stuff like an appropriation bill, but that fundamentally still works in terms of 'allocating'. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 09:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle and OlEnglish: How about "reappropriate", to keep the meaning that it used to be for something else, rather than being assigned for the first time? Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: I'm happy with that :) ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 05:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn and ItsPugle: Sorry, but I have to call foul here. Its (may I call you Its? ) wrote, by way of proposing a compromise on reappropriate: to keep the meaning that it used to be for something else, rather than being assigned for the first time? But that's not really the sense in which 'reappropriate' is typically used. What you described would be a better fit for re- words like reclaim, redirect... or the one you came within a hair's breadth of, even employing its root in your definition:reassign.

The re- in reappropriate has a implications more in line with a word like reclaim, recover, or restore. The sense is that you're not merely taking something, but rather are taking it back or striving, as the second definition puts it, "To appropriate [it] again." Describing the initial creation of a shortcut in those terms stretches the definition of "appropriation" almost to the breaking point, in the same way it would if, for instance, you described an AfC submission as an "appropriation" of its title text. When you're creating a new thing that didn't exist until that point, there's nothing being appropriated — being "claimed" or "set aside" for exclusive use carries an implication of there being some thing to being claimed, one which already existed prior to its appropriation.

You can appropriate finite things like funds, land, time on a schedule, or the patience other Wikipedians have for indulging overly verbose arguments. (Um... or so I've heard. 🤔 )

But you can't appropriate (and therefore nobody can re-appropriate) ephemeral things such as love, goodwill, article titles, or space to make overly verbose arguments on a Wikipedia Talk page. These are, for all practical purposes, infinitely renewable resources, even if contention can still arise over any particular allocation's exclusivity.

If I might make a suggestion that intentionally departs quite a bit from the previously-considered options (and therefore from their implications, as well), might I suggest simply "redefine"? It's both technically accurate and almost crashingly neutral, in this context. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty easy-peasy with whatever, usurp just stood out to me as not quite the best term. I'm happy for something like redefine or retarget. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: "redefine" isn't bad. How about "retarget", though? I think I like it slightly better. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn and ItsPugle: "Retarget" is equally good with me, sure. I have no preference between the two. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)