Wikivoyage talk:Shortcuts

Abbreviated redirects for common policies

swept in from the pub by User:OldPine

I hate to ape Wikipedia, but they've got one nifty tool for policy-wrangling: instead of typing out Project:Requests for comment etc, WV:RFC gets you to your destination in a jiffy. Is this worth adopting here too? (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:59, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Yep, we've already got a few unofficial ones that I use all the time... pub, cotw, vfd, DOTM... I kinda like that these are in the main namespace even though they redirect to WT namespace, which makes it that much quicker to type – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 15:13, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Actually reading your post again, I think as far as for citing policy as they do on Wikipedia it would be better to do WV:VFD etc, but I also like having my vfd link for quick navigation purposes – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 15:31, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

I use pub all the time to get here. I vote for having shortcuts in the main namespace. It is silly to add namespace gibberish to them. --(WT-en) Rogerhc 19:31, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, for citing it is best to use something like the place where we discuss deletion proposals than WV:VFD, since the person we are showing the link probably doesn't know what WTVFD means. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 20:14, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, one of the main reasons to adopt this (and the way it's used on WP) is that you don't have to type all of that out. Obviously it would depend on the scenario, but I could see writing in an edit summary "Revert - see WT:EL" – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 20:23, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Ultimately, there's no reason why we can't create both types of shorthands and allow each to their own. The point I was trying to make, though, was that either way I'll keep explaining rather than shouting acronyms at new contributors ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:03, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Yep, agreed. Anyone not in favor of this? If not I'm gonna start creating some (more) soon – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 22:45, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Let's hammer out what the links will look like first. All caps or mixed case? Namespaced or not? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:42, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see this being used for 2 things... as shortcuts for navigating to frequently used pages, and then as shortcuts for pointing out policies to people. I like all caps, namespaced, the way that WP is doing it, for policy pointers... but I would also like to retain the ability to have quick, non-namespaced shortcuts such as pub, for quick personal use – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 00:47, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, should we create our own version of Wikipedia:Template:Shortcut to put on policy pages that have shortcuts? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 01:06, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

style is one I plan type into my browser's location bar. --(WT-en) Rogerhc 21:16, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Specific style guidelines such as Project:Romanization#Chinese I may type out in full. Chinese already redirects to Chinese phrasebook. Or maybe I'll use Chinese romanization as a redirect to Project:Romanization#Chinese so that if the actual item name changes I only need update that redirect. --(WT-en) Rogerhc 01:14, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I think creating shortcuts to a specific section on a page is a bit much... in that case you'd probably just want to type it out. In case you aren't familiar with how Wikipedia is doing it, check out WP:SHORT. The majority of theirs are 2 or 3 letters long... along the lines of WV:PUB, WV:MOS, WV:EL. "Chinese romanization" is almost as long as the actual page name, that might be stretching the shortcut idea a bit far  :) – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 01:47, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

I think it might be useful to make a Project:Shortcuts page for reference, rather than a template to go on each "shortcutted" page—that way anyone interested in speeding up their edit summaries could just look at one page. I just created a xl redirect to Project:External links, since I'm getting tired of typing that particular one out. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 02:06, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

• dt = Project:Don't tout

The shortcuts page is a great idea. (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Now that we're becoming a part of the Wikimedia Foundation, I think it'd be wise to use a similar shortcut style as Wikipedia. That'd mean all caps and the namespace included, e.g. WV:DT and WV:MOS. What do others think? --Globe-trotter (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

Yes, good idea! As we move to the WMF, we definitely need to improve structure and standardise things. One minor issue: the name hasn't been finalised, so we don't know if it's going to be "WV:__" or "WN:__" or "RG:__" etc. JamesA ^>talk 12:39, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

I would prefer to keep it simple at the moment. We can decide anytime later which prefix we prefer and focus on the cleanup first. I just wanted to get rid of the old stuff... Jc8136 (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

Shortcuts for everything

It's really getting out of hand with these shortcuts.. First we had one for the most important policy pages, now every policy page has one and even every subsection. Actually this edit shows subsections are being created just so shortcuts can be made (and that section looks terrible now). Even shortcuts like 56k... Is this wanted? According to me, all shortcuts will be removed except the ones on this page. Globe-trotter (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A shortcut should point to a page, not a subsection. This is not Wikipedia, we don't need a proliferation of these. K7L (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree - shortcuts are useful, but having shortcuts for every sub-section of every policy page is causing valuable screen real-estate to be lost to the shortcut boxes and making some of these policy pages less concise and more difficult to read. If a policy sub-section is frequently cited in discussions or edit summaries then a shortcut to that sub-section makes sense, otherwise using shortcuts to the full policy page should be sufficient. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with the first two commentators and I think all three of you seasoned hands have missed one of the fundamental points of having a shortcut. A "shortcut" can also be viewed as an anchor - it can, and should, provide a precise and exact link to a particular section of what may be a very long policy or MoS guideline.

All three of the objectors above will never need to be pointed to our relevant section on aou but if a newbie is asking what that funny " " is, it's going to be so long-winded to write "please go to our policy page Wikivoyage:Measurements and then read the second sub-section down entitled "avoid orphaned units" for an explanation - especially when someone may have come along in the meanwhile and changed the subsection's title. Shortcuts are more likely to survive subsection title changes and re-organisation since usually they will be moved if the section moves or is amalgamated.

No, we shouldn't have shortcuts for everything - but we should have precise (and relatively immutable) anchors for important sub-sections of our MoS and policies. -- Alice^✉ 19:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The abbreviation "aou" means nothing to me... it's Wikivoyage:Measurements#Avoid orphaned units? You seem to be cooking a Wikipedia-sized bowl of alphabet soup here. K7L (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above; this is silliness coming from one troublesome user. --Peter ^Talk 23:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I should point out we have had shortcuts like wiaa and wycsi for some time. LtPowers (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this discussion. I started a similar theme at Wikivoyage talk:Internal links. I think (with possible a very minor exception) that it is time for shortcuts in the main namespace to go. Create shortcuts in the WV namespace to your hearts content. --Inas (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree.

I think Alice produced a very fair summary at Wikivoyage talk:Internal links of what the "Shortcut" policy was/should be:

1) Shortcuts can be useful, both in edit summaries and discussion pages for pointing folks succinctly towards relevant Wikivoyage policies without, for example, having to wear out one's fingertips typing all of Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits

2) These Shortcuts should always just point towards the whole policy article in Wikivoyage namespace and never to the precise sub-section or paragraph that we mean to actually reference with our shortcut. That way, there is every chance that the newbie (or ignorant oldtimer) will plough through the whole screed and learn a lot that they didn't know before along the way

3) These Shortcuts should always be prefaced by the two letters wv so as not to pollute main namespace, thus WV:times or wv:times

4) An exception can be made for those Shortcuts (such as and at) that are already polluting main namespace and are listed here. If you wish to pollute main namespace even further by using shortcuts that are not preceded by the two letters wv, then the pollution must first be proposed and agreed there.

However, I would like to propose two amendments to Alice's summary:

i) I strongly suspect Alice was being sarcastic when she wrote "Shortcuts should always just point towards the whole policy article in Wikivoyage namespace and never to the precise sub-section or paragraph that we mean to actually reference with our shortcut" so I propose we change that part to:

If the policy page is long and/or complex, consider whether it would be helpful to create additional shortcuts that point towards precise sub-sections or paragraph of the whole policy article.

ii) Do not delete existing shortcuts in main article namespace unless really necessary, but do not feature these "aberrant" shortcuts in the article themselves (such as xl, el and Extlink) rather than a "compliant" shortcut (such as wv:xl). --118.93nzp (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary & suggested changes

As I see it:

total number of shortcuts should be under a dozen, preferably around five; remembering more is not reasonable for editors

shortcuts to subsections are silly

nearly all the recently created shortcuts should be deleted (sorry, Alice, but they are useless)

there should be no shortcuts at all with a wv: prefix in the shortcut name; that is inappropriate clutter there

pointing into the project namespace is fine; the purpose of shortcuts is to give easy links to policies

prefer single words, for example "obvious" rather than "nco", because they are easier to remember

established ones like xl or dt are exceptions, though "tout" may be better than the latter

Finally, shortcuts should be implemented as templates, not redirect pages. Currently, if I insert [[dt]] in a page, the user sees "dt" in a colour indicating it is a link; generally, he or she will have no clue what it refers to. Making it "wv:dt" is not an improvement; the user cannot be expected to know about namespaces. I want to insert {{dt}} and have the user see Wikivoyage:Don't tout. Pashley (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Or he could see policy page on touting. Pashley (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never been for using alphabet soup on talk pages. The occasional -xl in an edit summary is something I'll do when doing a lot of patrolling. Or removing [[dt|advertisement]], or other uses of that dt that don't all spell out the same thing. Regarding subsections, 7+2 and SEO are very frequently used and should stay. --Peter ^Talk 16:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You just have to remember if it is tours or tour right?

I think Pashley's idea is great, but templates don't seem to work with comments, which probably is the major use? --Inas (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed a great pity, because if they did that would resolve both Inas's and Sandy's concerns and be even more helpful in both edit summaries and discussion and talk pages. What a pity!

This failure means we really do need to thrash out a sensible policy. Certainly, I do understand Inas's concerns about breaking our long-standing policy on Internal Links (that says we don't link from main to project namespace) - partly to avoid common components of search terms such as as and at and pub from confusing the search results. That search confusion really means that, until and unless the templates work in edit summaries, we must use an extra 3 keystrokes and preface all shortcuts with wv: in a similar way to the convention at most other WMF projects. -- Alice^✉ 22:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please slow down. There is contention here, and there may yet be a good way forward that can be found. Now we have new shortcuts Wp:units, that don't seem consistent with anything much, and we're digging ourselves a hole to get out of. --Inas (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge conceptual difference between a template and a redirect. I agree that templates should be kept under control, but redirects that do not cause ambiguity problems cost almost nothing and are a great convenience, and it really doesn't matter if we have 1 of 100 redirects to a page if they are all useful. I can dee that we would only want a small number, One or two, maybe three at a push, which are listed as shortcuts, to avoid clutter, but invisible shortcuts are harmless.

Lower case is quicker, no namespace prefix is quicker, but really, what does it cost to have both if someone wants both?• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Do templates work in edit summaries? I don't think I have ever tried. Could be very useful for standardised edit messages. (I see they dont)• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Shortcuts should be for users to go to a page quickly, their use when leaving a message for a contributor who is unfamiliar with our policies is simply impolite, as they will probably not know what it means and may even not understand how to use the link. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia there are common edit summaries you can click on to save time. Can we get that functionality here? (with a different message set). • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We could probably get a customised version of the mediawiki gadget W:MediaWiki:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js installed as an opt-in on preferences. The code looks like it could be modified to produce messages more appropriate to our janitorial work like dont tout, etc. About 10 standard messages in two drop down boxes could be provided. Two mouse clicks and your edit summary message is done. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't do no harm, and they are never invisible. Whenever someone takes a dump of our main namespace they should be able to assume they are getting a travel guide and nothing but. Instead it is being littered with these project related redirects. --Inas (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And would they not be lost amongst the much larger number of redirects to destination, travel topic, itinerary and phrasebook articles? (Since I dont use dumps of our main namespace, this is a little theoretical to me as I don't quite understand how they would be used.) If the dump user is going to get rid of the other redirects, how much extra effort to get rid of the shortcuts?

As to their visibility, I don't even know how to look them up if I want them. To me they are effectively invisible. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The redirects to travel content from the main namespace are all legitimate. Travel content in our main namespace is all legitimate. It is all for what we are creating, and helping people find our travel content is part of that. The Project namespace is to help us create it, it is for policies, documentation, etc. We shouldn't create create documentation, etc, in our main namespace. So, redirects within the main namespace are good. Redirects within project are fine. Redirects from project to main are okay, but probably indicate someone is doing something they haven't thought through. Redirects from main to project are not the way things are meant to be, because the users of the content should be able to be blissfully unaware of the project that created the content if they want to be. In other words the main namespace is for travellers, the Project namespace is for patrollers. --Inas (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand the principle, I question whether the principle should be enforced in this case, taking into consideration the convenience of the people who create and maintain the project, balanced against the potential impact on the traveller, which in this case appears to be very low. In most cases not discernable.

Precedent and status quo suggest that the consensus allows this use of redirects from mainspace to project space for the special case of shortcuts. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree more, now it has been properly explained, that one "should be able to grab a dump of the main namespace, and just have travel info, nothing else." There was never any real attempt to achieve a consensus by actually addressing the issues raised above before the "policy" was suddenly and hastily changed. Inas has sound reasons for his position, while I have yet to see any real rationale advanced other than "I don't like it" for those suggesting that this fundamental internal links policy be trivially exceptioned.

Yes, we do need shortcuts to save editors considerable time in their patrolling edit summaries and these should be prefixed by wv:. Then we can also have expanded templates named with the same character combination that follows the wv: prefix for the shortcut that will expand to provide polite and educational advice if the patrolling editor needs to leave a message on the ignorant/miscreant editor's talk page.

A more reasonable alternative to deleting this Wikivoyage:Shortcuts page, would be to stop pretending that it is a policy page at all rather than just a helpful aide memoire of just some of the more fatuous main name space pollutions.

Better still would be to create new redirects in the wv namespace of all of those listed here now and delete all those policy variant shortcuts. One could then create another, table (so that it can be alphabetically sorted on either the shortcut or the first word of the page it directs to) of the policy-compliant, wv-prefixed shortcuts as a simple aide memoire and make quite clear at the top that it was not a policy page and add a reminder that anyone creating shortcuts from wv namespace into either wv namespace or user namespace should ideally remember to list them here

I've done a 2 column draft sortable table here: User:Alice/Kitchen/Shortcut but I'm reluctant to add the third column with templates for polite, helpful messages until (if?) we get a consensus on relaxing template use... -- Alice^✉ 08:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

1. The discussion from 2007 in the section at the top of this discussion page and the consistent use of the non-prefixed shortcuts for the last 5 to 6 years without apparent protest or suggestions for alternatives seems to reasonably constitute a consensus and precedent. This apparent consensus justifies describing the status quo as a policy, albeit one based on custom, laissez faire and possibly inertia. This is not to say that there is no virtue in proposing alternative, but claiming that there was no attempt to establish a consensus is not accurate.
2. The suggestion for a set of co-ordinated shortcuts with associated templates may be useful if it is implimentable. Worth looking at in detail,
3. Before deleting the current system, we need a consensus to deprecate it. This is not the same as recommending and using an alternative in parallel.
4. It would be useful to propose a set of messages for the templates before starting to code the templates. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess we need some feel as to if people would be comfortable using the message templates as an alternative. As far as consensus goes, we quiet certainly have one to use the shortcuts above. I'm not sure there was ever quite agreement to create hundreds to redirect to each policy section. This page was supposed to enumerate them, from what I can tell. --Inas (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Right now, the suggested templated messages do not work in edit summaries so they can not be an alternative to shortcuts.

Shortcuts are needed for edit summaries and as quick and precise anchors to policy sections in article discussion pages.

For polite and educational messages on newbie's talk pages, templates will be an addition that will be easier to remember if they share the mnemonics of the same character combinations as the relevant shortcut the wv: prefix. -- Alice^✉ 08:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd didn't mean mediawiki templates, I was talking about the default summaries. I realise tamplates don't work in edit summaries. --Inas (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically the default summaries should probably be a separate discussion, but they are closely related to this issue, so maybe should be kept here.

I would find it useful to have a choice of default summaries, but we will need to work out which will be most useful overall.

Unless there is a technical reason why this system would not be appropriate for WV, I suggest we look at what we would like to do with it before finally deciding whether we want it.

I suggest the two available menu boxes be allocated to messages to the previous contributor explaining why the material was unsuitable, like Dont tout, Not a goal, Be fair, etc where there are links to policy or style pages explaining how things should be done. At this stage I suggest we compile a list of useful messages that are likely to be used frequently, work out a generally acceptable wording for them, and then select from this list the ones we want to include.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

List of suggested standard summaries (add to list) Policy and suggested message

• Don't tout: Excessively promotional content removed.
• Not a goal: The material was removed as it is not compatible with our goals
• External links: External links removed.
• Be fair:
• Where you can stick it: Content moved to more appropriate section.
• No real world threats:
• Privacy:
• Reverting vandalism/deleting spam
• Restore content that was deleted without an explanation

Until and unless the menu boxes are allocated to suitable messages to explain edits, we're stuck with creating shortcuts in WV namespace --118.93nzp (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

NOT a short cut

How are shortcuts defined and edited? Also any way to see what pages link to a short cut? For example typing NOT will take you into the What is and article page. Does any one use this to get to the page? It is also used as abbreviation for Marin County airport but I cannot see how may links there are to this as, unlike a redirect, you cannot see the page. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Great question. Shortcuts are still redirects; they work exactly the same way. (A MediaWiki change a couple of years ago made it so most redirects do their stuff invisibly so it's now very hard to access the redirect page.) You can see the list of all redirects to Wikivoyage:What is an article? here; from there you can access the WhatLinksHere for "NOT". You can also access a redirect directly by appending "&redirect=no" to the end of the URL (like so: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=NOT&redirect=no). Powers ^(talk) 23:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

New shortcuts and Toledo Settlement

Swept in from the pub

I have added a couple new shortcuts which can be found at WV:Shortcuts. These include collaboration for our Collaboration of the month and choosebanner for Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions. Hopefully, these will come in handy.

Also, as we work to bring down the number of default page banners for regions, I have suggested merging Toledo Settlement into Toledo (Belize). Thanks for reading! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it may be better to delete these shortcuts per the arguments at w:Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. The existing ones are grandfathered in, but it is best we avoid making new ones. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 20:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I see. I'm sorry, I didn't know about that. What do you think about Toledo Settlement though? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I'll delete them while they're not in use yet.

I haven't looked at Toledo yet; I'll do so now. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've also removed the names of those from WV:Shortcuts. There's also dotm banners but I added that one some time ago. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Shortcut for Wikivoyage talks

Swept in from the pub

For pages with the Wikivoyage: namespace, we usually have a shortcut like WV:AS for Wikivoyage:Article status. I started a discussion in the talk page of WV:AS and when I check on the discussion, to me it's inconvenient. Because I either need to type the full long name in the search box or type "as" into the search box and then click another link, which may be slow in areas with bad internet connection. I'm proposing we make something like WVT:AS as a shortcut to Wikivoyage talk:Article status. Opinions? The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 08:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd oppose this. We do need some shortcuts for common things like pub & ttcf, but cluttering things up with many shortcuts seems a bad idea. In this case, a search for 'status' finds the page, so I do not think the WV:AS shortcut is really needed, Certainly the talk page does not need its own shortcut; as usual it is one click away from the page it discusses. Pashley (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

SmileKat40, what's your web browser? I often find that it's easier to type page names into the browser window's URL bar, especially in Firefox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, "WVT" could easily be confused with "WT," for example. I like the idea but agree with Pashley about the potential problem with doing this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I use Google Chrome. To reply User:Pashley, I am in China. China have a firewall to prevent me from visiting Wikivoyage, so I must use a VPN app. Even then, it slows things down and sometimes, Wikivoyage articles takes over 10 seconds to load for longer pages. So "one click away" means "several seconds away" for me. And, if you say that the talk page is just "one click away" from the page it discuss, we don't need all shortcuts because I can type in "pub" in the search bar and then it's just "one click away" from the Traveller's Pub. The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 01:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)