I'd like to propose moving all of these to the pseudo-namespace "WT:". The WS redirects would be left behind (six months? A year?) until someone notices that we are stomping on WikiSource's namespace. Comments? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Screw Wikisource --Wonderfool 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikisource doesn't have a namespace here to be stomped upon. Uncle G 06:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I meant the fuzzy kind of namespace; in programming a namespace is a namespace, no matter where it is used. The MediaWiki use of the term is stricter than the general case; the software enforces numberspaces to correspond to namespaces. But I was using the term namespace in the broader sense. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
WT is what I expected it to be, it was some time before I found out what I was doing wrong. Who came up with WS!? Gerard Foley 02:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I, too, thought it would be "WT:". "WS:" just doesn't make any sense. - dcljr 06:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like it was one year ago that Richard started these as "WS:*". With a WS:BP vote on the matter, we can probably duplicate these to "WT:*" on the one-year anniversary. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yuck! No thank you, and unnecessary. Just use interwiki linking and the shortcuts that already exist on the target project: w:WP:WIW, q:WQ:RD, b:WB:WIW. Uncle G 06:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- There's already an interwiki link mechanism for bugzilla, too. Uncle G 06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Uncle G, those don't work in the one main place where I use shortcuts: the search box + Go.
- But I suppose just having a list of the various places on one or two pages here would suffice. The Wikipedia shortcuts I can never seem to remember, as I use them so infrequently. For the smaller projects with fewer equivalents will probably only have three or four shortcuts each, right? (Hmmm, it might be hard to choose the "top 100 shortcuts" of Wikipedia.) What is the prefix for bugzilla? --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Reinstated comprehesive list of shortcuts
Sorry. Just can't agree with the idea of having one "Compact List" of shortcuts, and another "Comprehensive List" Just going to get out of whack.
Anyway, the list is hardly that big as to be unmanageable.
I would agree that some of the duplicates could be tossed - why do we need WT:PUMP for "Beer Parlour". Sure, maybe Wikipedia uses WP:PUMP to go tot he Village Pump, but we don't have a Village Pump. Let them learn our shortcuts. You could keep the WT:PUMP shortcut, but don't advertise it in this list.
--Richardb 12:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I vehemently disagree with your first sentence, and partly agree with the rest. The whole point of shortcuts is redundancy, so having interproject "duplicates" hurts absolutely nothing. Listing the short list is, well, supposed to be short. The primary idea is that is must fit on one screen - polluting it with all these additional entries is not helpful to anyone. --Connel MacKenzie T C 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)