UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Namespace Links

Namespace Links
I've created aliases for all of our namespaces using their standard IDs -- i.e., the IDs listed on . Therefore, links such as  or  are now possible, for those who might find typing the full namespace excessively onerous. Unlike the OB/MW/etc templates that have previously been used for this purpose, there is a minimal CPU overhead associated with the aliases. The only namespaces for which this will not work are MAIN (the software doesn't support aliases for main), TR3, and TR4 (which are fake namespaces).

If there are problems/concerns with this feature, I can easily remove it. On the other hand, if everyone agrees this is better than our existing templates, I think we can propose deletion for many of the templates in :Category:Link Templates; documentation such as , , and  would also need to be updated

One other, semi-related question is about our transparent namespace links. For example, if I type   it automatically gets expanded to   when I save the page. There's an alternative way this feature could be implemented: have the original   text be preserved when the page is saved, yet still have the link displayed in HTML article as a link looking like Archive. I've already coded up this alternative treatment, and it's been implemented successfully on a wiki at work for a couple  months. Therefore, the main question is what would be preferable here. The advantage to the current approach is that you can explicitly see how the link is transformed (although 
only if you re-edit the page). The disadvantages, in my mind, are that it's more difficult to subsequently edit the link (any typo needs to be fixed twice) and that new editors are generally not aware that the shortcut exists (because they never see it being used on articles). Any thoughts on which approach we should use? --Nephele  22:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

:Would the  , for instance, get re-formatted into   or would it stay as  ? This is the same thing Wikipedia does with their WP shortcut, I think, and it certainly doesn't seem to be bothering them any, though personally, I sort of like the order imposed by having them all be the same format. I believe   would stay as exactly that on Wikipedia, so it may be slightly more comfortable for Wikipedia users when they come here. (I also think it looks cleaner and would therefore prefer it personally as well, but it probably messes with peoples' minds when I advocate consistency in one sentence and then flexibility in the next.  ;) --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

::Oh, I was about to ask someone about this, since it really works on Wikipedia. I think I will mainly use them in informal settings, such as in edit summaries and in the UESP namespace. Otherwise, I think we should still use Oblivion: and Morrowind: etc. in the game namespaces, otherwise new editors might get confused (as they do with sic). So to recap: Talk namespace, UESP namespace, etc. should use the shortcut namespace entries. Game namespaces should use the full one.
::So, what are the shortcuts for Daggerfall, Arena, Lore, and UESPWiki? Thanks for adding this! –Elliot   03:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

:::I like it. As long as there's no(t much) overhead then it's a good idea.
:::Judging from Nephele's post, it looks like the links don't get expanded when you save, but they are expanded when presented to the user, so you get the full link displayed (eg  for ).
:::The other shortcuts are listed on the page Nephele linked to: . So DF, AR, LO and UESP for those specific cases. –rpeh  06:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Thanks for answering the questions for me, rpeh.  One other point worth mentioning is that the aliases work in a lot of places other than just links: in manually-typed URLs; in the search box (e.g., "go OB:Armor").  Also, the aliases are not case-sensitive (no namespace names are).  So "go ob:armor" works just as well.
::::As for recommended usage, I think just saying that the full namespace names are preferred is sufficient.  Editors can use the shortcuts if they feel it's necessary (otherwise why have them?), but hopefully they'd eventually be converted into full namespaces.  The only "forbidden" action should be converting a full namespace link into an abbreviation.  That's my opinion. --Nephele  05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::Speaking as an editor who can type Oblivion nearly as fast as OB I still think the addition warrants enough merit for it to happen if there are enough regular editors supporting it. But I'm not comfortable with the change of no longer subsituting shortcuts to full links (e.g.  ). The thing I like about all the shortcuts is that they don't show in the actual article, instead it will contain links in only one format. Otherwise you would see a combination of different kinds of formatting, which seem more confusing to me to new editors than one link format. 

:::::The new shortcuts will mostly benefit the more active editors, which are likely already aware of them. I agree it might be an idea to better inform newer editors of the shortcuts, but the shortcuts will only start to be helpful if you are editing more articles than just one per day. --Timenn-  08:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::I pretty much agree with Timenn and Neph. The only time I really see myself using them is in edit summaries (where it is sometimes hard to fit a link in) and talk pages (for speed I guess), like a mentioned before. I don't think we should use them in any of the articles that contain information (so... like 90% of them). I have been thinking about the use of     and haven't decided if this should be avoided. –Elliot&#32;  08:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)