Wikipedia talk:Shortcut index

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fix links, Question for Update 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done! Blackcap (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to page and not to shortcut 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Portal shortcuts 

message: I've been getting conflicting feedback on when to use subst: and when not to.  Is this a case where it should?--◀Pucktalk▶ 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should subst: be used with this? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Don't panic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProjects 

message: 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  if necessary, ready.
But there are some potential traps and pitfalls:
#If it's already listed on WP:WP or a similar list like WT:WT please update that entry showing the new target page.
#If the old target page mentions its shortcut that also has to be updated, often in a  template.
#Above all check the shortcut backlinks with "what links here", changing a shortcut used elsewhere can be highly disruptive.
#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.
#For controversial cases there is a "redirects for deletion" procedure WP:RFD.
-- Omniplex 13:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing shortcuts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New policy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move to [[Wikipedia:List of Shortcuts]]? 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support definitely. Wikipedia:Shortcuts and Wikipedia:Shortcut are much the same, this surely causes confusion. "List of Shortcuts" "List of shortcuts" is a more accurate name. Please move. Update: Yeah! I failed to notice the capital letter → support version with shortcuts in lower case. Cheers! – PeaceNT 05:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support definitely. Wikipedia:Shortcuts and Wikipedia:Shortcut are much the same, this surely causes confusion. "List of Shortcuts" "List of shortcuts" is a more accurate name. Please move. Update: Yeah! I failed to notice the capital letter → support version with shortcuts in lower case. Cheers! – PeaceNT 05:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: CNR

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nice table formatting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some changes that need to be made

message: 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)
replies: text: Your best bet would be to go to Wikipedia:Bots and try to get a bot approved for searching and replacing shortcuts with their full pagenames.  The bot would need to skip Wikipedia's directories (which display shortcuts), and skip the Wikipedia:List of shortcuts.  Shortcuts are a part of Wikipedia culture, and using them helps others memorize them, so it is unlikely you'll be allowed to replace them.  Good luck though.  The Transhumanist (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should at least try to limit them, though. I mean, shortcuts may be useful for the search box and for the quicker typing of messages in talk pages (and very much so indeed), but is it not beyond their purpose to include them in the policy pages themselves? In my opinion, one ought to be able to make sense from a link to a policy or guideline page, if not from the text, then by hovering over the link. A cryptic shortcut is not at all helpful, and not everyone has Internet speeds sufficiently high to allow them to click on every single unknown shortcut. Newcomers are especially affected by this, as it is often hard for them to understand pages that they really need to. I say that, at least the official pages of Wikipedia should be somehow cleaned up and ridden of shortcuts. Waltham, The Duke of 13:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal to delete all policy redirects 

message: Let me know what you guys and gals think at WP:VPT#New Shortcut Prefix Proposal. Jmfangio| ►Chat  09:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Shortcut Prefix Proposal 

message: I'd like to add a link on this page to Wikipedia:Userfication, which I wrote about a year and a half ago (with some input from others in the community) on Userfication. The shortcuts are WP:UFY and WP:USERFY. However, the piece has not been established as official policy or an official guideline. Can it be included here, and if so, where should it be? Cheers! bd2412 T 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? Anyone watching this page? bd2412 T 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert on this part of Wikipedia, but I have looked over Wikipedia:List of shortcuts, and it seems to me to be acceptable to add it under "Other" under "Miscellany".  -- Wavelength 05:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objection, it is done. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Userfication]] 

message: Did someone AFD a tun of shortcuts or is it just a temporary glitch? I can't get around anymore :( MURGH disc. 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the RfD logs for the entire month of November, and no shortcuts whatsoever were deleted during that time period. A couple of them were retargeted, and for one or two there was no consensus. And that's it. I do not know whether any deletions took place earlier, but, personally, I have not noticed any perceptible difference. Waltham, The Duke of 20:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is surprising. Am I the only one who sees this list, Wikipedia:List of shortcuts, nearly all-red? Thanks for checking. MURGH disc. 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks OK to me - the only redlink I see is WP:Z, which is as yet unallocated. Maybe it was a server hiccup? ZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I see too, now. Weird and embarrassing. Server hiccup huh? Sorry for causing the ruckus folks ;^)  MURGH disc. 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, never mind about that. Every message I write raises my edit count by one, so I am happy to help. (evil grin) Waltham, The Duke of 16:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think I replied? ^_^ No worries. ZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  16:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mass-delete of shortcuts? 

message: Please look at this discussion about what to do with a messy shortcut problem: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here Editors should know this to avoid confusion, and I suspect a lot of miscommunication has been caused by it. Three months ago (Dec. 11), the WP:BLP1E link was changed from a section of WP:BLP to WP:BIO. Editors who have thought about WP shortcuts could probably contribute something valuable to the discussion, so please take a look. Noroton (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with WP:BLP1E shortcut

message: Would anyone object if I made a subsection of #Guidelines specifically for Manual of Style pages and their shortcuts? I ask because the current list of Manual of Style pages and their shortcuts in the table appears to be incomplete. Compare the numbers of MOS pages and shortcuts:
*Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Manual of Style - Manual of Style page and its subpages
*Special:Prefixindex/MOS: - shortcuts
I would like to add the missing MOS pages and shortcuts to the table, while also adding new shortcuts for the MOS pages that don't have shortcuts now. I think this would be easier to do if the Guidelines section had a separate subsection for MOS pages. Otherwise, the large and growing number of MOS page entries might overwhelm the rest of the table if we list them along with the other guideline pages. This is not a burning need, it would just be more convenient I think, so if anybody has a solid reason for not doing it, that's fine with me. --Teratornis (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds interesting and reasonable. My personal opinion is "go ahead"; if people are not happy we can always change the page back. (If, of course, you should prefer to avoid the risk of doing work which could be undone, you can always post the blueprints here, although I do not find it necessary myself.) Waltham, The Duke of 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Manual of Style shortcuts into their own section and table

message: I compiled User:b_jonas/Pages with shortcuts.  It's not perfect, but it may still help.  – b_jonas 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic list 

message: Is there a reason why an article (or perhaps its talk page) in mainspace should not have a shortcut? Ben MacDui 17:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainspace 

message: This is a very limited number of Portals and an eclectic collection. Would it be frowned upon to expand this to create new shortcuts for other Portals? I'm not arguing to be comprehensive and cover all Portals, just a few of the more active ones. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 14:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of Portal Shortcuts? 

message: The section Wikipedia:Shortcut index#Shortcut alphabet has a table of all one-letter shortcuts along with their targets and a brief description. The problem is that some of those targets have changed (like WP:L, which was retargeted in 2015), while for others the descriptions are no longer true (for example, Wikipedia:Mediation  is not a policy). Maybe we could try to go through the entries and update them, but I'm wondering what need is there to list their targets in the first place. Such presentation makes sense for most of the index above: there the shortcuts are grouped by topic, so the targets obviously need to be specified. But here, the shortcuts are grouped solely by form, and they don't have anything in common with one another apart from their length. And they aren't even all significant – apart from obvious staples like WP:V, there are plenty of mid-usage essays, and some like WP:J probably rank among the least commonly used shortcuts. Wouldn't it be better if the shortcuts here were presented in a flat list, as is done in the sections below? – Uanfala (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut alphabet 

message: Suggestion is to add columns for plain language description,  type (policy, guideline), Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Columns