Wikipedia talk:Full meta links

The scope of this proposal is unclear to me. Who are "readers"? Are we talking about AfD discussions? Article talk pages? Both? Melchoir 01:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Both, preferably. It's mostly a technical proposal (albeit one that wouldn't need any developers to work on it): create the templates and encourage their use, but don't require anyone to use them. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this here is quite a nice idea. This helps the newbies and reduces the utterly slangish all around the Wikipedia namespace. But keep it as a guideline (not a policy). I would propose to just do it. Create the templates and use them. Start with the most important ones. I'm willing to help (using AutoWikiBrowser. ← I just created this one :P). --Ligulem 09:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Technical implementation
Copied from :


 * Compare (1) category:WP shortcut templates and (2) template:WP (AmiDaniel's proposal, contains #switch). I believe solution (1) is better for the servers. It also scales better. Solution (2) will create a high use load on template:WP and every change (is needed to add a new shortcut) to that template ripples through to all inclusions. As a side note, (1) has the benefit that a "What links here" can be queried on each shortcut template separately. --Ligulem 10:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

--Ligulem 10:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but in theory a bot could substitute with the foreseen text. Numerous different WP:WOTTA templates could be also substituted. If we agree that they should be substituted by a bot, then one WP-template is enough. For many shortcuts I seriously doubt that anybody uses them, some are apparently cheap tricks to suggest "importance" or "relevance".
 * Look at WP:AGF, it has not less than five shortcuts plus further redirects. I can't imagine a more efferctive way to signal WP:WOTTA+WP:VAIN+WP:POINT to all readers of this AGF page. --&#160;Omniplex 08:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is easy to subst the templates in category:WP shortcut templates. Either directly when they are inserted by editors themselves or later with a bot. --Ligulem 08:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's a maintenance question, maybe different templates are easier to manage (for "easier" read "automatical creation based on lists" followed by "bot substitution"). Writing a script for the first part "creation based on available lists" should be really easy (I'm no volunteer because the servers most probably don't have ModRexx).
 * But there are numerous unlisted shortcuts starting with WP:, especially mixed case variants, other prefixes (P:, WT:, at least one CAT:), and complete names where the prefix WP: is only an abbreviation for the project namespace. Other projects have other prefixes, it's WM: on Meta etc. That's not meant as objection, only for info.


 * Real objection: If the templates don't work in some cases because nobody bothered to create them the whole idea is dead. I'm not going to try if I know that   works perfectly, even in conjunction with interwiki prefix w: from Meta.
 * The single template idea could be more flexible with shortcuts which it doesn't know. Example,  could expand into   for an unknown shortcut. With  that's not possible. --&#160;Omniplex 10:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Village pump (policy):
''I've written up a policy proposal for reforming the use of Shortcuts, which seem overly arcane and confusing to newcomers. The proposal lets editors keep typing similar abbreviations, but has software convert the abbreviations into fuller text before showing them to readers.'' ''Intead of typing, say, WP:NOR, you'd type , which would display a template of that name. The template would contain nothing but a reader-friendly link to the page: No original research, for example, or No original research (a Wikipedia policy).'' '' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tlogmer (talk • contribs). ''


 * Sounds unnecessary and counterproductive to me. There are multiple variations of how one would want it to expand depending on where it's being used, and if something's intended for a newcomer it's easy to not use the shortcut for it. (And templates like this should be used with subst.) – Tifego (t)23:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I friendly-format all my shortcuts depending on how I'm using them. Often, I use a shortcut simply because typing original research is easier than typing original research . &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 01:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but the proposal wouldn't prevent anyone from continuing to do things as they currently do. It would just provide editors with another option.  On today's VFD page there are already 27 links in the format WP:ABBREVIATION, many in sentances like "delete per WP:CORP" (impenetrable to outsiders unless they follow the link).  While it would be nice if everyone was willing to friendly-format their links, but it doesn't seem like they are at the moment; this offers a technical solution. -Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then again, I may not want my links friendly formatted. Reading an AfD page filled with "Delete per Notability (people)" and "Keep per Ignore All Rules", while perhaps more helpful to new users, would be distracting and tedious for the rest of us to read. I tend to think of policies by their shortcut rather than the name, and it often throws me off and slows me down when I see (i.e.) Revert only when necessary as opposed to the nice, simple WP:1RR. But I'm a big fan of shorthand--not everyone is. Therefore, I would strongly oppose a development change to automatically replace everyone's links with a target link, but so long as it's left up to the user, this could be helpful to some. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. If the software could be easily tweaked to do it automatically, I'd support. I've only been here since October, and have been gradually exploring more of the behind-the-scenes parts of WP. I do often have to click a WP:TLA just to find out what point someone is making, and it's annoying if I've seen the policy/guideline before, but have failed to memorise the abbreviation. Even changing the software so that hovering over the link gave the full, not abbreviated, page title would be an improvement (I don't know if that's technically possible). --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  07:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think any changes to the software would be necessary; we'll just have to start making Templates and encouraging their use. -Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. If the software could be easily tweaked to do it automatically, I'd support. I've only been here since October, and have been gradually exploring more of the behind-the-scenes parts of WP. I do often have to click a WP:TLA just to find out what point someone is making, and it's annoying if I've seen the policy/guideline before, but have failed to memorise the abbreviation. Even changing the software so that hovering over the link gave the full, not abbreviated, page title would be an improvement (I don't know if that's technically possible). --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  07:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Somewhat off-topic, but I don't know if you've heard of the tool popups, which when you hover over a link will display a small info box about where the link leads (with far more functionality as well). Somewhat more on-topic: I fail to see how this is a policy suggestion--consider posting it on Village Pump (technical). Now to get right to the matter at hand: I could possibly support something to the effect of a template that, when you type in the link to a redirect, would replace it with a link to the target. I sort of have a pet-peeve about linking to redirects within articles, especially when users add a link and, seeing that it's a redlink, proceed to create a redirect to the target they intended though no one wold ever search for the term. Anyway, I doubt I would ever use this template but I could see how it could be useful. Sort of unnecessary and counterproductictive as Tifego said, but if there's a dev out there with some free time, it doesn't seem like this would be too time-consuming to implement. Just make sure the devs know this is very low priority--I'm still hoping to hear that progress has been made with the https shared proxy solution, which I think should be much higher priority than this. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (Thanks very much, popups now installed. V. cool. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
 * It doesn't need devs, luckily; I've already created a template for WP:NOR -- -- Wikipedia policy: No original research Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ohh ... so you're suggesting that we create a template for each and every shortcut to each and every policy/guideline/essay on Wikipedia. Hmm ... I might be able to support that. It would be pretty simple to write a quick bot to create each of 'em, but I don't know--it seems like a quite unnecessary of server space. Might I suggest something more like that would then contain a switch on the parameter--in otherwords all of these shortcuts would be stored in one template. Let me create a sample of what I mean in my userspace; I'll post it here in a few minutes. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind such templates, but I'd prefer to still have our current redirects still available. JoshuaZ 07:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is what I may suggest as a template. I've created a very basic starting point for it in my userspace:
 * produces
 * produces

It would be pretty simple to migrate this to Template:WP so it could be used as WP (or we could put it where ever) and I could probably come up with a bot to import the list of shortcuts into the template. I think this may be a better alternative than creating 800,000 templates (slight hyperbole). What do you think? AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome; that sounds great. (I do think the output should be something like Wikipedia policy: No original research for maximum clarity, but that might be overkill).  Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 09:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, one of the devs says that using separate templates for each shortcut would put less of a load on the server, so (if nobody minds) I'm going to start making the templates. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 21:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The person who told you that, Ligulem, isn't a dev. I think that it's a very bad idea to create this many templates without first consulting an actual dev, such as User:Brion VIBBER or User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. Snoutwood (tóg) 21:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from this page

 * Er. Oops.  Alright, I'll hold off; sorry. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 04:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm not a dev (at least not a MediaWiki dev :-). But I don't think that a lot of templates is a problem. Using the same template on many pages might be a problem. Consider also that we now have a redirect page for every shortcut. So the existence of the templates is not a problem. I also think the number of 1'000 templates is a bit too high. Are there that much shurtcuts on Shortcuts? --Ligulem 23:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you add into WP: Shortcuts to talk pages and WP:WPR, I wouldn't be surprised. There's a hell of a lot. And the thing is, if this catches on (which is the intention, I assume), then they will be listed on loads of pages. A template is different from a redirect as the template is transcluded (server load) whereas a redirect, well, redirects (less server load). I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm not opposed, I just want a dev's comments before something of this scale starts up. Snoutwood (tóg) 23:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I Don't get the problem. Newcomers who don't get the shortcut can just click the link, read the policy and know the shortcut for future usage. This fix seems to complicate a simple thing and It is allot faster to read "WP:NPOV" than "Neutral point of view" or "Neutral point of view" ( Neutral point of view Pipette trick). Spelling the words out means it takes regulars more time to read. Also newbies would be more likely to read the policy and understand what it means if they had to click to link to know what it meant than to just accept that it is a policy--E-Bod 23:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, actually, that's a pretty good point. I wish I'd thought of that. He's right, the shortcut problem is a great way to get newbies to read the policies (or at least glance at them). The question is one of whether or not they'll really read them, but then if clicking on a link is too much work then they won't read them anyways. If the concern is that they'll have read the policies and not know the shortcut, I think that that's a fairly rare newbie phenomena and can easily be solved by clicking on the link. Snoutwood (tóg) 00:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You would never know the shortcut existed if you never saw it. Not letting people see she shortcut is not the answer. Before a comment on this page I didn’t know WT meant Wikipedia talk. Shortcuts are good along as the shortcut is close to the acronym of the policy.--E-Bod 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I wish I'd thought of that. Snoutwood (tóg) 00:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with all of this--I personally feel the idea is quite counterproductive. I proposed the template with the case paramaters (which is now more or less moot due to server problems and the poor substing) because the guy who proposed this (I keep forgetting his nick) was intent upon creating an unbelievable number of templates, which I thought was quite a bad idea. Now, I more or less agree that we should just let this idea go -- at least until the subst'ing problem can be cured (though even then it might not be too bright). AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, the concensus seems to be not to implement. But I thought I'd get in a final point: Wikipedia's going to be increasingly seen by people who (1) have financial or social stakes in their articles (politicians and corporate officers, for example) and (2) are older and busier, and less familiar with technology, and might not have time to read all the policies. It would be helpful for them to have a better idea of what someone's talking about when their article has been redirected, altered, etc -- using acronyms tends to make the conversation more impenetrable for these people, and if they're overwhelmed at first blush, they're less likely to click through to the policies (they might not even know that wikipedia has established policies).

While I think the best solution to this would be for people to explain things more fully, I don't think that'll happen soon without a techincal prod ("encouragement" might be a better word since existing redirects would still be available). These templates could help shift the nature of the discussion away from jargon and toward traditional sentances. -Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, one more point. It can be easy to forget, but less technically inclined people tend to be more cautious about clicking links, especially if they're on dialup (or using a non-tabbed browser -- still in the high 80%s for Internet Explorer). That percentage is getting lower, but the people on dialup tend to be older, and therefore disproportionately influential in real life (I remember a comment from a U.S. senator during the a recent net-related bill about how he connects through AOL dialup). People in the third world use dialup also (though I don't know how many of them speak english, so that may be moot). Not having to click through to follow a discussion would be a boon to the least geeky among us, basically. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 04:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's what I think: you have a very heartfelt idea that's brilliant for newbies and I heartily encourage you to continue on the newbie-helping path. Good on ya. But here're the downsides: it's harder for the more seasoned lads, it's going to increase server load, and it doesn't really help understanding of the policies. (Aside: a horribly frustrating thing that I've come across a few times is when there's someone who hasn't actually read the policy, but thinks they understand it after reading a one-sentence summary and consistently manipulate it to suit their opinions.) Please do continue to use this style when newbies are present, although I wouldn't recommend through templates. If you really want to, maybe create a few of the ones you use most in your userspace and subst them in. Also, feel free to post an enhancement request at bugzilla, at the very least it'll provide a forum for the devs to comment if they so choose. Anyway, that's my opinion. On the subject of the less-technically inclined: Once upon a time, I was was one of those, and I think that they just have to learn. Wikipedia is very helpful if you're reasonable, or so I've found. They can always ask, no bother whatsoever. Send 'em to me. On the subject of those with agendas: well, we'll always have to deal with them, and we'll show them the policies until we're blue in the face (kindly, I might add), and if they're still spam-wielding, tripe-filled, and opinionated, then they'll be blocked, sadly. That's really the only thing we can do, and I'm unsure that this policy/technical development/template suggestion will help them to learn the Way of the Wiki. It's a good thought, though. Snoutwood (tóg) 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not using tabs? (Gasp!) I can't imagine anybody using wikipedia not with FireFox tabs. I usually have so Manny tabs open when I browse.  Yeah Tlogmer makes a good point that not all wikipedians are young and know what they are doing, but people who have a personal stake in an article may easily violate WP:NPOV  When we talk about a policy we should use the short but when we tell somebody about the policy we should make it out in full.  Snoutwood should consult WP:NPA calling you a newbie-helper.  It's not quite a Personal attack but is getting close.  You could always WP:BR or use WP:AWB (if you have 500+ edits or you can suggest this fix be programed into AWB) to fix the short hand.  I would be in favor a a special Pipe trickfor shorthand to long hand. (also i usually use the shortcut to find the right link in preview but I'm leaving it in shorthand for Irony).  WP:SHORT says the short is for the go box.  I don't even know if we are supposed to link to pages using it.  Anyway if you could get a dev to expand the piped trick to change WP:ACN to Requests for arbitration or Requests for arbitration then i would be thrilled.  It would be useful to expand the piped trick to fallow the redirect and change to the real name.  or at lest make change WP:ACN to WP:ACN so that a hover over mouse will give the name of the link.  you can suggest this for the next release of Wiki Server software or whatever we call it.--E-Bod 06:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, how is "newbie-helper" a personal attack? Helping newbies rocks. We're founded on helping new people. When people have questions, we answer them and try to help out. I honestly don't understand how helping new people could be anything but a good thing. Snoutwood (tóg) 06:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see it as an attack, either; don't worry. =) The pipetrick suggestion is great; thanks. I'll take it to dev. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm a bit busy, and I don't know exactly where to go (bug reports doesn't seem like the right place). I'll leave it for now, unless someone else wants to ask. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you list it on bugzilla, it doesn't have to be a bug report. It's also the place to ask for MediaWiki changes and enhancements. There's loads of those on there. Snoutwood (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A note on substing
See m:Help:Substitution. There's a workaround for the substing problem. The following code would do what's desired:

To subst, you would need to use. If you don't subst, you would use the usual. Try it with User:Simetrical/Temporary subst test template:


 * produces
 * Rabbits are tasty.
 * produces

Alternatively, if it's okay for the template to always be substed, you could go with the more elegant

This would behave incorrectly if not substed. Try User:Simetrical/Temporary subst test template 2:


 * produces
 * Rabbits are tasty.
 * produces

I'm not going to comment on the idea itself, which I'm ambivalent about, but I don't think there are serious technical difficulties with substing. (And frankly, I'm not sure substing is necessary. tl can't be used too much more than shortcuts, and it's generally not substed nowadays.  Has an actual paid dev&mdash;Brion or Tim&mdash;been asked whether the server load would be okay?) &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rejected for good reason
As of this writing, this proposal has been tagged rejected and I hope it will stay that way. On the offchance that discussion revives, I'd like to hammer another nail in the coffin.

Shortcuts assume that you have read the page in question -- policy or essay. These pages are often quite complex and say much more than their titles alone. Indeed I'd say that some important pages are rather obscurely titled.

If I refer, say, to WP:NOR then I assume you have a good understanding of the contents of this page. I do link to WP:NOR on the offchance that you have not, in which case you have an opportunity to cure. If you don't recognize the abbreviation straight off, then I'd really rather you followed the link and refreshed your memory. I don't want to attempt to summarize the page in question -- either in my own words or merely by page title. I'd prefer that you followed a shortcut link than read a full page title and thought you knew what it meant. John Reid 01:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * +1 --&#160;Omniplex 11:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just run across this argument and I thought I'd counter briefly it for the record: I don't think it's likely that people will think they understand policies fully just from reading their titles. What's more likely is that people will be confused by acronyms and decline to participate at all, or decide that Wikipedia seems byzantine and that editing it would be too much of a hassle.

Also, not everyone has a great memory for acronyms. I regularly forget what AfD and RfA stand for, and I've been here for 4 years! I'm familiar with the policies, their implementation, flaws, etc., but I'm don't always recognize their abbreviations.

Finally, the proposal wouldn't require anyone to stop using abbreviations; it would just provide an alternative.

Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate elitist shortcuts
I hate seeing those elitist insider shortcuts. Why do I have to download a whole other page just to find out what those ten or so bytes mean? What if I'm reading offline?

Would the policy allow such gobbledygook? Unbecoming of an encyclopedia! Jidanni 19:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)