Wiktionary talk:Shortcut

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary talk:Shortcut. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary talk:Shortcut, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary talk:Shortcut in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary talk:Shortcut you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary talk:Shortcut will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary talk:Shortcut, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

WT

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)Reply

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)Reply

I, too, thought it would be "WT:". "WS:" just doesn't make any sense. - dcljr 06:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

More shortcuts

I'd like to propose adding WP: shortcuts that jump across projects, over to the 'pedia pages. Comments? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and WSP: (WikiSPecies,) WB: (WikiBooks,) WC: (WikiCommons,) WM: (MediaWiki,) WQ: (WikiQuote,) and WN: (WikiNews.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Also BUG: (Bugzilla - WikiMedia section.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I forgot Meta: and Foundation. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
Is it safe to condense this list now, or will it be attacked again? The list of shortcuts should fit on about one screen, give-or-take. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

RFM discussion: February 2018–February 2024

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Why is this in the singular? It just looks weird in the case of a title like this. (Somewhat irrelevant, extra issue: the page needs a lede to explain what a shortcut is.) PseudoSkull (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Support on both counts. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Support per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 03:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@PseudoSkull There has been a section explaining what shortcuts are this whole time. It's just not right at the top, which might have been done intentionally to make the table of common shortcuts as quickly accessible as possible. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 06:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply