Wikipedia talk:Shortcut

"Usurp"

@ItsPugle: Wikipedia has a precedent for using the word "usurp" in a non-negative context: WP:USURP for user accounts and WP:USURPTITLE for article titles. This describes the same sort of thing, so I think the same word is appropriate. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Hey! Thanks for pinging me. Your two examples, WP:USURP and WP:USURPTITLE, detail specific processes for unconsented or undiscussed overrides of usernames and article titles respectively, whereas the reference to usurpation in this article is exclusively about discussed moves that have generated a consensus from editor. As such, I continue that "usurp" is not quite the best term to use here. I'm happy to use pretty much any other term, but using usurp is just plain incorrect to me - otherwise, you'd be saying that something like a requested move with consensus is a usurpation... which it isn't. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 04:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the usurp point was added on 5 February 2011 by OlEnglish. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

When I originally added it, I believe the default was to just take the shortcut (usurp) without discussion, hence why I added that. However I also wrote in my edit summary, "feel free to edit/reword", and that still applies. May I suggest "appropriate"? -- œ^™ 06:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with the term "appropriate"! Only thing is that I connect it to stuff like an appropriation bill, but that fundamentally still works in terms of 'allocating'. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 09:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle and OlEnglish: How about "reappropriate", to keep the meaning that it used to be for something else, rather than being assigned for the first time? Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: I'm happy with that :) ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 05:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn and ItsPugle: Sorry, but I have to call foul here. Its (may I call you Its? ) wrote, by way of proposing a compromise on reappropriate: to keep the meaning that it used to be for something else, rather than being assigned for the first time? But that's not really the sense in which 'reappropriate' is typically used. What you described would be a better fit for re- words like reclaim, redirect... or the one you came within a hair's breadth of, even employing its root in your definition:reassign.

The re- in reappropriate has a implications more in line with a word like reclaim, recover, or restore. The sense is that you're not merely taking something, but rather are taking it back or striving, as the second definition puts it, "To appropriate [it] again." Describing the initial creation of a shortcut in those terms stretches the definition of "appropriation" almost to the breaking point, in the same way it would if, for instance, you described an AfC submission as an "appropriation" of its title text. When you're creating a new thing that didn't exist until that point, there's nothing being appropriated — being "claimed" or "set aside" for exclusive use carries an implication of there being some thing to being claimed, one which already existed prior to its appropriation.

You can appropriate finite things like funds, land, time on a schedule, or the patience other Wikipedians have for indulging overly verbose arguments. (Um... or so I've heard. 🤔 )

But you can't appropriate (and therefore nobody can re-appropriate) ephemeral things such as love, goodwill, article titles, or space to make overly verbose arguments on a Wikipedia Talk page. These are, for all practical purposes, infinitely renewable resources, even if contention can still arise over any particular allocation's exclusivity.

If I might make a suggestion that intentionally departs quite a bit from the previously-considered options (and therefore from their implications, as well), might I suggest simply "redefine"? It's both technically accurate and almost crashingly neutral, in this context. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty easy-peasy with whatever, usurp just stood out to me as not quite the best term. I'm happy for something like redefine or retarget. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: "redefine" isn't bad. How about "retarget", though? I think I like it slightly better. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn and ItsPugle: "Retarget" is equally good with me, sure. I have no preference between the two. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Shortcuts and disambiguation

Disambiguated shortcut is an oxymoron. Why would we DAB a shortcut if we have to go via an additional page every time? One of the suggestions in an Rfd for a shortcut was to DAB it, and I was surprised to know there are some 80 shorcuts that are DABs. Can we not ensure that shortcuts lead the editor to one and only one target? Anything else, can be a WP page DAB, but not a shortcut. Jay ^(Talk) 11:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• In my mind, there are similar considerations to the mainspace concept of WP:PRIMARY topics. If there are multiple candidate targets for a name like WP:FLAG and there's no agreement about what it should point to, because there are multiple candidate pages that are approximately equally popular and salient, then it makes sense to make it a dab. Basically, it's better to send 100% of people who search for it to a short directory from which they can quickly access the page they want, rather than sending 25% of users directly to the page they want, leaving the other 75% to struggle to get to their intended destination. (It's not a perfect analogy, since I imagine users are somewhat less likely to navigate meta namespaces by title search compared to mainspace. But it still happens - e.g. if I want to know whether the MoS has rules on whether I should write "17" or "seventeen", I'll take a leap of faith to MOS:NUMBER and hope it's an extant shortcut pointing to the guideline I'm looking for.) Colin M (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Shortcut overkill

A couple of months ago, an editor wrote an essay. The same editor also created five slightly different ALLCAPS shortcuts for it. Could we suggest to editors that a multiplicity of shortcuts is not a desirable outcome? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: See #RFC: Remove recommended numerical limit for amount of shortcuts on a page above. I am sure that there was a similar discussion a year or two earlier than that, in which I was involved (as was RexxS). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the recommendation not to (necessarily) limit the shortcuts box to one or two, but I'm asking about telling people not to create a bunch of shortcuts/redirects in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Show shortcut name as parent name?

Hello, I created a shortcut Template:UZAE as a shortcut for Template:Use South African English. The problem is if I use UZAE directly in an article, it isn't very descriptive of what it means to an editor. Is there a way for the UZAE template to show its parent's name, or a description of what it is? Currently, I search for the quicker to search "UZAE" but insert the Use South African English template. Thank you, Maqdisi (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? These templates just categorize articles and indicate the preferred English variant to anyone reading the source; they don't display anything in the page itself, so there's nowhere to show a name or description.

If you really want to save time typing, you could change {{UZAE}} to transclude rather than redirect to {{use South African English}}, and then writing {{subst:UZAE}} will leave {{use South African English}} in the source. You only need to write this once per new page, though, so it doesn't seem like a very important time-saving measure. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)