Guild Wars Wiki talk:List of shortcuts

Shortcuts and when they should be used
I think this has gotten a bit out of control and we need to decide what we actually want shortcuts for. For example, at the moment we have GWW:CUSSIN', a shortcut to a failed policy. I don't see how or why that would ever be needed. When you have a million shortcuts I don't know how useful they are. They are only useful when people know about them. I'd like to see shortcuts to failed policies removed at the least, anyone else want to weigh in? Misery  16:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * remove al shrot cuts their uterly useles and everyon woh wants to read those pages uses teh portals or whatever 127.0.0.1 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I always use the redirects. But there are some odd ones like 'GWW:C', which i think are misleading. I know, i created the counterpart for talk page, but only because i thought people are actually using the article shortcut. - J.P.[[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png| ]] Talk  16:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Feedback loop is obviously just trolling. I'm not saying delete them all, but some of them are pretty dumb =/ Misery  16:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be in agreement with deleting the ones that are associated with failed policies. Those shouldn't be accessed enough through shortcuts (as opposed to users going to discuss) to warrant having them. -- FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 16:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove the ones for failed policies for sure. If people really want to see them, they can find them without shortcuts. Quickly looking over the list, the rest seems reasonable to keep, but it was just a quick look. --Kyoshi (Talk) [[File:User Kyoshi sig.png]] 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * GWW:C, GWW:GF, GWW:PCU, GWW:HP, GWW:DISC, GWW:GL, GWW:IUP, and GWW:RFB are all counter-intuitive and/or redundant with other shortcuts, in my opinion. GWW:CUSSIN' doesn't seem needed. I don't know if ANET:GW2 is important enough anymore for a shortcut.
 * Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but why is GWW:PR/II on this list, but not GWW:PR/AR? Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 17:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed about having shortcuts are pointless if people don't know they exist. And if they are just going to refer to the list of shortuts then it's pointless. Remove failed policies shortcut for sure. Also I see no point in shortcut for talk pages, but each to their own. ~Celestia 17:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I assumed the list was auto-generated, but I see it's not, silly me. Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 17:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your project is now on the list, Manifold :) - J.P.[[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png| ]] Talk  17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When I created the list I never wanted to make it some kind of ruleset what shortcuts should exist and which shouldn't. It was more a simple list of what shortcuts we had that time, and those shortcuts with a "none" note for the talk page simply didn't have one. I never wanted to imply that such a shortcut is automatically needed or required or requested; it was just a simple plain list for documentary purposes.
 * However on the general shortcuts-topic, I agree that we shouldn't have shortcuts about everything, because that will just lead to confusions (even more confusions than some of those shortcuts, like GUILD vs GUILDS, are already producing). Again, I'm not implying here to change or remove any existing shortcut, as those might be used already by someone, but we maybe should just be a bit more selective when creating shortcuts (and especially not creating 5+ alternative ones for the same page). poke | talk 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also regarding the last point, we probably shouldn't list all shortcuts on a page, just the best (shortest, most effective or most used?) one.. It's one thing that they exist, but maybe we should focus on one (or 2 at most) to list on the actual target page. poke | talk 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)