On 11/05/11 11:32, HW wrote:
I think the advantage is that it would allow us to generalize the concept
behind
enwp.org, which is that we want short urls for all languages and all
projects. I'm thinking along the lines of
http://en.wp.w.org . From that
angle I would say that short urls of this type have become rather popular.
You could of course use goo.gl, but then your url is obfuscated, whereas in
this case it's not.
I can't really see
en.wp.w.org (11 characters, four components, hard to
remember) as being that much better than
en.wikipedia.org (16
characters, three components, easier to remember, contains the Wikipedia
branding).
enwp.org, on the other hand, is 8 characters long, has only two
components, and is a natural contraction of
en.wikipedia.org.
-- Neil