Although you do have a point here, just to be complete, the number of
characters for
is of course longer. You would have to
compare
- which makes
it 12 vs 22 (+article name), which is already more significant. Of course
unless someone finds a way to redirect
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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l