[Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]

[Lodewijk]

Although you do have a point here, just to be complete, the number of
characters for en.wikipedia.org is of course longer. You would have to
compare en.wp.w.org/Example with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example - which makes
it 12 vs 22 (+article name), which is already more significant. Of course
unless someone finds a way to redirect en.wikipedia.org/Example to
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example .

Best,
Lodewijk

2011/5/11 Neil Harris <neil at tonal.clara.co.uk>

> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>