Wikipedia talk:Shortcut

Can a shortcut be used to redirect a user's page sandbox other than WikiProjects, guidelines, essays, and manual of styles? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: Where would you want to do this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64 In a user's page sandbox, as I mentioned recently. For example, a sandbox that might be contain an essay or anything. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want to create a shortcut to e.g. User:Dedhert.Jr/sandbox/1? Shortcuts are just redirects, so you could create User:Dedhert.Jr/S1 just like you created User:Dedhert.Jr/1st sandboxUser:Dedhert.Jr/1st sandbox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Oh, so I cannot use a shortcut for my sandbox as in WP:DJR9 like other essays or guidelines commonly do? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Essays and guidelines are not kept in user sandbox pages, and guidelines are not normally kept in any part of user space. In any case, the sandbox in question does not appear to be either an essay or a guideline. If you create that redirect, you would need to ensure that it doesn't fall foul of WP:CSD#R3, and may need to justify its existence at WP:RFD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64 With all due respect, I wishfully was trying to comprehend all of your explanations. Still, these led me to two questions: What does it mean when the shortcut does not fall foul of WP:CSD, even though it states the implausibility of a redirect so that it can be deleted? If we are talking about essays and guidelines that are not kept in user sandbox pages, then what it has to do with these sandboxes, and how do they keep exist? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

A good-faith editor can have all sorts of thoughts in their user pages but a shortcut to those thoughts would be in the Wikipedia namespace. That means the shortcut will be subject to the views of other people. I don't recall seeing an example, but it is likely that making a WP shortcut to a user page would result in the shortcut being nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. That would be on the basis that a WP shortcut carries a suggestion of at least some degree of community approval. Also, it may be undesirable to set a precedent for the idea that everyone can have a dozen shortcuts. Exceptions such as WP:OWB exist for a user page that has a lot of history and wisdom. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr, a Wikipedia:Glossary#Sandbox is a page used for test edits. (More information at Wikipedia:About the sandbox.) It sounds like you're talking about Wikipedia:Subpages in the Wikipedia:User namespace. User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox is a sandbox. So is User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 3.

User:WhatamIdoing/Fundraising is not a sandbox. User:WhatamIdoing/Fundraising is a Wikipedia:User essay. Anyone can write a user essay.

A Wikipedia:Shortcut is a Wikipedia:Redirect to a page. A shortcut looks like this: WP:NOT, WP:SHORTCUT, WP:UPPERCASE. Shortcuts to user essays are possible but less common. Some examples of shortcuts to user essays include WP:1AM, WP:BELLYBUTTON, and WP:OBSTACLE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, @WhatamIdoing. Thanks for the explanation. Before I end this discussion, some questions appear in my head: How do essays on the user namespace page have their own shortcuts? Is it because they do have some agreement on background-problematic discussion? Should WP:SHORTCUT have an explanation of how shortcuts should not be used in the user namespace page, or why some of them do not have it? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

A lot of Wikipedia works on the "I know it when I see it" principle. Re the four users-space shortcuts mentioned above, it's likely that someone made the shortcut and other editors thought it was a good idea. However, it others don't like a shortcut, they might try to get it deleted. I just stumbled across Category:Redirects to user namespace which claims there are 1,092 redirects to user pages from outside user space. Amazing. It has some horrors, for example, WP:BEATLESS. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

LOL. The WP:BEATLESS sounds fun. Maybe I'll try to make a new shortcut for mine, though it will be risky to do so, and many users will hate it. So, let's see. :D Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

These shortcuts are unfortunately named. I've come across editors removing all but two shortcuts from a {{shortcut}} box with the edit summary "per WP:2SHORTCUTS" or similar. As always I know my argument benefits from an example, so , but also as always please examine this without assuming any intent from my part to focus on any particular individual editor; this is only the most recent incidence I've come across.

This tells me editors easily misinterpret the guideline to say "present two shortcuts at most" which is not what it actually says. The current phrasing is:

The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (that's what Special:WhatLinksHere is for). Instead, they generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects.

Link: Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut/Archive_3#h-RFC:_Remove_recommended_numerical_limit_for_amount_of_shortcuts_on_a_page

Do note how this leaves it up to local consensus whether one shortcut or three or whatever constitute "the most common and easily remembered" shortcuts.

Let us rename WP:2SHORTCUTS (and WP:2SC) into something without the number two in it.

Also please see the next section. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I feel one important reason for featuring shortcuts on policy pages and similar that has been left out of this section is how it is (by far) the most direct and accessible way of learning about their existence.

How do you learn about any given shortcut? I would say mainly in two ways: a) you see your fellow editor use them (say, in a talk discussion) and b) you read the guideline etc and spot them as shortcut boxes. This way you improve your "skills as a wikipedian", increasing your ability to succinctly help other editors and make points come across.

But the "Shortcut boxes" doesn't mention this. I've seen how well-meaning but overly zealous editors remove (clean out) "surplus" shortcuts from policy pages, because if you read the current instructions, that's what they tell you.

But this section completely misses one basic fact: how do you get a new shortcut to gain enough Pageviews to become commonly used? By having it displayed in a shortcut box of course!

I suggest the text of this section is amended to make this value clear, and instruct readers to not remove/prune/clean out shortcuts just because "fewer better than more". Specifically, it needs to tell editors to leave newly introduced shortcuts alone for some period of time so they have time to establish themselves. Let's say three years for the sake of discussion.

A semi-recent discussion touching upon this: Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Excessive_shortcuts_in_shortcut_boxes.

Regards CapnZapp (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Shortcuts are jargon. Jargon increases communication efficiency, at the expense of creating barriers to newcomers. There is very rarely a good case to introduce a new recommended shortcut over an established on, but when there is, the proper process is to use it, demonstrate that it is better, and open a talk page thread proposing addition or swapping.

If jargon has downsides, something that is much worse is changing the jargon without good reason.

The LINKBOX contains the recommended shortcut(s) for editors to use in discussion. It is best for everyone to use the same term for the same thing. A myriad of options is bad. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

You appear to discuss where and when it it is appropriate to change shortcuts; if so, I'd like you to start a talk section of your own. Otherwise can I ask you to please explain how what you wrote is directly relevant to the subject at hand? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I think your perspective on shortcuts is quite bad. I oppose your suggestions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

All over the project, linkbox recommended shortcuts need pruning, and in general one is best. And even then, if usage is low, none is better. For unusual conversations, I recommend explicit linking to the section title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Apparently we have to repeat and repeat the basic advice. What SmokeyJoe has taken the trouble to write is perfect and should put an end to time-wasting efforts to fiddle with established shortcuts. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Once more I have to ask - who are you addressing? I am certainly not here to "fiddle with established shortcuts." I'm here to discuss changes to the phrasing so other editors stop removing useful shortcuts, because they overlook a third aspect of their worth as specified above. CapnZapp (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)