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