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 <n...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l