I'll note that I was simply replicating the UI found in the gadgets used by tawiki and orwiki(I think?)

(In reply to comment #1)

I'll note that I was simply replicating the UI found in the gadgets used by
tawiki and orwiki(I think?)

Nobody says that it's your fault. :-)
Currently, however, I don't hear anyone (whether coming from those wikis or not) disagreeing with the opinion that the URL under the title makes more harm than good.

Arun Ganesh made a mockup a short while ago that was much better. Will check to see if I can find it.

And I don't think putting it just in the toolbox makes any sense. Nobody looks at the toolbox.

(In reply to comment #3)

Arun Ganesh made a mockup a short while ago that was much better. Will check to
see if I can find it.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:L10n-ux-wiki_shortlink_position.png

And I don't think putting it just in the toolbox makes any sense. Nobody looks
at the toolbox.

We have (even far more?) crucial tools there, it's not a new thing. Someone looking for a short link will find it, it's not something most readers would need or need to be encouraged to use (probably unlike some other stuff in the toolbox).

Try copy pasting the URL into someplace to try sharing it. That is the original purpose of the Short URL - so burying it in the toolbox would be counterproductive. It's for readers, rather than editors.

(In reply to comment #4)

(In reply to comment #3)

Arun Ganesh made a mockup a short while ago that was much better. Will check to
see if I can find it.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:L10n-ux-wiki_shortlink_position.png

Looks like a bad place for the shorturl. Margins are not consistent across skins. Moreover margins are not a proper place to put content.

(In reply to comment #6)

(In reply to comment #4)

(In reply to comment #3)

Arun Ganesh made a mockup a short while ago that was much better. Will check to
see if I can find it.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:L10n-ux-wiki_shortlink_position.png

Looks like a bad place for the shorturl. Margins are not consistent across
skins. Moreover margins are not a proper place to put content.

Please discuss that on bug 38863.

(In reply to comment #5)

Try copy pasting the URL into someplace to try sharing it.

Ok, what's the problem? You still need a right click and a left click (most
users don't even know shortcuts).

That is the original
purpose of the Short URL - so burying it in the toolbox would be
counterproductive. It's for readers, rather than editors.

Like everything in the toolbox, think of permalinks and books (below) but also
"what links here" which is a fundamental tool to navigate pages.
There's no very special reason for this particular tool to be in such a bad position: again, not your fault, but it needs a fix now rather than in the future (aka never).

(in reply to the above wrangling)

1. Yes the current UI is horrible. That is bug 38863
2. Nobody sees the sidebar.
3. The bigger part of the current problem is that nobody knows what this url is for (there's no indication of it in the title part)
4. The mockup looks good (even if it is difficult to implement in js, skins etc.)
5. This tool needs to be highly visible. Other tools like collection are in the sidebar. That doesn't mean that they're visible. Probably half the people don't know about them either. Its not whether this should be put in a comparatively better place compared to other "important" extensions, but rather whether putting it in the sidebar will solve its purpose, which I don't believe it would. As has been said, nobody looks at the sidebar.

So, outright removal of duplication is needed, but not necessarily from the title line. If a non-obtrusive method of incorporating this prominently (near the title) can be found, the title implementation may be kept and the sidebar link removed.

The problem is that it looks like https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%8D. That's a title that is one word long. This is two words long: https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D_%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%9F%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A3%E0%AF%81

See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1450 for original discussion on the 'need'

Sure, in fact I'm not saying to disable the extension.
Linking current version is also (almost) impossible, without the toolbox link... but there it is.

And nobody uses the cur link from the toolbox :P

(In reply to comment #11)

And nobody uses the cur link from the toolbox :P

Those who need it, do. (Do you have clicktracking data to say the opposite, or that this feature is special?)
"Short URL" is quite a universal feature in the web, people needing it will just look around and immediately found it in the toolbox, while the URL under the title could be anything and other toolbox links are more unfortunate because they are also a bit hard to explain.

I'm sure this data can be obtained from the squid logs

(In reply to comment #8)

(in reply to the above wrangling)

1. Yes the current UI is horrible. That is bug 38863

Ofcourse, the custom javascript was slightly better infact.

5. This tool needs to be highly visible. Other tools like collection are in the

sidebar. That doesn't mean that they're visible. Probably half the people don't
know about them either. Its not whether this should be put in a comparatively
better place compared to other "important" extensions, but rather whether
putting it in the sidebar will solve its purpose, which I don't believe it
would. As has been said, nobody looks at the sidebar.

Agree. It needs to be visible, but should not be very obtrusive.

So, outright removal of duplication is needed, but not necessarily from the
title line. If a non-obtrusive method of incorporating this prominently (near
the title) can be found, the title implementation may be kept and the sidebar
link removed.

+1

(In reply to comment #7)

Ok, what's the problem? You still need a right click and a left click (most
users don't even know shortcuts).

I think this will be the case irrespective of where the link is since we are not going to support click2copy. The main problem that this link solves is not that as well. People are getting to know shortcuts, atleast control-c / control-v :)

Restoring original summary: the new one would make it a duplicate of bug 38863, of which this is a proposed solution. WONTFIX it, if you have better ideas...

Marking as duplicate, since there is a better solution outlined at bug 38863#c1

• This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 38863 ***

(In reply to comment #16)

Marking as duplicate, since there is a better solution outlined at bug
38863#c1

Does this mean that you have plans to implement that solution in the foreseeable future?

Somewhere in the next month, yes (currently busy implementing WP:DRREFORM)