Page MenuHomePhabricator

Tiny url like system for Wikimedia sites
Closed, ResolvedPublic


I'd like to propose a schema for a redirect system for all Mediawiki sites for improved QR code compatibility. My proposal has several parts.

Version 1 is the simplest QR code variant with 21x21 ROWxCOL's. With high error correction this allows a total of 17 (30% correction)/27 (25% correction) alpha-numeric characters (0 to 9, A to Z,
space, $ % * + - . / :). Version 2 25x25 with 34 (30% correction)/48 (25% correction).

Article titles can be light years long so a shorter redirect would be helpful. However even something as simple as has 13 characters to begin with. I don't know if is under WMF control but would be 18 characters. The remaining characters would be used for the redirect itself.

Each page on wikis have a page ID, a decimal value. However these on some wikis can get fairly large. En.wp has 40,592,460 pages for example. This can however be expressed in base 36 since QR codes will have to be alpha-numeric anyways. So instead of 8 base 10 digits same number would be expressed with 5 base 36 digits (O61CC).

Furthermore with an encoding of something like PLLCCCCCC 9 characters would be enough to determine the Project (Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikisource, etc - 36 total projects), Language (en, fr, es, ru, etc - 36 * 36 = 1296 languages), Code-word for Article ID (36^6=2,176,782,336 possible IDs).

So... Possibly with 27 characters would fit 25% correction version 1 scheme.

Once this is implemented perhaps WMUK's QRpedia may be easier to implement.

This relates to:

I realize the above link may become obsolete with archiving... :p

Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement
See Also:



Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.Nov 22 2014, 2:10 AM
bzimport set Reference to bz54459.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).

Presumably this bug is related to bug 30861 and bug 42085.

I believe you should draft an [[mw:RFC]] if you're serious about pursuing this idea.

Certainly. Thank you for sharing the two bugs. I will make use of them on my RFC posting.

(In reply to comment #1)

Presumably this bug is related to bug 30861 and bug 42085.

Or rather, it's a sure duplicate. Like all the sibling bugs, it doesn't yet provide requirements or at least conclusions on what sort of software it would need (e.g. why not Shorturl, after some UI cleanup?).

I fail to see the big difference to bug 42085 here, hence marking as a dup.

  • This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 42085 ***