This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As far as I can tell, "Wikimedia list article" only exists as a short description because it is the default import from Wikidata (which has a need for this universal description). On the English Wikipedia, I can't think of a case where "Wikimedia" is better than "Wikipedia list article" – many editors have recognized this, and have manually (?) changed imported short description to say "Wikipedia" (try searching "list of" in mobile mode for examples).
Maybe there should be a bot that changes these to "Wikipedia list article", or even better, a line of code somewhere that displays "Wikipedia list article" when the short description would otherwise show to the reader as "Wikimedia list article". Thoughts? — Goszei ( talk) 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Wiki(m/p)edia list articledescriptions, so it would be good if you can start the process of getting that change approved — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I've sandboxed a version of {{ short description}} which ignores Wikipedia list article and Wikimedia list article treating them the same as "none". If this gets consensus here I plan to implement it. -- Trialpears ( talk) 11:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Since it's clear there's a consensus for the template update I've implemented it. -- Trialpears ( talk) 19:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
disambiguation pages ... do not normally need a short description? Every dab has a short description, occasionally explicit but normally provided by {{ Disambiguation}} or similar, and I'm not aware of any consensus to remove them. Certes ( talk) 16:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
This discussion on list articles seems to have become rather confused, and it's also split between here and Wikipedia talk:Shortdesc helper#Wiki*edia List Article. I suggest continuing here. Summarising, there are two suggested ways forward:
{{short description|none}}
for all Wikipedia list articles; orThe current status, as I understand it, is that 2(a) has been implemented, but that 2(b) is awaiting a more definite consensus. If a consensus emerges that option 1 is preferred, then 2(a) should be reversed.
Could we use this section to discuss the technical pros and cons of each option? As things may have moved on and opinions changed since this was previously discussed, it would help focus minds if all arguments could be re-presented here without assuming that everyone is up to date with past threads.
Wikimedia list articleand
Wikipedia list articlewith
none
where the article title starts List of ...
. The template should be returned to how it was before (2). —
GhostInTheMachine
talk to me 09:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC){{short description|none}}
is useless clutter in the wikicode; if it replaces {{short description|Wikipedia list article}}
or {{short description|Wikimedia list article}}
it is just replacing one clutter by another, only creating watchlist overload. It would be wiser to change the code of Shortdesc helper so that it no longer generates clutter, than replacing one clutter by another. This is just bots playing with one another, leaving editors caring about the encyclopedia standing by watching the bot games. Not every bot problem is sorted by creating another bot problem. Maybe just updating the program of the first bot may suffice, and leave the clutter, or remove it entirely (by the first bot, not by a competing second bot). --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 08:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC){{short description|none}}
is not clutter because then the Shortdesc helper can display an informative message telling the user that the page deliberately has no description. Though I'll block the importing of "Wikipedia list article" later this week. I can also fix shortdesc helper so option 2 can be implemented.
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 20:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)At
List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach I replaced {{short description|none}}
by {{short description|Sortable table per Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (1998) and Bach Digital}}
. Another example is
this replacement of {{short description|Wikipedia list article}}
by {{short description|Structured list, by opus number and by date of origin}}
. I think a minimal short description for a list article would indicate the list format and/or its collation principle, e.g.:
{{short description|Table}}
{{short description|Sortable table}}
{{short description|Bullet list}}
{{short description|Numbered list}}
{{short description|Structured list}}
{{short description|Sorted chronologically}}
{{short description|Sorted alphabetically}}
{{short description|Sorted by title}}
{{short description|Sorted by author}}
If a bot (or Shortdesc helper) could assist with such somewhat more meaningful short descriptions that would be very welcome. If not, this should be left to editors imho. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
{{short description|Sortable table per Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (1998) and Bach Digital}}
is far too long at 65 characters, and fails the rule to use "readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject". A better short description for
List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach would be "none".
MichaelMaggs (
talk) 10:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Now many people myself included edit short descriptions. I don't know but should we edit every mainspace article for them having short descriptions? -- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 02:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bilateral relations SD's. — Goszei ( talk) 23:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of variation in how locations are used in short descriptions, and I think we ought to try to move toward some more standardization in this area. I propose that we include a section on "Inclusion of locations" to complement our existing section on "Inclusion of dates". How is this for wording? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of geographic places is encouraged where it would improve the short description as a disambiguation, or enhance it as a descriptive annotation. This is often the case for subjects with a distinct location. Editor discretion is always needed, and in some cases there will be more important information than location to be included within the available 40 or so characters, but if space is available locations are encouraged.
Generally, locations should be included up to the narrowest geographic region widely recognizable on an international scale. To meet this criterion, a place should at minimum appear on the level 4 geography vital articles list. Here are some examples:
Topic location | Short description location component | Explanation |
---|---|---|
New York City, New York, United States | ...in New York City | The city is widely recognizable, so nothing further is needed |
Pasadena, California, United States | ...in Pasadena, California | The city is not widely recognizable, but the state is, so the country is not needed |
Yinchuan, Ningxia, China | ...in Yinchuan, Ningxia, China | Neither the city nor province are widely recognizable, so the description should include the country. |
When a place name is not unique, such as with Georgia, which is both a U.S. state and a country, additional levels should be included, even if not required by the above framework, to eliminate any ambiguity.
There is no consensus about whether or not to use abbreviations such as U.S. in short descriptions. When doing so, as always, following the MOS guideline on abbreviations.
Some previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Short descriptions/Archive 3#Standardizing style for geography in short descriptions. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
in New York, United States;
in Yinchuan, China) when a mention of the city is needed and simply "in [Country]" (
in the United States;
in China) when mention of a particular city is not needed. Here are my reasons:
...in Pasadena, California:
...in Yinchuan, Ningxia, China:
...in Springfield, United Statesis sufficient is the vast majority of cases.
Mountain in the Himalayas. Regarding whether or not to list states/provinces, I know a lot of other countries don't tend to include them as often as states are included for U.S. places, so I wouldn't have a problem with
in Yinchuan, China. But
in Pasadena, United Statesor would just be weird, and as you note
in Springfield, United Stateswould be ambiguous, which would hamper the disambiguatory purpose of short descriptions. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Grommet manufacturing company in Wyoming, United Statesmight be truncated for a mobile reader to
Grommet manufacturing company in Wyoming, but showing
United Statesto visitors with wider screens doesn't hurt mobile users. Certes ( talk) 00:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Community college in Californiarather than
Community college in Pasadena, California. The thing, though, is that it's very rarely 100% established in just the title alone that the title refers to a place. To someone totally unfamiliar with Southern California, they might reasonably think the college might be named after a wealthy 19th-century philanthropist named Mr. Pasadena. So even for that I'd still prefer to include "Pasadena" in the short description. For something like Swarthmore College, the benefit is even clearer, as there's no indication at all in the title that "Swarthmore" is a place unless you bring prior knowledge of Pennsylvania geography.
Skyscraper in Manhattan, the Chrystler Building as
Skyscraper in New York City, and One World Trade Center as
Skyscraper in New York, New York, U.S.{{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
There's still pressure here to add more and more "necessary" text for reasons of purported clarity, with little or no regard for WP:SDSHORT. You can't have absolute clarity in detailed geographic description while avoiding bias per WP:AUDIENCE without complex multi-part wording. Nothing needs to be done. WP:SDSHORT already allows for some level of flexibility in cases where location is an essential element that needs to be included. Recommendations to add more and more text will be followed, even with a disclaimer that "editors can overrule any of it any time they like". MichaelMaggs ( talk) 09:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This proposal is quite different from the recommendation to include dates. That very clearly applies only when dates can be added while still complying with WP:SDSHORT. Given the number of characters needed to define locations with absolute clarity, following this proposal will almost always result in having to ignore WP:SDSHORT. We shouldn't be adding new guidance which is internally inconsistent with the existing, nor which will - even if not intentionally - override well-discussed consensus wording. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 09:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I have recently had problems with editors who systematicaly remove articles (A, An, The) from the beginning of short descriptions. This is often correct, but in many cases, in mathematics, the resulting short description is either nonsensical or does not describes the subject of the article. For example, in Jordan curve theorem, the short desc was "A closed curve divides the plane into two regions" which is a correct description of the statement. An editor has removed the initial article, resulting in "Closed curve divides the plane into two regions" which is grammatically incorect and nonsensical. Another recent example is Jacobian conjecture where the article has been removed (and reverted by myself) from the short desc "A polynomial map is invertible if and only if its Jacobian determinant is a nonzero constant". This kind of problem can occur frequently in mathematics, where the numerous articles about theorems (often named "somebody's theorem") require a short description that describes the theorem.
This is for this reason that I changed, in the project page, "avoid initial articles (A, An, The)" into "avoid initial articles (A, An, The), unless this changes the meaning (see WP:TITLEFORMAT)". The last link is here because there can be a similar problem with article titles.
As I have been reverted, I open this thread in order to find a consensus for a formulation that avoids good-faith disruptive edits. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Where are these editors coming from? I've seen the same good faith but problematic edits myself, as if someone is encouraging editors to remove the initial article without even considering whether the rest of the text should be edited at the same time to comply with WP:SDFORMAT. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 16:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I view most SDs as fitting the form "⟨article title⟩ is a ⟨short desc⟩". That's why SDs are usually noun phrases. So for example Jordan curve theorem is a mathematical theorem rather than Jordan curve theorem is a A closed curve divides the plane into two regions or Jordan curve theorem is a closed curve divides the plane into two regions. On the other hand, if someone were to search for "curve theorem", it would be more helpful to see descriptions that distinguish the various "somebody curve theorem"s, rather than having them all labelled "mathematical theorem". Theorem that a closed curve divides the plane into two regions would fit both but is longer. Pelagic ( talk) 09:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
most SDs as fitting the form "⟨article title⟩ is a ⟨short desc⟩"should probably be made policy. JBchrch talk 00:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The following seven templates have been nominated for deletion.
The documentation for this template is clear that none of the aliases should be used — other templates, modules and gadgets explicitly search for the "short description" template by name.
You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
[[wp:shortdes]] is not working in edit summary, is this mormal? - Agyaanapan ( talk) 02:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I recently reverted this unexplained erroneous SD. When I raised the issue with the responsible editor, I was told:
"I intentionally imported that wikidata unedited for that article. it is an example of how invisibly horrible those values are. by importing editors can see it and fix it. reverting such helps nothing. fix it if it is wrong."
Should erroneous SDs on Wikidata be imported without attempting to correct them? Thanks. (Obviously, I was unaware of the erroneous Wikidata item when I reverted it, and will try to double check this if I see a nonsense SD in the future.) BilCat ( talk) 23:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I changed description in COVID-19 pandemic in Israel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from "Ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in Israel" to "Ongoing viral outbreak" to avoid repeating the title, because as far as I understand, that's the point of descriptions – to provide further explanation about the scope of article in addition to the title. User Debresser is reverting me for two days now saying there's no consensus, although there's no consensus for his revision either – no one but me and him is involved. I'm asking contributors involved in descriptions to weigh in. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 21:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
{{short description|none}}
is one option. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The Android app has a feature where it presents the user with articles needing a short description which can then be added. However, I'm finding that it occasionally breaks infoboxes without this being apparent in the app. The first I know of it is when someone repairs the damage. There are examples of it in this edit and this one.
The issue seems to be that the app doesn't put the {{short description}}
template on a line of its own and this somehow stops the infobox being recognised. What appears is {| |} surrounding part of an HTML tag and the code for the infobox, with the inner {{ }}
stripped out. It's cured by inserting a Return after the {{short description}}
.
Really the bug needs fixing, but in the meantime it might be worth specifying that {{short description}}
must be on a separate line, assuming this won't break anything else.
Musiconeologist (
talk) 12:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, sorry but I'm completely confused right now... Why isn't there a version of this page in the German Wikipedia? Also I can't find any information about how short descriptions work in the German Wikipedia at all... But they seem to be done somehow...
Does the German Wikipedia use a different approach/mechanism for that? (Please tell me they don't :/)
Thx, S3rvus ( talk) 07:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Not really useful as a short description. Currently live at FV105 Sultan. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
{{{type|Weapon}}}
will not evaluate to "Weapon" when |type=
is present but empty. Silly template code(r). –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
When wanting to abort an ongoing edit of the SD box, one always has to use the "Cancel" button.
It would be much more convenient to be able to leave the box by simply hitting the "Escape" key on the computer, which is the normal way to abort any other action in (almost) all programs. -- Uli Elch ( talk) 09:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Starting with upper case or lower case should be harmonized between Wikidata. See Wikidata:Help_talk:Description#Capitalization-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Is this edit, where the short description is set to "Survey of the topic" of any use or should it be more descriptive? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Each article has a description already - it's an article title. Where's the science proving that 40 characters is optimum to allow identification fo the contents of an article, in supplement to its title? Most of the short descriptions I have seen added to articles are either fatuous restatements of the title, or just plain hopelessly wrong guesses. The short descriptions are just useless clutter. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 22:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The article 1997–98 ACB season has a manual short description "Spanish basketball season", but is diplaying "Sports season". I assume it's an issue with {{ Infobox sports season}}. Could somebody take a look, please? MichaelMaggs ( talk) 08:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox sports season}}
is one of the infoboxes that automatically adds an SD. If you don't like two descriptions, one approach is to remove the local one from the article (e.g., use {{
Short description|none}}
). Or have I completely missed the point of your question? —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk /
edits) 10:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
Short description}}
should always override a default generated by an infobox, but it's not happening on that page as the SD gadget shows "Sports season". I guess it may need a template editor to add noreplace=.
MichaelMaggs (
talk) 10:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
.shortdescription
content in a little box (or boxes) on the article (desktop on my, um, desktop). I guess Michael's "precedence" is what he sees on his mobile phone. Cool to know how to fix it, though. Thanks,—
JohnFromPinckney (
talk /
edits) 00:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join a discussion at
Template talk:Infobox writer § Proposed short description.
The following is another user's helpful summary of the long discussion:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As far as I can tell, "Wikimedia list article" only exists as a short description because it is the default import from Wikidata (which has a need for this universal description). On the English Wikipedia, I can't think of a case where "Wikimedia" is better than "Wikipedia list article" – many editors have recognized this, and have manually (?) changed imported short description to say "Wikipedia" (try searching "list of" in mobile mode for examples).
Maybe there should be a bot that changes these to "Wikipedia list article", or even better, a line of code somewhere that displays "Wikipedia list article" when the short description would otherwise show to the reader as "Wikimedia list article". Thoughts? — Goszei ( talk) 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Wiki(m/p)edia list articledescriptions, so it would be good if you can start the process of getting that change approved — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I've sandboxed a version of {{ short description}} which ignores Wikipedia list article and Wikimedia list article treating them the same as "none". If this gets consensus here I plan to implement it. -- Trialpears ( talk) 11:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Since it's clear there's a consensus for the template update I've implemented it. -- Trialpears ( talk) 19:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
disambiguation pages ... do not normally need a short description? Every dab has a short description, occasionally explicit but normally provided by {{ Disambiguation}} or similar, and I'm not aware of any consensus to remove them. Certes ( talk) 16:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
This discussion on list articles seems to have become rather confused, and it's also split between here and Wikipedia talk:Shortdesc helper#Wiki*edia List Article. I suggest continuing here. Summarising, there are two suggested ways forward:
{{short description|none}}
for all Wikipedia list articles; orThe current status, as I understand it, is that 2(a) has been implemented, but that 2(b) is awaiting a more definite consensus. If a consensus emerges that option 1 is preferred, then 2(a) should be reversed.
Could we use this section to discuss the technical pros and cons of each option? As things may have moved on and opinions changed since this was previously discussed, it would help focus minds if all arguments could be re-presented here without assuming that everyone is up to date with past threads.
Wikimedia list articleand
Wikipedia list articlewith
none
where the article title starts List of ...
. The template should be returned to how it was before (2). —
GhostInTheMachine
talk to me 09:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC){{short description|none}}
is useless clutter in the wikicode; if it replaces {{short description|Wikipedia list article}}
or {{short description|Wikimedia list article}}
it is just replacing one clutter by another, only creating watchlist overload. It would be wiser to change the code of Shortdesc helper so that it no longer generates clutter, than replacing one clutter by another. This is just bots playing with one another, leaving editors caring about the encyclopedia standing by watching the bot games. Not every bot problem is sorted by creating another bot problem. Maybe just updating the program of the first bot may suffice, and leave the clutter, or remove it entirely (by the first bot, not by a competing second bot). --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 08:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC){{short description|none}}
is not clutter because then the Shortdesc helper can display an informative message telling the user that the page deliberately has no description. Though I'll block the importing of "Wikipedia list article" later this week. I can also fix shortdesc helper so option 2 can be implemented.
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 20:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)At
List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach I replaced {{short description|none}}
by {{short description|Sortable table per Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (1998) and Bach Digital}}
. Another example is
this replacement of {{short description|Wikipedia list article}}
by {{short description|Structured list, by opus number and by date of origin}}
. I think a minimal short description for a list article would indicate the list format and/or its collation principle, e.g.:
{{short description|Table}}
{{short description|Sortable table}}
{{short description|Bullet list}}
{{short description|Numbered list}}
{{short description|Structured list}}
{{short description|Sorted chronologically}}
{{short description|Sorted alphabetically}}
{{short description|Sorted by title}}
{{short description|Sorted by author}}
If a bot (or Shortdesc helper) could assist with such somewhat more meaningful short descriptions that would be very welcome. If not, this should be left to editors imho. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
{{short description|Sortable table per Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (1998) and Bach Digital}}
is far too long at 65 characters, and fails the rule to use "readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject". A better short description for
List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach would be "none".
MichaelMaggs (
talk) 10:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Now many people myself included edit short descriptions. I don't know but should we edit every mainspace article for them having short descriptions? -- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 02:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bilateral relations SD's. — Goszei ( talk) 23:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of variation in how locations are used in short descriptions, and I think we ought to try to move toward some more standardization in this area. I propose that we include a section on "Inclusion of locations" to complement our existing section on "Inclusion of dates". How is this for wording? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of geographic places is encouraged where it would improve the short description as a disambiguation, or enhance it as a descriptive annotation. This is often the case for subjects with a distinct location. Editor discretion is always needed, and in some cases there will be more important information than location to be included within the available 40 or so characters, but if space is available locations are encouraged.
Generally, locations should be included up to the narrowest geographic region widely recognizable on an international scale. To meet this criterion, a place should at minimum appear on the level 4 geography vital articles list. Here are some examples:
Topic location | Short description location component | Explanation |
---|---|---|
New York City, New York, United States | ...in New York City | The city is widely recognizable, so nothing further is needed |
Pasadena, California, United States | ...in Pasadena, California | The city is not widely recognizable, but the state is, so the country is not needed |
Yinchuan, Ningxia, China | ...in Yinchuan, Ningxia, China | Neither the city nor province are widely recognizable, so the description should include the country. |
When a place name is not unique, such as with Georgia, which is both a U.S. state and a country, additional levels should be included, even if not required by the above framework, to eliminate any ambiguity.
There is no consensus about whether or not to use abbreviations such as U.S. in short descriptions. When doing so, as always, following the MOS guideline on abbreviations.
Some previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Short descriptions/Archive 3#Standardizing style for geography in short descriptions. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
in New York, United States;
in Yinchuan, China) when a mention of the city is needed and simply "in [Country]" (
in the United States;
in China) when mention of a particular city is not needed. Here are my reasons:
...in Pasadena, California:
...in Yinchuan, Ningxia, China:
...in Springfield, United Statesis sufficient is the vast majority of cases.
Mountain in the Himalayas. Regarding whether or not to list states/provinces, I know a lot of other countries don't tend to include them as often as states are included for U.S. places, so I wouldn't have a problem with
in Yinchuan, China. But
in Pasadena, United Statesor would just be weird, and as you note
in Springfield, United Stateswould be ambiguous, which would hamper the disambiguatory purpose of short descriptions. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Grommet manufacturing company in Wyoming, United Statesmight be truncated for a mobile reader to
Grommet manufacturing company in Wyoming, but showing
United Statesto visitors with wider screens doesn't hurt mobile users. Certes ( talk) 00:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Community college in Californiarather than
Community college in Pasadena, California. The thing, though, is that it's very rarely 100% established in just the title alone that the title refers to a place. To someone totally unfamiliar with Southern California, they might reasonably think the college might be named after a wealthy 19th-century philanthropist named Mr. Pasadena. So even for that I'd still prefer to include "Pasadena" in the short description. For something like Swarthmore College, the benefit is even clearer, as there's no indication at all in the title that "Swarthmore" is a place unless you bring prior knowledge of Pennsylvania geography.
Skyscraper in Manhattan, the Chrystler Building as
Skyscraper in New York City, and One World Trade Center as
Skyscraper in New York, New York, U.S.{{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
There's still pressure here to add more and more "necessary" text for reasons of purported clarity, with little or no regard for WP:SDSHORT. You can't have absolute clarity in detailed geographic description while avoiding bias per WP:AUDIENCE without complex multi-part wording. Nothing needs to be done. WP:SDSHORT already allows for some level of flexibility in cases where location is an essential element that needs to be included. Recommendations to add more and more text will be followed, even with a disclaimer that "editors can overrule any of it any time they like". MichaelMaggs ( talk) 09:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This proposal is quite different from the recommendation to include dates. That very clearly applies only when dates can be added while still complying with WP:SDSHORT. Given the number of characters needed to define locations with absolute clarity, following this proposal will almost always result in having to ignore WP:SDSHORT. We shouldn't be adding new guidance which is internally inconsistent with the existing, nor which will - even if not intentionally - override well-discussed consensus wording. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 09:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I have recently had problems with editors who systematicaly remove articles (A, An, The) from the beginning of short descriptions. This is often correct, but in many cases, in mathematics, the resulting short description is either nonsensical or does not describes the subject of the article. For example, in Jordan curve theorem, the short desc was "A closed curve divides the plane into two regions" which is a correct description of the statement. An editor has removed the initial article, resulting in "Closed curve divides the plane into two regions" which is grammatically incorect and nonsensical. Another recent example is Jacobian conjecture where the article has been removed (and reverted by myself) from the short desc "A polynomial map is invertible if and only if its Jacobian determinant is a nonzero constant". This kind of problem can occur frequently in mathematics, where the numerous articles about theorems (often named "somebody's theorem") require a short description that describes the theorem.
This is for this reason that I changed, in the project page, "avoid initial articles (A, An, The)" into "avoid initial articles (A, An, The), unless this changes the meaning (see WP:TITLEFORMAT)". The last link is here because there can be a similar problem with article titles.
As I have been reverted, I open this thread in order to find a consensus for a formulation that avoids good-faith disruptive edits. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Where are these editors coming from? I've seen the same good faith but problematic edits myself, as if someone is encouraging editors to remove the initial article without even considering whether the rest of the text should be edited at the same time to comply with WP:SDFORMAT. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 16:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I view most SDs as fitting the form "⟨article title⟩ is a ⟨short desc⟩". That's why SDs are usually noun phrases. So for example Jordan curve theorem is a mathematical theorem rather than Jordan curve theorem is a A closed curve divides the plane into two regions or Jordan curve theorem is a closed curve divides the plane into two regions. On the other hand, if someone were to search for "curve theorem", it would be more helpful to see descriptions that distinguish the various "somebody curve theorem"s, rather than having them all labelled "mathematical theorem". Theorem that a closed curve divides the plane into two regions would fit both but is longer. Pelagic ( talk) 09:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
most SDs as fitting the form "⟨article title⟩ is a ⟨short desc⟩"should probably be made policy. JBchrch talk 00:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The following seven templates have been nominated for deletion.
The documentation for this template is clear that none of the aliases should be used — other templates, modules and gadgets explicitly search for the "short description" template by name.
You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
[[wp:shortdes]] is not working in edit summary, is this mormal? - Agyaanapan ( talk) 02:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I recently reverted this unexplained erroneous SD. When I raised the issue with the responsible editor, I was told:
"I intentionally imported that wikidata unedited for that article. it is an example of how invisibly horrible those values are. by importing editors can see it and fix it. reverting such helps nothing. fix it if it is wrong."
Should erroneous SDs on Wikidata be imported without attempting to correct them? Thanks. (Obviously, I was unaware of the erroneous Wikidata item when I reverted it, and will try to double check this if I see a nonsense SD in the future.) BilCat ( talk) 23:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I changed description in COVID-19 pandemic in Israel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from "Ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in Israel" to "Ongoing viral outbreak" to avoid repeating the title, because as far as I understand, that's the point of descriptions – to provide further explanation about the scope of article in addition to the title. User Debresser is reverting me for two days now saying there's no consensus, although there's no consensus for his revision either – no one but me and him is involved. I'm asking contributors involved in descriptions to weigh in. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 21:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
{{short description|none}}
is one option. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The Android app has a feature where it presents the user with articles needing a short description which can then be added. However, I'm finding that it occasionally breaks infoboxes without this being apparent in the app. The first I know of it is when someone repairs the damage. There are examples of it in this edit and this one.
The issue seems to be that the app doesn't put the {{short description}}
template on a line of its own and this somehow stops the infobox being recognised. What appears is {| |} surrounding part of an HTML tag and the code for the infobox, with the inner {{ }}
stripped out. It's cured by inserting a Return after the {{short description}}
.
Really the bug needs fixing, but in the meantime it might be worth specifying that {{short description}}
must be on a separate line, assuming this won't break anything else.
Musiconeologist (
talk) 12:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, sorry but I'm completely confused right now... Why isn't there a version of this page in the German Wikipedia? Also I can't find any information about how short descriptions work in the German Wikipedia at all... But they seem to be done somehow...
Does the German Wikipedia use a different approach/mechanism for that? (Please tell me they don't :/)
Thx, S3rvus ( talk) 07:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Not really useful as a short description. Currently live at FV105 Sultan. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
{{{type|Weapon}}}
will not evaluate to "Weapon" when |type=
is present but empty. Silly template code(r). –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
When wanting to abort an ongoing edit of the SD box, one always has to use the "Cancel" button.
It would be much more convenient to be able to leave the box by simply hitting the "Escape" key on the computer, which is the normal way to abort any other action in (almost) all programs. -- Uli Elch ( talk) 09:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Starting with upper case or lower case should be harmonized between Wikidata. See Wikidata:Help_talk:Description#Capitalization-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Is this edit, where the short description is set to "Survey of the topic" of any use or should it be more descriptive? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Each article has a description already - it's an article title. Where's the science proving that 40 characters is optimum to allow identification fo the contents of an article, in supplement to its title? Most of the short descriptions I have seen added to articles are either fatuous restatements of the title, or just plain hopelessly wrong guesses. The short descriptions are just useless clutter. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 22:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The article 1997–98 ACB season has a manual short description "Spanish basketball season", but is diplaying "Sports season". I assume it's an issue with {{ Infobox sports season}}. Could somebody take a look, please? MichaelMaggs ( talk) 08:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox sports season}}
is one of the infoboxes that automatically adds an SD. If you don't like two descriptions, one approach is to remove the local one from the article (e.g., use {{
Short description|none}}
). Or have I completely missed the point of your question? —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk /
edits) 10:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
Short description}}
should always override a default generated by an infobox, but it's not happening on that page as the SD gadget shows "Sports season". I guess it may need a template editor to add noreplace=.
MichaelMaggs (
talk) 10:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
.shortdescription
content in a little box (or boxes) on the article (desktop on my, um, desktop). I guess Michael's "precedence" is what he sees on his mobile phone. Cool to know how to fix it, though. Thanks,—
JohnFromPinckney (
talk /
edits) 00:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join a discussion at
Template talk:Infobox writer § Proposed short description.
The following is another user's helpful summary of the long discussion: