Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

"Wikimedia list article"

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)

Replacing it with "Wikipedia list article" would be technically easy and in my opinion a definite improvement to the status quo. Honestly though, I think removing them entirely would be optimal. They contain no information and are just clutter. --Trialpears (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I could replace them all with "Wikipedia list article" if there's consensus to do so, but now that we have "None" available as an option I think that would be better. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The description seems redundant. The title usually begins with "List of", and neither "Wikipedia" nor "article" helps distinguish the page from our other content. Certes (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs The plan has always been to use a bot to clean up the redundant Wiki(m/p)edia list article descriptions, 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)

I haven't tested it, but support the idea. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cunning. Are there any other common useless SDs that could be filtered out in the same update? I can see a few candidates, such as "Wikipedia bibliography", but nothing blatant enough to remove without discussion. Certes (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

"Disambiguation page providing links to topics that could be referred to by the same search term" is the current short description for DAB pages. — Goszei (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC) On closer inspection, I see that it is emitted by Template:Disambiguation page short description and that there was quite the discussion about the wording, so its not without controversy (perhaps ripe for another discussion, though). — Goszei (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Some repeated descriptions may have been created as easy wins to tick the 2 million box for removing WMF interference. They have served their purpose and can go. However, it is useful to show that, say, Mercury is a disambiguation page; some readers may expect an article on the planet (like Venus) or the deity (like Apollo). Certes (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC) There is now a discussion on this matter at Template talk:Disambiguation page short description, if anyone is interested. — Goszei (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC) "Wikimedia subject-area collaboration" is an SD that seems to be often hard-coded for WikiProjects with {{Short description}}. It could be changed to "Wikipedia subject-area collaboration". — Goszei (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC) "Subject-area collaboration"? We know that we are on Wikipedia — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 23:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC) This is not on the table for the template due to the low number of articles, but here is a list of pages that use it. --Trialpears (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC) As Trialpears stated this is admittedly outside the scope of the discussion here, but there are around 600 pages in play. I think "Wiki(m|p)edia" should be retained to maintain a strong boundary in search results between mainspace and Wikipediaspace (which is not the case for the lists and DAB situations we have been discussing). — Goszei (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Generally, yes. Even then, the namespace: prefix on the title should be enough to distinguish a project page from an article. Disambiguation pages might be an exception as they're not articles but Wikipedia-specific navigation: the list's qualifying criterion is being mentioned in Wikipedia rather than any physical quality such as mountains over 5000 m. Certes (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC) I feel that even though "Wikipedia" can have some value it's basically never worth it if some of our readers start seeing a truncated description. I've seen truncation happen after as few as 33 characters before. --Trialpears (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I support Trialpears's proposal, as well. — Goszei (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I support the proposal to hide or disable a consensus list of short descriptions using the module, even if the initial population of that list is just "Wiki[mp]edia list article" and "none". That list should be documented here and at the template's documentation page. The articles should retain their short description templates; if they do not, some well-meaning person will add a worse one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Just modifying the template to hide descriptions matching some list is not the best way forward. This breaks the Short Description Helper. There has been no examination of possible side-effects on the current apps or conflicts with the API. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The apps and API don't care about the {{Short description}} template directly, but rather the magic word {{SHORTDESC:}}. Since this magic word isn't added in the template MediaWiki sees no short description. This can be confirmed by looking at the information page for an article with one of these descriptions (like this one) where you will see that the Local description field is missing. Scripts and gadgets on the other hand looks for the template and not the magic word. This do require a deliberate update. Since the creator of shortdesc helper hasn't been active the past two weeks and didn't respond to my ping I've made a patch and edit request. --Trialpears (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Since it's clear there's a consensus for the template update I've implemented it. --Trialpears (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Did the change only hide the display of the SD under the article title on mobile apps? If we really want to treat SD's as "none", we need to prevent display on the search dropdowns, and also in Shortdesc Helper (which displays "This page has deliberately no description." when the template is set to "none"). I didn't check the app, but the change didn't seem to have an effect on desktop. If it can't be done through this template, perhpas we need a bot task, and/or to speak with the Shortdesc Helper dev? — Goszei (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The template treats it exactly the same as none. Shortdesc Helper however does not since it hasn't been updated. I will make sure that is fixed. With regards to you still seeing descriptions that shouldn't be there, I think it's simply a caching issue. With over 3 million uses any change takes a while to propagate, and I wouldn't be surprised if MediaWiki does extra for short description. --Trialpears (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The Helper was changed on 1 March to handle "None" correctly — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes it handles "none" correctly but not "Wikimedia list article" which it per this discussion should handle in the same way as "none". It does not automatically treat this edgecase in the same way as the template and the script has to be updated to account for it. --Trialpears (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: Did you mean to add to Wikipedia:Short description‎‎ that 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)

That may not have been the best wording. I was attempting to suggest to editors that they don't normally need to worry about adding SDs to DAB pages because they should always have a reasonable default (see also the section below). Happy for someone to revert or improve. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There seems to have been a small bug introduced with this change: check this revision. When the short description is immediately followed by a DISPLAYTITLE, there is a blank whitespace created at the top of the article. I tested to see if there was whitespace when transcluding the previous revision (which I copied to my sandbox), and there isn't (so it was definitely introduced in the most recent edit). — Goszei (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit doesn't introduce any white space, but it doesn't stop the parser from looking at the displaytitle and short description lines think there are two empty lines here meaning it should make a new line. I have no idea how to fix this currently but I hope I will find something in the parser documentation. --Trialpears (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

A solution is to add an empty div instead of literally nothing when it shouldn't generate any output. Will probably fix a few weird whitespace issues from none as well. --Trialpears (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

We should fix this issue sooner rather than later, so editors don't start doing strange things to wikitext to get rid of the space. — Goszei (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Goszei, Yep the current situation where neither solutions is fully implemented is the worst of both worlds. I'm just not looking forward to running a bot doing 75k edits that could be avoided by one edit to the script. Especially not following Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention. It will also take a long time due to bot throttles and the amount of edits, and my bot is already running a short description adding task which will be interrupted. Courtesy ping to GhostInTheMachine --Trialpears (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the current situation is rather messy. The best way forward is to return the SD template to the stable version and get the bot working to replace the list descriptions. If the bot needs to take a while it does not hurt as we know it will be tidy in the end — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

BRFA filed --Trialpears (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Refocusing the discussion

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:

1. Use a bot to set {{short description|none}} for all Wikipedia list articles; or
2. (a) Leave the existing descriptions "Wikimedia list article" (and "Wikipedia list article" where that exists) alone, and amend the {{short description}} template to treat them as being identical to "none"; (b) Make appropriate changes to Shortdesc helper, and elsewhere if needed, to support that.

The 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.

Poll

• Neutral. I'm not knowledgeable enough to have a strong opinion which should be technically preferred, but I have volunteered to run a bot to implement option 1 if that is chosen. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral Great initiative! Both implementations achieve the objective. Option 1 requires significantly more work and won't take care of future additions/imports of the descriptions if the bot isn't rerun while option 2 could possible cause minor confusion for editors adding such a description with regards to why it isn't working. On the whole I don't find one solution more attractive than the other. I can also take care of a bot if so desired. --Trialpears (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• The bot should replace Wikimedia list article and Wikipedia list article with 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)
• I am more amenable to a bot solution to avoid the editor confusion alluded to by Trialpears. I suspect that a bot run combined with a removal of the "Wikimedia list article" import in the SDHelper would reduce the number of new additions to almost none, or at least to a manageable level. — Goszei (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  After reading the objections raised to the bot task, I now support option 2 as the way forward. It is very important that SDHelper be changed accordingly and in a coordinated manner, to avoid confusion like Sdkb encountered below. — Goszei (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Malfunctioning shortdesc helper: Whatever you all have done here has broken WP:Shortdesc helper. It appeared to me that List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events had no short description, so I tried to import the Wikidata one, changing p to m, but since the article already had "Wikipedia list article", it added it a second time. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sdkb, it has now been removed since it's clear the bot solution is somewhat preferred. I just didn't want to mess too much with the template since I know from experience that it can take ages for changes to be deployed if multiple edits occur before the last edit has been fully deployed (which takes days). I'm now cleaning up double descriptions. --Trialpears (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Trialpears, okay, glad to hear it's being resolved; thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not suitable for bot operation – {{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)
•  Comment: Seeking more input from those users ( Certes —Jonesey95 —mfb —Galobtter) who haven't yet commented in this subsection but who have shown an interest in the subject, either in the discussion above, at BRFA, or on the template discussion page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  2. is the pragmatic line of least disruption. The purist approach is to recognise that the worse-than-useless "This list is a list" SDs have achieved their purpose (ticking the 2,000,000-SD box to regain control of our content) and these pages shouldn't have SDs or {{short description}} templates. 1. is a decent compromise between them. I don't see a strong case for or against either approach. If you twist my arm I'll go for 2., as it renders any future manual additions of "list article" SDs harmless. Certes (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Are the imports of "Wiki*edia list article" stopped? If not then a bot run is just useless watchlist spam. I'm in favor of option 2, together with encouraging users to change this to a more useful description. Once it's clear that we won't get more useless descriptions it might be the right time for a bot run to remove what's left. --mfb (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• IMO the "clutter" of {{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)
• A few points: Template:Annotated link should be changed to avoid things like Machine learning#See also (last two entries). The "none" parameter in shortdesc produces in desktop version a "Missing pagedescription" at the top of the page in desktop mode (e.g. at List of days of the year) if you have "preferences -> gadgets -> "Show page description beneath the page title (not compatible with Page assessments gadget)" enabled). And Shortdesc helper still imports these poor descriptions (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_2020&curid=59566466&diff=1024309171&oldid=1005288662 here). Whatever solution is chosen to get rid of these gets my support, as they are only confusing instead of helpful. "Wikipedia list artice", whill marginally better, should be treated the same as "Wikimedia list article".

Examples of actually meaningful short descriptions for list articles

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)

None of this is affected in any way by the bot. Later manual improvements are always possible, and are indeed welcomed. Where manual improvements have already been made to the initial wording "Wikimedia/Wikipedia list article" the bot doesn't touch them. You might like to review the guidance at SD:CONTENT WP:SDCONTENT, though, as {{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)

@MichaelMaggs: did you actually click the SD:CONTENT link? It shows nothing useful in this context (at least not in a language I can read & understand). At English Wikipedia "SD" indicates "Speedy Deletion" (see WP:SD), also totally unrelated to what we're talking about here. What are you actually trying to say? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see you probably meant WP:SDCONTENT; none of that affects the basis of the proposal in this subsection. Note that you misrepresent WP:SDFORMAT ("... this can be exceeded when necessary" – my emphasis). Whatever, your comment illustrates, imho quite convincingly, that there is no consensus whatsoever about anything regarding bot operations in this area. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I did. Sorry for the typo. To repeat: nothing in this new subsection you have started affects bot operations in any way. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree: the bot operations would only make sense if and when changing something meaningless to something meaningful. The section illustrates that meaningful short descriptions are possible in this area. So this strengthens the argument that no bot should be let loose changing something meaningless to something as meaningless. But as said: disagreement all around, or, in normal language: no consensus whatsoever to let another bot loose in this area. Seems clear that you would like that your opinion represents consensus: it doesn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I consider it reasonable to assume there was a silent consensus when no objections were raised over a week of discussion (which should be reconsidered if objections arise). Since you (and mfb) have raised objections it is now clear there isn't a consensus. I will not do anything more with the bot before it's clear there is a consensus which will involve a formal closure by someone uninvolved. It is perfectly possible for the actions before you found the discussion to be reasonable and for it to be clear there isn't a consensus now. It's a sad reality that many discussions with significant impact don't get many participants and having as many as there have been opining on something like whether using a bot or template is the better implementation is a rare thing. --Trialpears (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said in the BRFA: "Can't you people read a discussion and see that it goes in all sorts of directions without the least bit of consensus? That is not a basis for a bot task as if there was some sort of approval for the idea behind the task..." But we're going off-topic in this subsection: can meaningless short descriptions of list pages be turned into meaningful short descriptions? If yes, can a bot assist in such operations? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Should every mainspace article have short descriptions?

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)

Most should, yes. Details are on this page: Wikipedia:Short description. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Many articles have a standard short description provided by a template such as an infobox, and may not need an explicit {{short description}} template at the top of the article. Certes (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bilateral relations SD's

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bilateral relations SD's. — Goszei (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Add section on locations

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)

Inclusion of locations

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:

Location 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.

Discussion

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)

• Pinging Nikkimaria on this given that she's added country to some fields that go into the short description, e.g. WUCI-FM. Figured this discussion might interest her. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I worry that the suggestions above will strongly encourage SDs that are way above the 40 character limit. "in Yinchuan, Ningxia, China" is – on its own – 27 characters, to which has to be added the descriptive text. In many cases there is room for the country only, not the region/state/county as well. Personally, I'd prefer to leave it to the editor. That makes it easier to rely on WP:SDSHORT to cut the description down where needed without having a secondary argument about whether it's essential to exceed 40 characters because it's otherwise impossible to comply with the guidance. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where the 40 limit came from or what precisely it affects, but it is stated as a suggestion rather than a hard limit, and I think we should be cautious about being overly strict about it just since it's such a straightforward metric. Generally, when I have to go over the 40 limit to provide necessary location information, I don't hesitate about it too much. The fundamental point is to be concise. Also, note the last sentence of the first paragraph (which modeled after a similar sentence in the existing dates section). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the 40 limit relates to what is displayed as a description on mobile devices. I read that these devices get a 40 char desc, and any more than 40 gets chopped off. The other relevant fact is that 65% of access to Wikipedia now comes via mobile devices and not desktops. Hence, the 40 char desc is going to become more significant, more relevant. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What we need is for the important disambiguating terms to be in the first 30 or 40 characters. (Sometimes hard in English where we put adjectives before nouns.) If "...in Yinchuan, Ningxia, China" was chopped off the end, then that would be no worse than not including it at all. Pelagic (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see Certes made a similar point below. Pelagic (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that standardization is a good idea but I disagree with the proposed criteria. What I would like to propose is "in [City], [Country]" (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:

1) Less complex that the proposed criteria.

2) Regarding ...in Pasadena, California:

a) I think that omitting the country when the state is recognizable will inevitably lead to a situation where this is only applied to big US states, since I don't imagine that any other province/region will be deemed recognizable except for those big US states: such a situation would create a systemic WP:BIAS.

b) Be ready for some politically-heavy edit warring regarding the mention of England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland instead of "United Kingdom". Same for some Indian states.

3) Regarding ...in Yinchuan, Ningxia, China:

a) I have never been convinced that mention of the particular state/province/region is necessary in a short description. Yes, I am aware that there are many Springfield, United States, but the purpose of SDs is to orient mobile readers and VisualEditor users: for these purposes, I think that ...in Springfield, United States is sufficient is the vast majority of cases.

b) It would cause the SDs to often exceed the 40 characters, which I think is a valuable threshold. JBchrch talk 23:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: I view the guidance as potentially extending beyond just cities/states/countries, which introduces more possible entities deemed widely recognizable. So e.g. Gyala Peri could be 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 States or would just be weird, and as you note in Springfield, United States would be ambiguous, which would hamper the disambiguatory purpose of short descriptions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Is it safe to exceed the 40 characters if the text after that boundary is the least vital part which would have been omitted to obey the limit? For example, Grommet manufacturing company in Wyoming, United States might be truncated for a mobile reader to Grommet manufacturing company in Wyoming, but showing United States to visitors with wider screens doesn't hurt mobile users. Certes (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with JBchrch: the proposal makes particular assumptions about what readers are likely to be familiar with or not, and in doing so introduces bias. See WP:AUDIENCE. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Another consideration is what part of the location may already be stated in the title. Sometimes the title already includes a city, state or other region, or country - and the SD does not need to repeat anything already in the title. I think this is best left to editor discretion. MB 03:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  That's definitely something to consider. So for Pasadena City College, we could potentially use Community college in California rather 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.

  Overall, the goal here is not at all to supersede editorial discretion, which is why a sentence is included at the top specifically noting that editors can overrule any of it any time they like. What I hope is just that this can give us some loose guiderails to help us standardize a little better, so that we don't have e.g. the Empire State Building as 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)

• Oh, one other thing we might want to add to the section: don't use "located in", which is just a needlessly wordier version of "in". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:41, 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)

Article in short descriptions

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)

I wouldn't say that removing "A " changes the meaning – what different meaning does it take on? However, adding "A " in these examples seems to clarify the description enough to merit the extra two characters. It's almost a term of art, meaning "any particular". Certes (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say this stems from trying to make the SD summarize the article instead of briefly stating what it is about. For Jacobian conjecture, the SD should be "Unsolved math polynomial problem" or something similar. MB 14:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

MB, a SD like "Unsolved math polynomial problem" does not contains any other information than the title of the article. Short descriptions like "none", "mathematics" or "conjecture" would be almost as useful. In any case, it would not help to disambiguate between thousands of unsolved mathematical problems. D.Lazard (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The title disambiguate it from other mathematical problems, just as the title of Austria (SD: "Country in Central Europe") distinguishes it from Switzerland etc. Certes (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At the same time, in these examples, the texts are somewhat too long (more than 40 characters) and seem to be attempts to state the actual theorem/conjecture than to disambiguate the page from other possibly similar pages. I have, for example, changed the SD for Jacobian conjecture to "Unsolved problem concerning polynomials" (39 chars) from the 92-character statement of the conjecture itself. The result is well-differentiated (no pun intended) from the other Jacobian thingies we have pages on. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Also a good point: a reader who sees a list of articles such as Jacobian conjecture might have been looking for something like Jacobean theatre and have no idea what a polynomial or a determinant is. We do need to reveal the article's general field (e.g. mathematics), where it's not obvious from the title. Certes (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Certes, I agree that revealing the mathematical field would be useful. However, "mathematics" is a long word that takes 1/4 of the recommended 40 characters. This make even more difficult the difficult talk of finding a convenient SD. About Jacobian conjecture, a short desc could be "About invertibility of polynomial maps (mathematics)" (52 char.) But here, we are far from the problem of blind removal of initial articles. D.Lazard (talk) 15:35, 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)

MichaelMaggs see Wikipedia:Reward board#Remove "A" as the first word from short descriptions which is probably the cause of this. --Trialpears (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I could have sworn that there was explicit guidance that would have rejected SDs that simply summarized or restated a theorem, but I can't find it right now. I think there used to be guidance that explained that the SD should be able to complete this sentence: "[Article name] is/was a/an/the [SD goes here]". My understanding is that is the reasoning behind the guidance to not have a/an/the at the beginning, but that rationale appears to have been lost, leaving possibly misleading advice for new editors. The closest guidance I can find right now is at wikidata:Help:Description#Common formulas. Maybe we should copy those instructions to this page, along with the example sentence for clarity. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

We currently have ...focus on the purposes stated above, without attempting to define the subject or to summarise the lead (italics mine); is that what you're thinking of? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I personally find that SD's are best viewed through the lens of categories, or at least that categories often present an answer on what the SD should be. To reuse the example of Jacobian conjecture, one of the categories ("Unsolved problems in geometry") offers an excellent choice for the SD. — Goszei (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Goszei, this is an awful choice, as this is a problem in algebra. It belongs to category:Unsolved problems in geometry because every problem on polynomials has a counterpart in algebraic geometry, and algebraic geometry is a part of geometry. This is why Jacobian conjecture belongs to this category. But knowing that a problem on polynomials is also a problem of geometry needs an expertise that is far behind what is required for reading short descriptions. D.Lazard (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly, I don't know anything about mathematics, but my broader point was that "Unsolved problem in X" (or a similar construction) is the ideal SD in my book. I suppose my point about categories is fundamentally the same point as made by other editors about the is-a relation. I don't think short descriptions should be definitions (as stated in the current guidance), and the cases where the SD is not a definition yet needs an opening article (a, the) are close to none; therefore, the guidance against them as a broad rule should remain, without a carve-out for theorems or other cases. — Goszei (talk) 20:43, 10 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)

In mathematics, and specially for theorems, conjectures, etc., the interpretations "⟨article title⟩ is about ⟨short desc⟩" and "⟨article title⟩ is that ⟨short desc⟩" must also be considered. "About" and "that" could be included in the SD, but makes it longer, with the less informative part at the beginning. The SD beginning by "A" result often of the omitted "that". This is the case in the above suggestion, where "theorem" does not contains any information as appearing in the title.

By the way, the present SD is "Division by a closed curve of the plane into two regions". It has more than 40 characters, but, if truncated to 40, the meaning is essentially kept. This SD is partly the result of this discussion, but this shows the difficulty of finding good SD's in mathematics, and the need to understand the article for finding them. D.Lazard (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The SD "Division by a closed curve of the plane into two regions" is not a good SD for Jordan curve theorem for several reasons:

• It attempts to define the theorem rather than to annotate the page, contrary to WP:SDCONTENT
• The definition is wrong in any event (it defines not the subject of the article - the theorem - but the Jordan curve)
• It is far too long (57 characters, contrary to WP:SDSHORT
• It requires a pre-existing knowledge of the subject to understand the technical terms "closed curve" and "of the plane".

I would go with something like "Theorem in topology". "Topology" may not be as common a word as "mathematics", but it does "distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields" per WP:SDCONTENT, and is I think well enough well enough understood in a general way by non-specialists. I first came across the term in elementary maths at school when I was aged about 12. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs, It seems that you forget the fact that SD are not here for following some rules, but for helping readers. Rules are good if they allow a better encyclopedia. Otherwise, WP:IAR applies.

About your four bulleted items:

• A theorem cannot be defined. It can be stated, but a phrase starting by "division" cannot be a statement, as a division is an operation
• The SD says what about the theorem is, which is the subject of the article, and is very far from a definition of a Jordan curve
• I agree that the SD is too long, but if it is truncated to 40 characters, it remains sufficiently understandable for disambiguating this theorem from all other theorems in topology
• If the terms "plane" and "closed curve" are too technical for some readers, this means that the article is not for them. So there is no problem with these terms.

In any case, this SD fulfills its purpose, which is telling the reader whether the article is the one that they are looking for. D.Lazard (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MichaelMaggs and Pelagic. The sentence 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)

Nomination for deletion of aliases

The following seven templates have been nominated for deletion.

• Template:Brief description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:SHORTDESC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Short-description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Short desc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Shortdesc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Shortdescription (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

[[wp:shortdes]] is not working in edit summary, is this mormal? -Agyaanapan (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's normal, as no-caps links aren't the same as all-caps. Try WP:SHORTDES instead. BilCat (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. However, there are redirects WP:SHORTDES and WP:SHORTDESC — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 05:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Importing incorrect Wikidata descriptions

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)

That's known as a WP:POINT violation. Johnuniq (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's especially pointy because the SD gadget makes it so easy to trim or replace a bad Wikidata description. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of "the wp:point", editors are responsible for their edits. Be it a direct typing/edit, or importing from elsewhere (wikidata in this case). As such, Philoserf could have legitimately been warned for vandalism. Hopefully they won't do this again. — Ched (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Description repeating article's title

I changed description in COVID-19 pandemic in Israel (edit | 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)

Courtesy ping Debresser. @Triggerhippie4: I'm not a fan of "ongoing" per MOS:CURRENT, but I agree "viral outbreak" rephrasing is probably better than just restating the title. More broadly, I don't think we've quite decided how we want to handle instances in which the best short description would just repeat the title; using {{short description|none}} is one option. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, without a better SD that does not repeat the title, use "none". MB 01:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the purposes of an SD is to disambiguate articles that might have similar titles. If there were an album or a band or a theater musical called "COVID-19 pandemic in Israel", it would be helpful for one of the articles to have the SD "music album" and one to have the SD "viral outbreak". – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: It's still helpful to have SD "viral outbreak" when there's no other article with the same name, because it breaks down the scope in simpler terms in case someone doesn't know what COVID-19 or a pandemic is. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Brb starting a techno-pop quartet named "COVID-19 pandemic in Israel" {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Broken infoboxes

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T291781

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)

I have submitted a bug report, T291781. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! Musiconeologist (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

What's the story with the German Wikipedia here?

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)

No, we are the ones with a different mechanism. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheDJ, thanks for the info, can you please elaborate? -- S3rvus (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Information is in the History section of this page. Basically, en.WP was not happy that Wikidata short descriptions were bring shown on the English Wikipedia, for various reasons, so the display of Wikidata short descriptions was disabled here. That means that we have our own system of short descriptions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey95, now I understand! – S3rvus (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"String Module Error: Target string is empty"

Not really useful as a short description. Currently live at FV105 Sultan. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Sheesh. That was me at {{Infobox weapon}}, forgetting that {{{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)

Thanks. I've cleaned up the ~60 cases that were bot-copied over to Wikidata (and added this error message to the bot's exclusion list!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Necessity of the Cancel button

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)

Global harmonization for starting letter

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)

Why? They are not the same thing. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Usefulness of short description

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)

The short description should describe the topic, not what the article covers, given the purpose is to help quickly identify the topic from many possible close entries. So using Japanese cuisine as an examine, a better shortdesc would be "Culinary traditions of Mennonites". --Masem (t) 05:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Not quite correct. The WP:SHORTDES is a "short description of the Wikipedia article", not necessarily of the topic as a whole. – S. Rich (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't every Wikipedia article fundamentally a "Survey of the topic" or a summary of that topic? I've noticed that "Overview of X" is also a fairly common SD, but I think it fails to be helpful for the same reason. "Wikimedia list article" is another "meta" SD that isn't very good. — Goszei (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I would expect Srich32977 to claim that this is not quite correct since that is the editor who provided the terrible short desc. Srich32977, perhaps you could take this feedback to improve your short descriptions, or stop make such unhelpful ones? Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The top of this guideline page specifically talks to the "scope" of the article/page (in the nutshell and in the first sentence) "Survey of the topic" is not a "scope" statement. We should avoid trying to conflict that with the "description of the article" which "survey of the topic" and the other common items like "Wikipedia list article" would be accurate but unhelpful in describing the scope. --Masem (t) 18:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I spent an embarrassingly long 90 seconds or so trying to figure out how "Culinary traditions of Mennonites" could possibly be a good shortdesc for Japanese cuisine. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

"Culinary traditions of Mennonites" is just a rephrasing of "Mennonite cuisine". It would only add value for readers who don't know what "cuisine" means.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It does indicate it is not a book, or movie, etc. Sometimes I rephrase the title like this when I can't think of anything else to say. MB 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. One purpose of the short description is to distinguish it from other things that might have the same name, especially works of popular culture. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

A fair point, and as I tried to imagine what such a work might be, now I've got "We all live in a Mennonite cuisine♫" running through my head.

In any event, I changed the description to be more accurate and less repetitive by noting that the cuisine, per the article, is associated with "certain Christian communities".--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Same editor; this time on 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification. "Qualification for the 2022 FIFA World Cup" or "Event qualification process"? If it's the former, we may want to revisit all of Srich32977's edits. If it's the latter, I may need to understand the process a bit better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel like you could probably set that SD to none. The article title explains what is present. At least, editors should know "none" is a valid option. – The Grid (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"International football competition" might make a useful SD. (Although the World Cup is well known, far too many articles fail to mention which sport they apply to except in the category list at the bottom.) Certes (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Certes. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Utility of short descriptions

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)

Check to see articles with {{annotated link}}s. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, I suggest that if you read Wikipedia:Short descriptions you might gain some understanding of the reasons for short descriptions and their intended functions on Wikipedia. I agree that there is no evidence provided that 40 characters is optimum for anything other than the display on mobile for smartphones. It is a recommendation for when it is reasonably useful, not a hard limit.

This is Wikipedia. You are allowed to fix things that are broken. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox sports season issue

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)

What do you mean, Michael? Lots of pages have multiple short descriptions on them, this page, for example (somewhat ironically). As you've correctly guessed, {{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)

It's to do with which one takes precedence. A manually-added description using {{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)

 Fixed. The template just needed a noreplace. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know there was any way for one of these to "take precedence". I just see multiple descriptions. Maybe my problem is I have chosen the wrong viewing mechanism to show me short descriptions. I have edited my common.css file to show me the .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)

The official gadget (in Preferences) is probably the best way to see and edit SDs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Shortdesc helper? Okay, that's actually not as bad as I thought it was. I could get used to that. Thanks! — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Bear in mind that you are responsible for your edits, and manually added short descriptions are usually intended as an improvement on the generic one provided by the automated process. Removing a better short description does not improve the encyclopedia. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I know that. What's your point? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 08:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on an automatic short description

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:

There is a question as to whether the short description for a page that contains the "writer" infobox should include the subject person's nationality as given by the "nationality" field in that infobox. (The infobox does not generate any short description today, but it is proposed that it do so). One editor believes it would improve the quality of the short description if it did; another believes this would encourage people to fill in "nationality" just for this effect, in cases where it should not be filled in. WP:INFONAT says not to fill in "nationality" when it's redundant with birthplace. There is some disagreement over whether this can be resolved with documentation.

There was a request for a WP:Third opinion, which was erroneously rejected because the 3O volunteer thought there were more than two disputants. This was because the same talk page section contained contributions by others on other matters.

Qwerfjkltalk 10:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)