This page is within the scope of WikiProject Short descriptions, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of short descriptions in articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Short descriptionsWikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptionsTemplate:WikiProject Short descriptionsShort descriptions articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikidata, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's integration with Wikidata. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.WikidataWikipedia:WikiProject WikidataTemplate:WikiProject WikidataWikidata articles
Well, what you shouldn't do is unilaterally change what the guideline says and then make work on 100 pages others have to undo. Remsense诉03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
All I say is that replacing a WP:SDNONE with "National flag" under a "Flag of [nation]" article isn't automatically needed. Although understand the need for consistency among flags, but unsure of the idea of adding/maintaining "National flag" SD's everywhere. DankJae08:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No it is not necessary for filled SDs on flag articles, they are treated like any other article. Editors may decide whether a filled SD is needed or if SDNONE is fine for the purpose. DankJae11:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just a general note: for flag articles such as Bloody flag, it may be necessary. But for flag articles containing a prepositional phrase (i.e. followed by "of"), such as Flag of Afghanistan and Flag of North Korea (nominated to "good article" status), then no, it is not necessary. However, all articles need the {{short description}} template as a rule of thumb. 192.254.92.90 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not sure why so many are taking the preference of a block evader as an authoritative interpretation of policy. Changing the short descriptions of every "Flag of" article to "none" presumes that the reader is familiar with every country, subnational division, region, city, etc. It's not an improvement. Yue🌙05:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is the case, but I'm not sure what elegantly to do about it: what I wouldn't argue is that it should necessarily cascade—there are cases I think where X would need a shortdesc for disambiguation (let's assume for a second that articles wouldn't have one by default, so e.g. France wouldn't but maybe Luxembourg would), but Y of X wouldn't. If you're searching, I actually don't think it's very likely that you get to a situation where you see Flag of Luxembourg and need to be disambiguated, since you already probably know Luxembourg is some state or territory. Does that make sense? Remsense ‥ 论06:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was a general observation that "none" is a perfectly valid SD for many articles. It would also be suitable for many of the articles about flags as the article title already provides enough detail — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me11:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have a request for you. I find the definition of WP:SDNONE to be exceptionally vague. Can you and other admins on the short description wikiproject make it so the definition has more examples of articles that should (and shouldn't) be none? It would be useful to stop having these (necessary) talk pages about where this rule is used. -1ctinus📝🗨12:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:SDAVOID says that editors should avoid anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional. If you’re asking for specific flag-related examples, that wouldn’t be appropriate as it would amount to taking sides in a content dispute. Per WP:SDCONTENT: The short description is part of the article content, and is subject to the normal rules on content. Some people want consistency across flag articles, some think specific flags need special treatment, and some just like arguing about flags. There have always been such disagreements, and they are for content editors to resolve in the normal way. It's not an issue for this page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Screenshot of an error with a Wikipedia search I had another go at this today. I ended up by removing the SD template, to see if the search could be "nudged". The result is that the search now finds the same page TWICE. At least, it finds the real one, plus an old version of the page that seems to be the one stuck in the search index. Both search results give the same article name and the same link. Looking at the history, the page was moved to draft on 2024-06-09 (at 16:49) and then re-created (forked? duplicated?) in article namespace on 2024-06-11. The pre-draft version of (2024-06-09 16:09) is the one living as a zombie in the search index. Does anybody know how to kill search zombies? — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me13:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago55 comments8 people in discussion
under 900k short descs
Greetings from Wikiproject Short Descriptions! If you are reading this, this means that we have reached the sub-900,000 mark! To facilitate this continued progress, I am going to ask a bunch of questions for administrators and other members of the WikiProject for conesus for formatting for short descriptions, and some requests for fellow editors to continue adding short descriptions to parts. -1ctinus📝🗨12:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
1. How should [x in y] articles be formatted in the United States? a. (x in State) b. (x in State, US) c. (x in State, United States) d. (x in State, U.S.) -1ctinus📝🗨12:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've been previously doing something along the lines of "Statue in California, USA" but I think "Statue in California, US" makes sense as well. The others - United States, U.S. - are needlessly long (especially when 40 characters is a recommended limit). LR.127 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not seeing a consensus here if either A or B is the preferred option. Either way, I'd really like to see this added to the page when consensus is reached. I'm in favor of B -1ctinus📝🗨19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It depends entirely on context, to ensure comprehensibility and usefulness to the reader. I don't accept that we need to choose exactly one of the four options you've proposed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Assuming that the country and/or state is not mentioned or implied in the article name and there is no potential for confusion with using "US", that should likely be the standard per MOS:USA, especially in cases where it would go over 40 characters. If there is room to fit "United States" within 40 characters, that can also be done if there are no other helpful words that could be used. In terms of automation, I guess B would be best, but it should be not be a requirement. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions22:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Consensus – dont use non fiction in short description to describe books
2. Should non-fiction books include "non-fiction" in the short description? Typically, genres are not included in short descriptions. -1ctinus📝🗨12:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. Say what it is, not what it is not. Books should start with the year of publication — 2189 book by Jacob von Hogflume, 2050 novel by Charles Morningstar, 2058 anthology by Linda Martin — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me19:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Probably not. If there is more space in the SD after including the date, type of work, and author name for a non-fiction book, then a specific field is preferable (e.g. "1997 history book by Charles Smith" vs. "1997 non-fiction book by Charles Smith"). Otherwise, fine to just leave as "book". -- Patar knight - chat/contributions22:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Both of those should be WP:SDNONE. The description for Jiangxi can explain that it's a province in China, but it's not the job of the description for History of Jiangxi to indicate this.I'm not opposed to the below suggestions along the lines of "History of the Chinese province" for subnational entities.Uhai (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:SDNONE may work, but is not very user-friendly if the term is likely to be unfamiliar to the reader. Prefer "Aspect of Chinese history", "Aspect of Welsh history" MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think "Aspect of Chinese history" is not as good as say "History of the Chinese province"/"Chinese provincial history". If they do not know where Jiangxi is, there are multiple other things they might think it might be that might also be aspects of Chinese history. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think SDNONE should be used for subnational/municipal entities. We can (somewhat) reasonably expect people to know countries, but not anything below that. The SDs for these articles should at least indicate what country is being discussed and ideally the level being covered if possible to fit within the SD (e.g. province, state, municipal). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions22:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’ve generally agreed with that, however, everything that is suggested is super ugly sounding and repeats the title slightly. The examples given "History of the Chinese province"/"Chinese provincial history" sound unpleasant and repeat the word history. This is my biggest problem with WP:SDNONE. is it "sufficiently detailed"? -1ctinus📝🗨00:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Repeating one word isn't the worst, especially when it is "history" as opposed to something more jargony. We should assume that reader will know what that means instead of needlessly applying elegant variation. In respect to your last sentence, I would be shocked if most readers would be able to say that Jiangxi is a Chinese province as opposed to a number of other Chinese things that might plausibly have "History of X" articles. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions01:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes and I have been adding none SDs to such articles for a while now. Many of these articles that I have not touched also have none SDs, so there may be an implicit consensus here assuming it's not a very small group of editors adding them. The rationale here is similar to above: Tom Cruise's SD should indicate he's an American actor born in 1962 but not Tom Cruise filmography's SD. Regardless; filmographies, discographies, and bibliographies are essentially list articles which should be WP:SDNONE anyway. Uhai (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
My issue is that that feels a little clunky because of the reuse of "filmography". I think I've seen some filmographies with SDs along the lines of "List of film performances by the American actor" which I like better but these are perhaps a little lengthy. I'm not opposed to either option instead of SDNONE. Uhai (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think SDNONE can apply, since the non-name "-ography" part of the title tells the reader what the article is going to be about. Would not be opposed to what Michael Maggs mentioned though as long as it tracks with the main biographical article. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
My concern with election articles is when the name of the election doesn't indicate the office(s) being elected. What does a "general election" in New Zealand mean? Does it only include parliamentary elections, or are there local offices as well? Are there any nationwide referenda or other offices chosen? For 2022 Brazilian general election, an SD of "2022 elections for Brazilian congress and executives" answers the question of where, when, and what the scope of the election is in a way that the article title doesn't. But it's also not a good article title, since the name of the election is the "general election". So I think SDnone needs to be a bit more judicious when it comes to election articles. VanIsaac, GHTVcontWpWS21:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The SD doesn't need to define what "general election" means for a given country; the article lede can clarify which offices are being elected. I don't see anything wrong with general election articles being WP:SDNONE. For 2022 Brazilian general election, "2022 elections for Brazilian congress and executives" is borderline too lengthy and unnecessarily restates the year and the word "election". The inability to avoid restating words from the article title is an indicator that the SD should be none. Uhai (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
These can be hard, as titles often include words that are unfamiliar outside the relevant country or region, eg "general", "gubernatorial", "union", "midterm", "primary" and so on. If there's no way to indicate even in general terms what or who is being elected, without writing a definition, it's best to be very general, making sure the country is included if not already in the title eg "State election in India". MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think SDNONE would apply to elections at the national level. At the subnational level, I think it is helpful to state what country the election is in and what level it is (e.g. "French regional election", "Japanese municipal election", Malaysian federal by-election"). Unlike countries, we cannot reasonably expect readers to be familiar with the overwhelming majority of subnational divisions or municipalities, and it is helpful to indicate what the elections are to readers. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
7. Should short descriptions include unsourced birth and death dates? Should tools allowing for quick extraction of birth and death dates for short descriptions be deprecated? -1ctinus📝🗨12:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
If birth and death dates are unsourced, it should be removed from the article altogether (and not included in short descriptions, either). I'm not sure about automated tools. LR.127 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The SD should be "inspired" from the lead, and possibly the infobox and categories. The SD should not include information missing from the article. If the dates are unsourced, then they should be removed from the article or, at the very least, be flagged as {{CN}}. Sometimes, of course, there is a little room for patience with a very new article, but if the SD adds unsourced data, then you must re-visit the article a short time later and confirm that the data is now sourced. — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me20:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Everything in the SD should be supported by the article text and everything in the article text should be supported by reliable sources. Tools that extract data from the article for the SD should be fine if human-assisted rather than operating fully autonomously. Uhai (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:SDCONTENT says The short description is part of the article content, and is subject to the normal rules on content. In practice, dates without in-line citations are sometimes copied from the article body to the SD, which generally isn't too serious a problem, as WP:V requires in-line citations only for material challenged or likely to be challenged. The situation for living people is different, though as WP:BLPSOURCES demands that unsourced contentious information (which is very likely to include a birthdate) "must be removed immediately". That's reflected at WP:SDDATES which states Care should be taken when the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy applies: birthdates for living people should not be included unless sourced within the article. The answer to your second question is likely to be no if the tool is human-assisted (each entry checked one by one by an experienced editor). MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ideally the dates should be supported by in-line citations, but unless it is a BLP (in which case the date should be sourced or removed from the body per other existing BLP rules), there isn't too much harm in using the dates in the article. Probably can be left to editor judgment, unless there is a way to filter for BLP entries. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is surprising (?) how many sports article fail to mention the actual sport. Nobody knows what WNBA stands for, so initially the article lead needs to talk about what sport is involved. Once the lead is fixed, the SD often follows naturally — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me20:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've struggled with what to do for sports draft articles. I think the annual event articles could be WP:SDNONE while articles like WNBA draft and NFL draft could indicate the sport and the frequency of the event. I don't think any of these aforementioned articles' SDs should describe what a sports draft is, since Draft (sports) exists to do this. Perhaps something like:
I explained above that one should avoid restating words from the article title but I should clarify that my general rule is that one word being restated is okay. Uhai (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's really important to indicate the sport: "WNBA", for example, means nothing to many (most?) readers outside the US. WP:SDNONE is not appropriate for 2004 WNBA draft. It could be "US Women's basketball player selection" (38 characters). MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd not be against draft articles being handled this way, although I think the addition of the word "league" may be beneficial for clarity. The way that is written makes me think of a player selection for the US national team or something rather than for a league. Uhai (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also want to give attention to some types of pages that I would appreciate people adding short descriptions to.
Gaelic sports
Locomotives
Satellites
Minor planets/asteroids
Finishing infobox book (I did most of them in June)
It took 87 days to get from under a million to 900,000. By that rate, all articles will have a short description by October 2026. However, if we have consensus on formats, I believe that we can achieve that target sooner. Here's some admins I want input from: GhostInTheMachineUhaiQwerfjkl-1ctinus📝🗨12:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Steve Mann (inventor) is a researcher known for his work on wearable computing, but the examples here seem to suggest he should be described as "Canadian engineer (born 1962)", which is absurd and, more to the point, actively harmful even for disambiguation purposes: I'm very familiar with his work but had no idea he was Canadian.
While there are professions like politician or athlete where nationality is important, this is rarely the case for scientists or (say) musicians, plus cases like Nikola Tesla or Freddie Mercury open up a massive can of worms on what exactly that nationality is anyway. Can we add some additional examples of good short descriptions for people without putting nationality up front? Jpatokal (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmmmm. Come to think of it, there are very large potential sections of biographies (etc.) where there's clearly a more recognizable single qualifier to use. Remsense ‥ 诉11:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Short descriptions follow the article. The facts in the short description are derived mainly from the facts as given in the lead. Steve Mann's article starts: William Stephen George Mann (born 8 June 1962) is a Canadian engineer,... and the infobox starts Born William Stephen George Mann 8 June 1962 (age 62) Hamilton, Ontario – Nationality Canadian so he was indeed born in Canada and is Canadian. His nationality is not in any way doubted or confused, so happily belongs in the short description — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me11:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
That works for that article. There's never any requirement to include the nationality, though, if there's something more important to be covered. And sometimes the nationality is contentious and is best omitted anyway - WP:SDAVOID. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Piggybacking off of this, the algorithm is basically as follows:
Title is a proper name? Not WP:SDNONEN
Is a X of... article?
Outline of...N
List of... Go to obscurity test
All other kinds, e.g. Glossary of..., Bibliography of..., Index of...
Function words used to link terms of the title phrase? e.g. History of communication, Islam and cats
Article cannot plausibly be confused in scope with any other? Y
Article can only be described by unhelpfully rephrasing its title? Y
Obscurity test is purely pragmatic, reckoning whether the average English Wikipedia reader is likely to intuit enough based on bare recognition of each term in the name: e.g.
Communications in AlbertaY
Communications in KwangoN, which sadly betrays our ignorance of this noble province within the DRC.
What harm does it do if an article has a short description even if it passes the obscurity test? The short description serves as a page subtitle, that’s part of the reason they were likely implemented in the first place, and it helps accessibility, and it helps people who might need additional context. I for one appreciate additional context, and for current / former highway list articles, i’d argue it’s helpful to clarify, as List of Alberta provincial highways previously included even decommissioned highways. It doesn’t do any harm to have a proper short description. Having a short description set to “none” doesn’t help anyone and at that point the Short description template may as well be excluded altogether as there’s no reason to have a template be transcluded in an article if it doesn’t do anything. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 01:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
In my view, it's harmful in the same way (if not to the same degree) that a clunky lead sentence is. Redundant or vestigial information is distracting when its presentation is clearly meant to be particularly parsimonious (e.g. only 40 guaranteed characters). If you'll forgive me, they're such a problem to me because I don't like them for their perceived inelegance. It's something I can't blame others for not being bothered about, especially since I specifically turned on the ability to see them on desktop while most other editors haven't. Remsense ‥ 论01:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
That would be true if the opinions were only my own. I was just explaining how I personally understand and motivate this particular convention to the extent I do, but it's still a shared convention. Remsense ‥ 论02:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well it’s the wrong convention to have. Having a short description set to none doesn’t help anyone. It’s literally in the guideline that all articles should have a short description, yet, having it set to “none” doesn’t give it a short description and contradicts its own policy. It also does nothing to help a reader understand, especially if a potential reader needs additional context, e.g. if they struggle with reading comprehension even just a little bit. My stance on the matter is that short descriptions being set to none is unhelpful. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 03:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, this is sort of why I was trying to frame it the way I did: (forgive me if I mischaracterize) you see SDNONE as a wasted opportunity to inform readers, I see its antithesis as a potential stumbling block in informing readers. There's no empirical data in front of us telling us which one of us is closer to the mark in aggregate, so all we can do is try to understand where the other is coming from. Remsense ‥ 论03:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
How can a short description be a "potential stumbling block"? I'm genuinely confused by this, because I've always found short descriptions to be useful, not a stumbling block when it comes to informing readers. It's a useful tool, and in my view, it's there to be used. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 08:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, this is potentially a point where we conceptually disagree. I'm being asked to pick the smallest nits in the world: in my mind, space just is never free and information should always be presented as intentionally as possible: text inherently brings attention to itself and contributes visual noise, and unexplained redundancy or awkward semantic overlaps between title and short description can absolutely cause confusion or just make the entire text feel less cohesive—this is the second thing one sees with any given article, and that matters a lot. Remsense ‥ 论08:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here's the problem with an obscurity test: it would be inherently biased towards wherever the person lives. Do English Wikipedia readers in Uganda know what the fuck an Arkansas is? -1ctinus📝🗨01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Per The Transhumanist's own advice (which I agree with) and outline house style: outlines aren't as common a reference type out in the world as the others, so it makes sense the title wouldn't be sufficiently clear like "List" or "Glossary" is, Remsense ‥ 论02:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
One more comment before I go to bed: multiple discussions have been brought up over when and when not WP:SDNONE applies and it has never reached any consensus. It is of my opinion that clearly an RfC is needed to revise the guideline so it is far more obvious where it applies and where it doesn't. -1ctinus📝🗨02:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that there are some head scratchers when it comes to when to use none and when not to use none for an SD. But one situation where SDNONE is spot on is ensuring the SD doesn't simply repeat the article's title. Masterhatch (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Quite a lot of people misunderstand short descriptions. They were introduced for disambiguation when someone uses a device to search for a title of interest. On typing "Joe Citizen", the device lists matching titles and displays the short description for each such as "politician" or "author (born 1960)". That information allows the user to select which page they want to visit. The guideline states that all articles should have a short description so that articles missing a description can be found and fixed. As WP:SDNONE explains, some titles need no disambiguation and "none" is used to mean that no short description is needed. Category:Articles with short description explains that what is actually tracked is use of the {{short description}} template—each article should have that template (possibly provided by another template). Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
These are not meaningless, If a country has a president and a prime minister, separating who is the Head of state and Head of government is important, this is the function of such short descriptions. Knowing which is HoS and HoG is important if you are in the search bar or wikilinking.
Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Abkhazia is not a country . It is not partially recognized » abkhazia is a historical Geoegian territory occupied by the terrorist country-Russia in 1992. The UN never ever said otherwise. 92.54.250.112 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Working on pages in "articletopic:medicine-and-health", I've noticed that many ligaments lack SDs and that the existing SDs of ligaments vary in their naming scheme more than other anatomical structures. Most commonly they're either "Ligament of xyz" or "Ligament between x and y" which makes sense considering the ligaments' connective nature (in comparison to e.g. nerves which are often more strictly localized and tend to follow only the first naming scheme).
I don't think there is, so you should follow the general rules at WP:SHORTDESC. Two important aspects that often get overlooked on medical articles are that the SD should be understandable to the inexperienced reader - WP:SDJARGON; and that it should be short - WP:SDSHORT. It's not a definition - WP:SDNOTDEF. If you have some specific articles that you'd like advice on, please say. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago10 comments6 people in discussion
I've just come across someone changing the "and" in a short description to an ampersand (see diff at Andy Kim (politician)), presumably to save characters, and I was wondering if that is in line with the general consensus here. MOS:& prescribes the use of "and" in normal text and headings but also states that [e]lsewhere, ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g., tables and infoboxes). I don't think this specific issue has been discussed before (although there was an adjacent discussion in July 2023, Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 15#Using punctuation to shorten description, where Jonesey95 argued to use "and" instead of an ampersand), but whatever the general consensus is, this may be something to make explicit in WP:SDFORMAT following this discussion. (Ping Losipov who made the linked edit.) Felida97 (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Felida97 what you mentioned in your message is exactly the reason why I changed the "and" to an ampersand. Sometimes when something is over the limit (like if a short description is 42 characters long), I would change it to an ampersand so it goes down to 40 characters (the limit). I don't know if you took it this way, but I can assure you I wasn't trying to vandalize the article. I just thought it would save space, again like you mentioned. If the consensus is to revert it back to "and", feel free to revert me on that article. I won't object. Losipov (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Losipov: Sorry, if that maybe came across in a wrong way, I had not at all suspected that your edit was ill-intentioned (a quick look at your user page and contributions was enough for me conclude that). Felida97 (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please don't change "and" to "&" to go from 42 to 40 characters. That is not a useful edit. There is a reason that "&" is discouraged: it is much less reader-friendly than "and". Since the creation of local short descriptions, there has been a persistent misconception that there is a hard limit of 40 characters. It is just not so. Editor time would be MUCH better spent in adding short descriptions to articles that have none than in tweaking existing short descriptions that are fine.
The limit of 40 characters is wise, but not absolute, so using 2 extra characters for "and" is not that evil. Mind you, using just a comma is even shorter! Probably best to use "and" as advised by the MOS — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me19:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jonesey95, @Rublamb, @Patar knight: Do you have an opinion on the use of a comma, both vs. "and" and vs. "&" (for an example, see follow-up diff by GhostTheMachine at the article mentioned above, Andy Kim (politician), where the SD is now 41 characters as a result; just to be safe, I don't mean to call you out or anything and don't think that your edit wasn't well-intentioned either, GhostInTheMachine)? (Sorry, if this question is considered as unnecessarily pedantic; I just thought, we might as well clear this up, too, while we're at it.) Felida97 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't mind it and prefer it to "&" but I would probably use "and" for clarity. Sliding over 40 by two characters is not a problem. Rublamb (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it's still better to use "and" for clarity since the character save is still not much. However, I think it is better than the ampersand since it is more commonly used and is an additional character saved. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions01:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
40 isn't a hard limit and the character save here is minimal, so we should generally we should be following the MOS here as a standard. If two characters is the difference between critical information being pushed back past 40 characters, the SD probably just needs to be majorly overhauled in a way that an ampersand doesn't fix. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions14:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The redirect WP:SD has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 18 § WP:SD until a consensus is reached. unsigned post by HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Not WP:SDNONE
Go to obscurity test
Not done: Not the right page for this discussion. CMD (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Probably best to use "and" as advised by the MOS — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
