Wikipedia talk:Short description

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Shortcut

[edit]

Shouldn't the section on annotated links state that they should be considered temporary, awaiting an intelligently phrased link by someone who is informed about the subject? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest some revised wording, along with a reason for changing the wording. Many annotated links work fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policy is fine as it is. Many annotated links work perfectly and don’t need amending. Where they do, editors have the option of either overriding the default annotation or amending the SD itself. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: @MichaelMaggs: I seldom see annotated links that don't make me think that the invention of annotated links is the worst thing that ever happened to Wikipedia. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TBO IDK what "section on annotated links" means. An annotated link is a template ... that pulls in the SD. I've never seen an annotated link section. Anywho, I find annotated links to be great when used in see-also. It eliminates the need to repeat short descriptive content for every see-also article link. Stevebroshar (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally blank for list articles by person

[edit]

First of all, they massively change to intentionally blank short description for list articles by person from 2022. For example, by automated edit from List of works by Salvador Dalí, changing short description "Wikipedia list article" to "None" per WP:SDNONE. by a bot. Another example by manually edit from Shah Rukh Khan filmography, it changes filmography of Indian actor Shah Rukh Khan" to one that is also intentionally blank, via Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper. Absolutiva 12:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance was changed last year as a result of this discussion. Qwerfjkl, could you disable that task of your bot? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, you can see on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 7 that the task is manually run, so I can simply choose not to run it. But it's not clear to me how "Wikipedia list article" is a useful short description. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. Following the change in guidance last year, these should be dealt with manually and not by bot, per WP:SDNONE: A decision on whether to use "none" should always be based on the comprehensibility of the words used in the title, and not on the form of the title. Articles should be assessed on their own merits, and editors using semi-automated tools to write short descriptions must never assume that all articles with a title of a particular form (e.g., "List of x") should be treated in the same way. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MichaelMaggs, seems reasonable. In that case it might be better to remove the short description, which I assume would be preferable to keeping it as "Wiki[mp]edia list article"? In any case, I have no intention of running this task unless someone asks me to. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would encourage editors to think about those articles more carefully, but bulk removals would probably draw lots of complaints, and would confuse people who would wonder why the SD has been removed rather than replaced by "none" (which we often don't want either). A better way might be to set up a tracking category of articles with SD equal to "Wiki[mp]edia list article", and advertise that as another useful task that editors can gradually work through. I wonder how many there are. MichaelMaggs (talk) MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any such articles. Is there really a need for a category? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a surprise. I was convinced I'd seen one only last week (Special:Diff/1298570536) but in fact that was an article with no SD, and the gadget was showing me what was on Wikidata. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a script that checks for SD="Wiki[mp]edia list article" and I suspect that several other people do as well. They are regularly cleared so I don't see any need for a tracking cat — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your script seems to be handling this very well, and I agree there’s no need for a category. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad @Qwerfjkl. I mixed up the manual and automated examples. I agree that "none" is better than "Wikipedia list article". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical terms

[edit]

I was wondering that contain WP:SDEXAMPLES should be conventional for geographical terms, such as proper nouns. For example, Northwestern Europe is a proper noun and should be capitalized in the first sentence. However, these are known examples:

  • Canada – Country in North America
  • Nigeria – Country in West Africa
  • India – Country in South Asia
  • Germany – Country in Central Europe

But less known:

  • Egypt – Country spanning Africa and Asia
  • United States – Country primarily in North America
  • Japan – Island country in East Asia
  • Russia – Country spanning Europe and Asia

Absolutiva 01:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those short descriptions seem reasonable. But some words seem to be missing from your comment, and I'm unsure exactly what changes you're suggesting to WP:SDEXAMPLES. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense reverted edits to United States, which is inaccurate (also not a definition). Later, Maxeto0910 reinstated as short descriptions aren't supposed to be detailed, factual accuracy should have priority. see in annotated link for United States – Country primarily in North America as inclusion of "primarily", similar that to France for example, France – Country primarily in Western Europe. Absolutiva 08:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. I didn't appreciate you were looking for comments on a content dispute. Others may want to jump in. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the question is whether to include 'primarily' in the SD for United States? I have no opinion on that. But I will share my thoughts on a broader aspect: Saying what contains a country is a lame description. Just because something is correct and even if there is consistency among articles does not make something interesting/worthwhile (not lame/weak). In what way is country containment important and interesting enough to warrant this level of consistency? We could choose any of a number of attributes to use (even consistently). Like: national bird or most abundant mineral or population or primary language. I find that some people are overly focused on consistency. Consistency is good, but not always the most important thing. For example (though a bit different), articles about people tend to start with their nationality, like "Emilio Estevez is an American actor and filmmaker". In what way is American all that interesting? It's a convention in the body of content that I'm sure folks do for consistency, but it's what I call fluff or maybe worse: nationalistic BS. ... What should we use for country SD? Let each find article find its own. Don't try to force consistency where consistency is not important. Actually, a country does not need an SD; both IMO and according the guidelines which say that if it's globally known, then the title stands alone. Or make them all "Country on planet Earth". It's very consistent and differentiates from countries on the San-Ti home world. Stevebroshar (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some can be too short

[edit]

I agree with "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject". So what am I to make of the short description for UFC 268 as shown in the first image: "MMA event in 2021"? Despite (or maybe because of) my 84 years, I have not the slightest idea what MMA is. Robin Patterson (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The short description at UFC 268 is "Martial arts competition in 2021" and appears to have been that way for months. Was it some other article? If so, the short description should be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing that bad short description at UFC 265. It was shortened in 2021 by Srich32977. I agree with the OP. Here are 26 more that have the same problem with their SDs. I don't know why the SDs were shortened; "2021 mixed martial arts event" is only 29 characters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Srich32977 has a history of disruptive gnome edits, including repeatedly editing citation parameter values incorrectly, despite multiple talk page messages. It appears that they are still shortening SDs unnecessarily (here's another and another), IMO making them worse. These edits are from July 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the MMA examples are problematic, but these more recent ones all seem like improvements to me. Rather than repeat a year that is in the title, specifying the genre makes the SD more informative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about Canadian dollar – Currency of Canada, it should be "Currency of Canada". Absolutiva 12:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think adding "Canada" is helpful, and I also feel "currency" is unncessary, since "dollar" is a term almost all readers will be familiar with. A counterexample might be Nicaraguan córdoba. Current SD is "Currency", and I'd suggest lengthening to "Currency of Central American nation", since neither "córdoba" nor "Nicaragua" are understandable by all non-specialist readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Canadian dollar I think "Currency of Canada" is good. "Currency" is correct, but is not disambiguated from every other currency. Remember that one purpose of for SD is disambiguating terms that might be similar; such as search results. If I get 10 results all with SD "currency" it's not helpful. Yes, with the title, "Canadian dollar" would be disambiguated. But, being militant about anything (including SD content) is always the wrong path. Go with what makes sense. IMO in this case there are two options that make sense: 1) "Currency of Canada" or 2) no SD. Sometimes nothing is better than something lame. As for Nicaraguan córdoba SD, why do we need to school the reader on where Nicaragua is? Let Nicaragua do that. "Currency of Nicaragua" seems good. Stevebroshar (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currency of Country is short enough – no need to go as short as just Currency. The repeat of the country is technically unnecessary but harmless in this case — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also Renminbi – Currency System of China and Pound sterling – Currency of the United Kingdom, because Currency of Country is necessary. Absolutiva 13:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both look good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that one of the purposes of short descriptions is disambiguation. Having a long enough SD, like "Currency of Canada", helps to distinguish the title "Canadian dollar" from titles of articles that are not about currency, like almighty dollar, Dollar Glen, Dollar Law, Dollar Comics, Dollar Bank, and my favorite, sand dollar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a redirect of Canadian dollar, from "Currency of Canada" what I created. Absolutiva 03:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups in short description

[edit]

Recently, I've massively changed to Ethnic group that contradicts with WP:SDNOTDEF. Most ethnic groups, such as Russians, Jews, Bengalis, etc. of country/region is redundant per WP:SDNOTDEF. But in French people, which People of France is set to none, to avoid duplicating information that is already in the title. Absolutiva 21:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind using ethnic groups in the short description. However, in the case of "East Slavic ethnic group" for Russians, this descriptions requires someone to know what East Slavic means (unless you are counting on the article name providing context). While this will not work for all, another possibility is to describe people by their general geographic area instead of OR in addition to their ethnicity. For example, "Slavic group from Eastern Europe", "Eastern European Slavic group", "Ethnic group from Eastern Europe", "Cultural group from Eastern Europe" or "Slavic people from Eastern Europe"--assuming we want to avoid "People from Russia". That being said, East Slavs has the short description "Subgroup of Slavic peoples" which would also apply to Russians. Rublamb (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnic groups also referred to "Indigenous peoples" for example:
  • Alaskan Natives – Indigenous people of the United States
  • Quechua people – Indigenous people of South America
  • Tupi people – Indigenous people of Brazil
Absolutiva 01:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indigenous has a different meaning than ethnic, indicating that the group originates from that location and still lives there. An ethnic group can have a shared culture, history, and language but does not need to live in their place of origin. For example, Russians and Jews who live in the US are part of an ethnic group but are not indigenous to the US. (There is probably cultural bias in the usage of indigenous that might be worth considering. That is, we seem to acknowledge mobility for some groups, but others seemed fixed to a specific location.) Another difference is that Alaskan Natives is an artificial grouping based on geography that includes several different tribal cultures and ethnic groups; thus, it is the opposite of an ethnic group. Rublamb (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that I made a mistake as mentioned in my talk page. Absolutiva 03:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cities without state or country

[edit]

Are famous cities such as New York City, London, Paris, Rome, etc. so well known that they can be used in a short description without a state or country? An example might be a "Historic church in Paris" or "Public university in New York City". Rublamb (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are short descriptions, so that is certainly consistent with the point. But I would certainly encourage country names for all but the absolutely most unambiguous cities. "New York City", "Beijing", and "Tokyo" are almost certainly unabmiguous, while "Paris", then "London", then "Rome", then "Athens" are more and more likely to need clarification. The thing is, it can also be subject dependent. If the short description was "Archaeological find in Athens", that has less ambiguity than "Restaurant in Athens", which could very well be a famous food destination in Athens, Georgia in a way that notable archaeological finds would not be likely. So the short answer is: yes for some, for others it depends. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 00:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would generally add the country. If the reader can see the whole description, it will help them. If the last bit gets cut off, it's the same as not having it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with VanIsaac. Well said. Very reasonable. Stevebroshar (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanisaac: Thanks for providing those examples. It is a good reminder that regional (or national) bias should be avoided even when creating short descriptions. A while back in WP:UNI, it was suggested U.S. or US should only be added to locations within short descriptions if the states weren't well known. I have often pondered what US states are well known in Belize, Botswana, Singapore, Nigeria, or the far corners of India where there might be users of the English Wikipedia. I tend to include the country if it fits reasonably, but sometimes get questioned about an addition that goes slightly over 40 characters. It was good to get the clarity of your feedback. Rublamb (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Each short description should ... avoid using a final full stop (period)" and abbreviations

[edit]

Does that bit of WP:SDFORMAT apply if the last word in the short description is an abbreviation that's normally ended with a period? Or does that really mean "the SD shouldn't be a sentence and, as such, doesn't need and shouldn't have a sentence-terminating period"? Guy Harris (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both-ish. The SD is not a sentence and so does not need to be terminated. The SD should avoid using abbreviations and so there should not be an abbreviation needing a terminating full stop. Do you have a specific example? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See, for example, this edit to Worldwide Developers Conference's short description. If SDs should avoid using abbreviations, the right answer might be to say just "Apple" rather than "Apple Inc.". Guy Harris (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I removed the "Inc". Apple is a well understood company name — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 22:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier today I'd added the proper name Washington, D.C. as an example to the essay and it was reverted (this was after an editor changed the short summary to 'DC' on several articles). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are obvious exceptions to every rule. Murmur (album) is a "1983 studio album by R.E.M.", of course, and George Washington University is a "Private university in Washington, D.C.", where "D.C." matches the title of our Wikipedia article that has had multiple move requests to "Washington, DC" rejected. Wikipedia is mostly clear on how to write "D.C." for the US capital district. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this discussion. I think it would be better to note the "obvious exceptions," as the D.C. and R.E.M. examples indicate, in the rule. (I edited the rule along similar lines but was reverted.) Fine to note a general inclination against using abbreviations, as well. My reason / example is in a recent edit to the SD of The Plain Dealer - from "Major newspaper of Cleveland, Ohio, U.S." to "Major newspaper of Cleveland, Ohio, US" - citing a violation of this rule as the reason. I don't know -- or care, really -- whether the better style for this SD is (1) "US" or (2) "U.S." or (3) "United States" or (4) none, just stop at "Ohio". They all seem more or less OK to me. And MOS:ABBR is agnostic between "US" and "U.S.", saying: "Both variants are used, but avoid mixing dotted and undotted within the same article". But I don't think a rule against ending a SD with a period / full-stop should be the deciding reason to use the no-periods / undotted version of this abbreviation.Sullidav (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our guidance on short descriptions is intended to provide general direction, not as an exhaustive, legal-style code covering every possible scenario. The examples given here are exceptions (no final full stop/period) to other exceptions (no abbreviations). Introducing further complexity to account for edge cases is not the solution — such issues are better addressed on the article’s talk page. See WP:CREEP. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the language remains unclear that exceptions like Washington, D.C., do exist, as evidenced by a discussion with LucasBrown who made good faith reductions in short summaries from D.C. to DC because of it. It is not unusual to provide a couple of examples in policies/guidelines/essays to illustrate exceptions to usual formatting. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to Randy Kryn. And same with the descriptions ending in U.S. and R.E.M. People editing them and degrading them to comply with this rule is a bad result of this rule being stated so absolutely. The rule should either a) add waffle language (e.g., "generally" or "most of the time" -- or "see talk page for discussion of obvious exceptions") to reflect the view stated by MichaelMaggs that its nature is "general direction" rather than what it sounds like, an "exhaustive" rule, or b) as I and others have proposed, add a specific exception for the case where a period is part of the description's final word.Sullidav (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added waffle. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now LucasBrown is removing the period from Martin Luther King Jr.'s name in short descriptions, in good faith but also changing a proper name (he was the editor who was naming the capitol city of the United States Washington DC in short descriptors). Several examples should be added to clarify this essay, including these two, so editors don't use it as gospel? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same with That's Entertainment! (SD: "1974 American film by Jack Haley Jr."). I reverted and referred to this discussion in explanation. Sullidav (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As to styling, American English, which covers these topics (Dr. King and the film), uses the comma after Jr. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the comma BEFORE Jr.?
From a quick look, according to MOS:FAQ2 the Wikipedia MOS dropped it "several years later" than "about 2005," Chicago style dropped it in 1993, AP style does not use that comma, nor does NYT style - per a recent obit- but MLA style still required it in 2016 (based on the previous, 8th, edition of the MLA Handbook). Sullidav (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What we are trying to avoid here is editors writing SDs as full sentences, and using a full stop as closing sentence punctuation. I've suggested "avoid using a final full stop (period) as end-of-sentence punctuation; a short description is not a full sentence". MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good point, but it results in changing proper names. Lesser of two evils. Rewording so that the full name is either at the start or middle of the short summary would be an option. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MichaelMaggs's suggestion results in changing proper names? How so? "Book by Martin luther King, Jr." doesn't use the period as end-of-sentence punctuation, so "avoid using a final full stop (period) as end-of-sentence punctuation; a short description is not a full sentence" would allow leaving the period after "Jr" in, right? It also would, as I read it, allow "Private university in Washington, D.C.", "1983 studio album by R.E.M.", and "Major newspaper of Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.", to cite examples used earlier in this thread. Guy Harris (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the period should stay in, regardless of where in the descriptor it's at. The point is to explain that to other editors who are misreading the essay, which could be done by adding a couple of examples of when to use the period, (i.e. Martin Luther King, Jr., Washington, D.C.). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Abbreviations section, below. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for short descriptions for articles that cover both a book and its film adaptation equally

[edit]

I was recently on the The Kid Stays in the Picture article and noticed that the short description only said "1994 American autobiography", even though the article covers the original book and its 2002 film adaptation equally. I added "and 2002 film" but I'm wondering if that was necessary. I felt that the original short description might make people looking for an article about the film think that they are on the wrong page because of the 1994 part, but I worry that my addition makes the whole thing wordy. It's also somewhat grammatically ambiguous: The placement of "American" between "1994" and "autobiography" but not between "2002" and "film" makes it sound like the autobiography is American but the film might not be, yet repeating "American" for the film might sound redundant. Please advise if the original short description was more consistent with the style guidelines for this type of issue. Wbeaumo (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the potential ambiguity of the word American, and I'd suggest leaving that out entirely: so, simply "1994 autobiography and 2002 film". MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations

[edit]

Should our guidance cover abbreviations? Current guidance doesn't explicitly mention them, but in practice they are often edited out on the ground that SDs should "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject". But there seems no reason to avoid abbreviations that are (almost) globally known to speakers of English. I suggest adding avoid abbreviations unless well known globally such as "TV", "U.S." (or "US"), "Washington D.C." and the like. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's not written in a way that encourages people to make dumb edits like "Martin Luther King Junior".
And I'm not sure how "globally known" D.C. is; at least I have met a significant number of people outside the United States who don't know that it stands for District of Columbia.Sullidav (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of a discussion that is relevant to this template

[edit]

See Template talk:Infobox UK legislation#Short description generated by template: not so clever! (with my apologies for "leading the witness" in the title). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 26 August 2025

[edit]

(Block GitHub)

 Not done, request doesn't make desired edit clear. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Health in (country)" articles and short descriptions

[edit]

Should "health in (country)" articles have short descriptions? I've noticed that some of them do (ex. Health in South Korea) and some don't (ex. Health in North Korea). I believe that these short descriptions should be removed, as they aren't very helpful. Whether you agree or not, I don't think it makes much sense to leave this situation as it is. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of some patent nonsense (my thanks to User:GraziePrego for removing it), No one has replied here in a few days. I'm going to assume I have silent consensus to remove the short descriptions. I have also realized that short descriptions of other "x in (country)" articles should probably be removed for the same reason. If you can think of any reason that they should stay, please post them here. Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For "Health in [country]", follow the the rules at WP:SDLIST. Since "health" is a common word, you'd want to use "none" unless the country name is itself relatively obscure. "x in [country]" titles will depend on whether "x" is well understood globally. As WP:SDLIST says, you should never use "none" purely because the title is of particular form. Instead, consider each article individually and create a short description that provides the reader with some useful information about x. Only if the meaning of x itself is reasonably clear to English-speaking readers worldwide is the short description "none" appropriate. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelMaggs Except the articles I'm talking about aren't lists? In any case, I agree with all the points you laid out. If you look at my contributions, you'll find that I went on something of a removal spree. I don't think the short descriptions I removed said anything you couldn't infer from the title, which is why I thought they were unhelpful. I also believe that, in those articles, x is a common term that didn't necessitate a definition in the short description. Articles like Basketball in the United States might benefit from a definition of the sport, but I'm not sure if you could do that while keeping the short description, well, short. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is useful feedback, and we should clarify that "x in [country]" titles, and perhaps more generally "x in [place or concept]" (eg Health in China,15th century in literature) fall within the scope of the guidance. I've made some tweaks and have added a new named redirect WP:SDOFIN to avoid any implication that it's all about lists. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Migrating the "Recent progress" graph to Charts?

[edit]

After the Graphs extension was disabled, the "Recent progress" graph at Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions#State of the project has been unavailable, although GhostInTheMachine has still been diligently keeping the graph data up to date with the table. Now that mw:Extension:Chart is available and is more or less usable, I wonder if we should switch over to the new extension?

I've already drafted a chart using the data on the WikiProject page (I think I got everything right, though I used an LLM to help parse the data into json). The data table is at c:Data:Sandbox/Liu1126/SdescProgress.tab and the chart is at c:Data:Sandbox/Liu1126/SdescProgress.chart. This is what it would look like in the same image frame as it is on the WikiProject page:

Thoughts? Liu1126 (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

diligently? Diligent would be the same day every month. Moving on ...
My first attempt to use the chart thingy back in June was not very pretty, but recognise the data? See User:GhostInTheMachine/TestChart. The Image frame would seem to help with setting a chart width, but sadly we still cannot set the chart height. There are also display issues when the chart is combined with {{cot}}/{{cob}}. I have met some gossip that talks about a way to get the new chart system to collect data from the article as it used to, but the method still seems rather dirty. I think that we need to wait until the chart thingy is genuinely "production ready" — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 14:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Crime labels" in a short description...a quandary

[edit]

I came here looking for guidance on a crime label used in a short description. Perhaps this guidance can be revised to better help users on the issue. There is an essay WP: Crime labels that has influenced changes to guidance on biographies. Here is the specific problem at the moment: An editor, @Sebbog13, recently changed the short descriptions for Sara Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromme to read: "American attempted presidential assassin". The description has some logical confusions, but also it uses the crime label that the subject is a "presidential assassin" - e.g., it could be taken that that's their identity and permanent occupation, c.f., the essay noted above.

Biographical article guidance is that rather than employ a crime label for a subject, just a statement as to the nature of the crime is to be given. Such a statement, while more objective, NPOV, and accurate, is necessarily longer than a label. In this present case, a short description for Moore (who recently died): "American who tried to assassinate President Ford (1956-2025)" might be preferred, though this description is 61 characters; perhaps others can suggest a shorter form. Per this article, this length is longer than 98% of Short descriptions. I write this to request two considerations for the guidance of Short descriptions: (1) that as tempting as they may be to use, "crime labels" are to be avoided, and (2) perhaps allowances can be made in such cases for longer descriptions, or examples given as to how a Short description can avoid the label, be ca. 40-character brief, yet still accurately reflect the subject. Bdushaw (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the 40-character recommendation. Sixty-one characters is fine if they are all useful and help us comply with policy and guidelines. We are currently hunting 95-character descriptions, so 61 is way down the priority list. Please do use a dash in the year range, though: "(1956–2025)". – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 40 character limit is arbitrary and arose because of a technical limitation in the app for iPhones. Yes, SDs should be short, even terse, but they must be useful to someone who needs to have some clue as to the content of the article. So no shorter than they need to be – but equally no longer than they need to be either. Perhaps originally SDs were only written with the app in mind but nowadays {{annotated link}} is widely used to annotate articles listed in WP:See also sections, to help readers identify which topics they might want to explore further. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad the SD lengths are not quite as strict as I thought. Bdushaw (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can issue general guidance against crime labels in SDs. There are many assassins, mobsters, murderers, pirates, etc. whose SDs would be much less informative if they didn't focus on the main aspect of notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there is no hard and fast rule, to be sure. Al Capone was "a mobster", Bonnie and Clyde were "bank robbers"; no one would disagree. My concern is that crime labels in many subjects are inappropriate, while the length requirements of a SD beg for the use of a label. Elizabeth Holmes, the article where I first encountered this issue, is NOT "a fraudster"; rather, she was "convicted of fraud". Perhaps the request here is to note that an SD should respect the label usage, or absence, of the article it is to represent. In the biographical articles noted above, the "assassin" label is not used, hence I should conclude the SD should not use that label. Bdushaw (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that all the SD is to be used for us to help disambiugate when search on a list particular via the mobile. The SD need not be precise, just enough to distinguish. So when including crime labels, we should be careful about going too far. So using the word "assassin" seems very strong, and in a case like Moore, something like "American convicted of presidential assassination attempt" Masem (t) 15:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]