User talk:Anwegmann/Archives/2021/August

Short description reverts
Hello, you recently reverted three edits I made to short descriptions, namely on the following pages: Liberia national football team, Liberia women's national football team, and Laestadianism. You didn't bother leaving a reason for any of these reverts, as would have been proper etiquette. Could you please explain why you felt the need to undo my work? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, my apologies for that. I reverted them because the edits were clearly improper. To begin with, short descriptions must always start with a capital letter. These edits made it so that the short descriptions did not do that. The edits were also reductive. Reducing the short description of a specific nation's national team of a specific sport for a specific gender, for example, simply to "sports team" is simplistic, generic, and does not add to the value of what a short description does—indeed, it detracts quite a bit from it. In essence, the original edits neither improved nor meaningfully clarified a specific error in the short descriptions. There were, in function, either unnecessary, as with the example from Laestadianism, or reductive and improper, as was the case with both Liberia national football team and Liberia women's national football team. I hope that clarifies things. Again, my apologies for not leaving a reason, especially for Laestadianism. Frankly, the edits made to the Liberian football pages came across as vandalism, so I did not provide a reason. I should have provided a reason for the former, however. Again, my apologies. Anwegmann (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for explaining. If you had looked at my user profile, you wouldn't think that my edits were done in an attempt to vandalize. My understanding is that a short description should be as brief as possible and that it shouldn't reiterate what is already stated in the article title. In the case of Laestadianism, there is no need to state when the movement started. The purpose of an s/d is not to summarize a topic but rather to disambiguate. In the case of the Liberian sports teams, the s/d's you have restored essentially restate what is already in the page titles, almost verbatim. How is that a better s/d than the one I wrote? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm still hoping you will continue to engage in this conversation with me so that we can get to the bottom of our disagreement. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no more meaningful discussion to have. Your short descriptions specifically for the Liberian national teams are woefully generic and do no more than repeat the title of the article, which the guidelines listed here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Short_description#SDFORMAT) say to avoid specifically. The word "team" is already in the title. So "sports team" is reductive to the point of losing all meaning. These are association football national teams designated for a specific country and a specific gender. That is far more than just a "sports team," which is broadly identifiable already by the title. When the short description is visible, the rest of the article is not. So the short description needs to serve as a brief but meaningful opening into what the article is about. Describing the "Liberia national football team" as "sports team" does nothing to differentiate a) between American football and association football or b) the men's team and the women's team, both critical differences that need to be highlighted in the short description. Your short descriptions are akin to describing an airport as "a building" or a human as "a lifeform". It might as well not be there. Feel free to shorten the original description. I don't really care about the specific wording. But I do care if the short description is a) improperly formatted (it must start with a capital letter) and/or b) incorrect, reductive, or otherwise misleading or meaningless.


 * And for the record, just so you know that I'm not just being a jerk, I completely agree with you re: Laestadianism. Anwegmann (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the explanation, that's all I was hoping for. There's always meaningful discussion to be had, certainly when we are disagreeing without necessarily being obstinate about any particular point. In the future, I would appreciate if you would express yourself instead of ignoring my attempt to communicate with you. Again, thank you for the explanation. I'm not entirely clear what you mean when you say "When the short description is visible, the rest of the article is not." Would you mind clarifying? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jabari Hylton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NPSL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)