Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 13

Should "none" override?
Should a SD of "none" override a SD added by a template? It doesn't seem to. Example: List of historic properties in New River, Arizona. I think noreplace is in effect: see Module:Settlement short description. Certes (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It should override, and the article looks like it is set up correctly to me. The page's description is "CDP", generated by Infobox settlement, and the page hasn't been edited since March. I have noticed a couple of other odd things happening with SDs set to "none"; see this discussion. I wonder if the handling of "none" has changed in some way. I think it is handled by MediaWiki rather than the module, but I could be completely wrong about that. I looked through the talk page archives here, and it is not clear to me when and how the "none" option was implemented. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like Short description renders only a tag when the SD is set to "none", which appears to make it so that there is not actually an SD of "none" provided. This makes it look to me like the infobox SD is the only actual SD in the rendered article code, so the infobox SD is the one that is used. If I am interpreting the code correctly, that behavior seems nonoptimal to me. The template should provide an empty short description div block, I think, so that the page "sees" that block and does not override the empty description with the "noreplace" one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The local manually input short description absolutely should override any automatically generated short description added by a template. "none" is normally a local manually input short description which takes precedence until an editor changes it. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 06:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have noticed thai the gadget for displaying short descriptions as annotations in categories does not comply with the requirement to display nothing if the SD = none. It is reverting to the magenta and red short descriptions supplied from Wikidata and automated default SDs which it should not do. This makes it necessary to check all of these articles to make sure that the SD is appropriate every time the category is checked. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 10:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for template:Short description
A template request was posted referencing a recent CFD closure to delete Category:User pages with short description, which is populated by this template. Specifically, we need to add a conditional based on namespace to suppress page type categorization for user space, with the possibility of extension other page types in the future. I would suggest changing: to:

This should cause any page type that is set to "exclude" when using to no longer get categorized, and retaining the default behavior for any others. Similarly, the long short description categorization should probably be suppressed as well, although this is not explicitly called for at the CFD, changing: to:

Apparently the long short description categories have another purpose. Thanks, Qwerfjkl! VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 21:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Vanisaac, the long short description category serves.a.purpose that.cannot.be replaced by WLH, or even a insource search, so doesn't have to be moved. This change could also apply to many other namespaces. —  Qwerfjkl talk  21:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * If anyone just wants a simple copy-paste to do this edit, you can find the requested template code at this diff of the sandbox. VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 23:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Would this change fix, or at least not make worse, the problem described in the "Should "none" override?" section above? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This change does not interact with the content of a short description in any way. All it does is suppress population of category:user pages with long short description. It does not impact prioritization or the functioning of the special value "none". VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 17:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, VanIsaac! – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * how do we exclude user talk pages, such as User talk:3PPYB6? – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fayenatic london, instead of the above wikitext, something like: The problem is pagetype can't tell the difference between talk pages that aren't article talk pages, so using the namespace is better. —  Qwerfjkl  talk  13:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks again – that also works (after a few null edits) on e.g. User talk:4meter4/userboxes which has a short desc via an infobox. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't often get thanked for someone else's assistance, so I'll just pass your thanks on to . VanIsaac, LLEcont WpWS 16:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Mass import of Wikidata SDs
There is an editor who is importing a massive amount of Wikidata descriptions to Wikipedia using the Shortdesc helper. Many of these SDs are great, they’re not always perfect, but they’re not too long, not too short and are appropriately descriptive. But because I fear this user is importing indiscriminately, many of the imported SDs are inappropriate, too long or redundantly repeat the text of the title. I have mentioned to this editor some of the problems they are importing, but they seem content that they are good enough. I didn’t see any sort of recommendation against mass importing, but maybe that’s implicit. My main concern is that once these articles are assigned an SD template and are harder to find, competent SDs won’t be as likely to be added. I was considering going to WP:ANI, but the content of SDs is a very specific type of content, so I figured I’d get opinions here first. — HTGS (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Anything involving a mass import would make that editor evaluated as botlike. WP:ANI seems like a valid action to take because if they aren't following the guidelines, it can definitely be considered disruptive editing. – The Grid  ( talk )  22:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This should definitely not be happening. Mass import from Wikidata has been specifically rejected in an RFC. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This should not be happening. It is one of the few rules for which we definitely have strong broad based consensus. Have you linked this person to the consensus on this point? Who is it? Does the addition rate support your hypothesis of bot or botlike editing? Ordinary lack of competence should always be considered as an alternative hypothesis. However, whatever the mechanism, the remedy is the same. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 10:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The user is @Ffffrr. I genuinely believe this is lack of competence more than, or combined with, a bot like approach. I encourage editors to review contributions for yourselves, as I would love to be wrong here. You can see of my own concerns listed at their talk page, as well as concerns raised by others above. — HTGS (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not import indiscriminately and I have not used any bots, just the “short description helper” gadget. Ffffrr (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , Please try to be more discriminating in your imports from Wikidata using the short description gadget. Many Wikidata descriptions are inappropriate for use as short descriptions, and before you import them you are required to check the actual topic and assess whether the import is appropriate. Skipping this step is not an option. You are responsible for all edits you make, whether you use a gadget, a bot or purely manual, and if your edits are found to be sufficiently problematic, then you may be prevented from making them so that others are not burdened with the task of fixing them. Competence is required, and wasting other people's time is generally considered problematic. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Which in particular, I do not see which ones are wrong. Ffffrr (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think as the person who made the complaint, you are in the best position to list some examples. Please do so. The list does not need to be exhaustive, at this point variety of problems would be more useful than quantity. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 11:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Repinging in case you did not get the previous message. This is the project page for short descriptions, It is appropriate to discuss problems relating to them here, so the records of discussions and remedies will also be recorded here. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I want to reiterate, there is more good than bad here, which is why I’m so hesitant to call Ffffrr out here, but there is a problem all to itself when someone makes a large quantity of edits that may need checking by other users. (In calling some of these out, I also open myself up to being wrong about certain cases.) In any case, some examples listed. Problematic:
 * Fingolimod (drug or medication, not merely a “chemical compound”)
 * PNU-181731 (ditto)
 * Mesomeric betaine (should probably be simply “chemical compound”—or at least include it)
 * Pax_(liturgical_object) (too long)
 * List_of_Vietnamese_records_in_Olympic_weightlifting (“Wikimedia list article”, although I believe Ffffrr has got this message by now)
 * B14_road_(Namibia) (“Road in Namibia”—only really problematic when Ffffrr has SD’d almost every other of these articles with “National highway of Namibia”, or “Secondary route in Namibia”. This is the sort of situation that could use edits from someone who can parse and apply logical standards to SDs when doing the whole group, not blindly importing from Wikidata.)
 * Parasympathetic_ganglia (largely expands the title into a form that is still not helpful for a non-expert)
 * Marco_D%27Alberti (someone changing massive amounts of SDs should know better than to list birth date as “(1948-)” )
 * 1985_in_comics (should either be blank, or explain what “comics” refers to. Someone editing these pages should also probably be making the entire series consistent (List of years in comics), rather than just 1985 and 1986—this is a common problem)
 * Soil_series (not helpful)
 * Sexual_coercion_among_animals Adding local short description: "Sexual coercion among non-human animals", overriding Wikidata description "use of violence, threats, harassment, and other tactics to forciby copulate" (should probably be blank, left to someone wiser to fix, because even I can’t think of a good SD there)

Not problematic, but could be better:
 * Parliament_of_Yugoslavia (“assembly” misspelled)
 * Let_Go_My_Hand (date of book would be a good addition)
 * 90-60-90_Modelos (could be more descriptive; country or year or genre)
 * Birth_(1984_film) (long and confusing)
 * Miss_Hong_Kong_2021 (edition is probably the wrong word)
 * Viðskiptablaðið (should include country)
 * Cyclone_Enawo (tense problem)
 * Family_(Ba_Jin_novel) (too long; I would probably change “autobiographical novel” to just “novel”)
 * Economic_abuse (moderately redundant)
 * African_feminism (ditto)

Good: — HTGS (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Vendhar_Movies
 * Thomas_Crick perfect
 * Lynching_of_John_Harrison perfect
 * City_Museum perfect
 * Happy_Ghost_III great
 * , Thanks for this. This is not intended as a witch hunt, If we can come to agreement with on which are problems and why they are problems, we all win, and we can all probably learn something about what quality implies in a short description, as we probably all have slightly different ideas. At this point both personal opinions and project advice are interesting, as well as the reasoning behind them. I call on  to choose one of the examples from the problematic group, and say whether they agree there is a problem, and if they do, to identify what the problem is. Ideally  will then add their opinion and reasons. We can then discuss what others think. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just went through the list of problematic SDs and this could be an interesting discussion. I see some problems but not sure we will all se the same ones. I am looking forward to other opinions. I suggest comparing each SD to the criteria: Valid? Useful? Short? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 09:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Questions for . a) How are you choosing pages to add short descriptions? (there is no wrong way) b) How often do you add a short description that is not from Wikidata, or c) abandon a page unchanged because you don't agree with the Wikidata description and cannot come up with a better one? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 09:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To ,
 * a) I either click on the Random article button on the left side of the Wikipedia screen which occasionally turns up an article without a short description or more often I check the WikiProject Short descriptions page and then go to the section Which articles can I work on? and I click search for -incategory:"Articles with short description" -incategory:"All disambiguation pages" and add to the ones that appear.
 * b/c) Most times I find that the Wikidata description is sufficient, though when I see that not to be the case I truncate it where possible and in instances where I feel that either the meaning would not be transmitted or understood while following the suggested character limit of or around 40 characters I usually decide not to import it. Around half of the time I do not import. Ffffrr (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , in principle I think those are entirely reasonable ways to add short descriptions, since those are very close to the methods I use, and are even recommended by the project. Others may have different opinions, in which case they are welcome to clarify their reasoning. This would also explain lack of stylistic consistency between short descriptions added in this way and short descriptions added systematically to a related set of articles. There is no requirement for stylistic consistency, anyone who considers that important can do it themself, taking into consideration that article content is ultimately decided by policy, MoS, other guidance, and local consensus, and also that in some cases an article is part of more than one related sets, and stylistic cosistency with both sets may not be possible. So it would appear that there are no problems with the process, just interpretation of what constitutes an acceptable import. This discussion is intended to clarify some of those issues, so here we are. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 06:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * and others: A slightly better and easier (IMHO) way to find articles that need short descriptions is to browse by category. The search linked above is good. It led me to Meizu MX5, which led me to . Using the valuable "show SDs in category" script reveals that about 1/3 of the articles in that category are missing local SDs, and it also shows the general patterns of SDs in use for that category. From there, it is easy to click on the articles that are missing local SDs and add a bunch of similar short descriptions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Another helpful way to create a lot of easy, standard short descriptions is to look at categories like (there is such a category for every reasonable year). Again, use the script linked above to show which articles are missing local short descriptions (local SDs show in black; all other colors are missing or at Wikidata). For people who are dead, use the standard format shown on this project page: "[country adjective] [what the person is known for] (birthyear–deathyear)". Do not blindly trust the Wikidata description, which is often incomplete or wrong. Tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of these are needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Specific case discussions
I will encourage participation by going first with an example from the top of the list: I agree with on one way how this could be improved. I also suggest that "Medication for multiple sclerosis" would be even more useful while remaining short. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 06:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC) I fix when I see a problem. I don't know whether anyone else agrees with my fix unless someone reverts or thanks, but that is standard operating procedure here, not necessarily a problem. So far, to the best of my knowledge there has been only this one query about quality, and it seems like there was no great harm done, but some differences of opinion on what makes a good (useful?) short description. From memory, improvements usually result in a longer short description, with information needing to be added, but sometimes the focus is just different, or spelling or grammar needs to be fixed, and occasionally someone does not know what they are trying to describe, but uses a lot of words to do it. The thing about short descriptions, is that they are so short that it is usually quicker to fix if one can, than to tag/categorise them for improvement, but sometime one can see they are not good, but don't know how to improve, which is the time tagging/categorising for improvement would be useful, as it would allow others to filter for topics they know well, and work through the list to fix them efficiently. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 10:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fingolimod (drug or medication, not merely a “chemical compound”)
 * Valid = yes, Useful = not very, Short = yes.
 * That seems like a good alternative description. Do you find "chemical compound" to always be a subpar description and should the other articles with that description be changed or not? Ffffrr (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Always is not a word I like to use in this sort of situation. It is so easily proven wrong by an exception. Usually or often subpar is safer. Medication would generally be better if it applies. Medication for (condition), or medication (of type) would be better. Where not a medication, Chemical compound (of type X, or used for X) sort of thing is more useful. "Chemical compound" alone is acceptable if it is the best you can be sure of from the article content. Someone more knowledgeable can improve it later. Sometimes the article has to be improved before a useful short description can be written. That is an optional extra. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with none of this. — HTGS (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because, I think, Peter and I are on the same page here, I’ll say that if a short description can be more specific (and in general, more descriptive) while still being generally understood by the public at large (and not made too long), it should be made more specific. In this case, I would say that any drug that is labelled a “chemical compound” is not specific enough. All drugs are chemical compounds (I think), but not all chemical compounds are drugs. I did include mesomeric betaine above as an example where the best SD might actually be “chemical compound”, because any more specificity risks confusing an unfamiliar reader. — HTGS (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On re-reading Mesomeric betaine, I think the best SD is going to be something more like “Type of chemical compound”, as the page appears to describe more than a single chemical (the last time I thought about chemistry for its own sake I was 18, so excuse my lack of expertise here). This is part of what I want to encourage, in fact; the best way to write SDs is to make sure you understand the topic, or at least what the article is talking about. This often needs more than a cursory read of the Wikidata description and the first sentence. — HTGS (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If we insisted on people understanding a topic before they edit it, this wouldn't be Wikipedia, but I get your meaning. Having some idea of what the article is about is about as high as we can aim for, but that is what the lead is for. (In theory, anyway. Some leads don't manage this too well). Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is true that one should not generally rely solely on the lead of the article as it may be erroneous or be recently vandalized (though this would in most cases be obvious but others should be careful about that regardless). Ffffrr (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup. Drug, toxin, dye, enzyme, protein, monomer, lipid, mineral, etc. are all more useful than "Chemical compound" alone, which is still acceptable if it is the best you can be sure of from the article content, or the best you can find that will actually be useful to most readers. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While on this topic, it might be useful to add a optional parameter to Short description to indicate that it needs attention, and put it in a maintenance category. This could be added by anyone who thinks there is serious room for improvement, but is unable to do it themself, including when one adds the first short description. Any comments? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If added, it should probably be integrated into the gadget. — Qwerfjkl  talk  19:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adreed, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is why we have talk pages — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For low-traffic pages, it's unlikely a talk page message will be seen. — Qwerfjkl  talk  20:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t have any strong opposition to the idea, but potential for improvement is kind of already implicit in that we’re writing a wiki. Anyone remember the expand template? The fine line between an editor being able to write a perfectly adequate SD, and being so inexpert in a subject that they cannot sensibly supply one is too narrow for my liking. Or at least narrow enough that building in this sort of tool probably just isn’t worth the effort. In any case, I think the first step towards building this sort of tool should be a simple list of SDs that fit the need (somewhere like Short description/Short descriptions needing attention). — HTGS (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , It is considerably different form Expand, in that it is inherently very specific as to what needs improvement, and would not necessarily even show up on on the page itself. I had in mind that it would just populate a maintenance category, so that a list like the one you suggest would be automatically compiled (the category content). We already have a short list of short descriptions which you listed, and it does not seem like anyone is interested in analysing them.

Category
Is there a category or filter for articles without an SD? I can only find such articles by going into a specific category and using the hidden SD button then doing them individually. Is there a more efficient way of finding articles without an SD? MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above. Does that help? Also do a find on this page for "Another helpful way". – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In case that is all too technical, here's a link to 1,500 articles in one of the subcategories of that do not have short descriptions. When you're done with that, change the decade and run it again. Creating SDs for biographies is pretty straightforward. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Birth and death years in short descriptions
Hello. I was just wondering what the community consensus is on whether or not birth and death years in the short description are suitable. In my opinion, if the addition does not cause the short description to go over 40 characters, it is suitable. I feel a death year is more acceptable than (born xxxx) when comparing the two. I know the date table encourages the use of the dating format within reason. I have been commended for the use of the dates while also being reverted for the use of them less often. In addition, when I used to use basic short descriptions with no dates, I have been told that the dates need to be added. So, I am getting conflicting information with both editing styles. Before I embark on this again, I just want to see what the community suggests. I personally think their inclusion is acceptable if the character limit is not broken. However, I feel like at the end of the day, it is the editor's discretion based on current trends. Red Director (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is not a 40-character limit. See the long discussions above if you want to immerse yourself in the details. TL;DR: those discussions resulted in changes to the Formatting section, but we neglected to update WP:SDDATES. I have done so just now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I would not say it is appropriate. A birth or death date is not salient to identifying the subject, so it is not suitable for the short description, no matter how many characters there are in the description. The closest I could ever see is something to indicate the era, like "16th c. Flemish poet ..." VanIsaac, GHTVcont WpWS 15:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SDDATES does not agree with that, it says they are encouraged (with caveats). <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 16:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * and : Consensus is that dates or date ranges are recommended in many circumstances. That is how we ended up with the guidance at WP:SDDATES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And consensus remains. The only reason I don’t add dob+dod is if the SD is above 40 characters and cannot be reasonably shortened. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)