Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Short description. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
We are under 900,000 pages without a short description
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)
- 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)
- 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)
[thing] in [state], US— MOS:USA saysDo not use U.S.A. or USA ...
— GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)- Generally agree, but if space is short and [state] is unambiguous, "US" could be omitted. For example "[Thing] in [Texas]" but "[Thing] in [Georgia], US" (ie not Georgia (country)) MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Generally agree, but if space is short and [state] is unambiguous, "US" could be omitted. For example "[Thing] in [Texas]" but "[Thing] in [Georgia], US" (ie not Georgia (country)) MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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/contributions 22:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Consensus – dont use non fiction in short description to describe books
|
|---|
|
- 3. Do "x of y" and "x in y" articles qualify for WP:SDNONE for subnational entities and municipalities, even if the average reader may not know of the region or municipality? (e.g. History of Jiangxi) If they do not qualify for WP:SDNONE, what is their proper format? -1ctinus📝🗨 12:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Places should generally end with
... [top sub-division], [country]– states in America, counties in England, oblasts in Russia etc. Events that happened in places can get lengthy, so sometimes it is necessary to reduce to country only. The country should always be included — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)- I’m not exactly following with what you are saying. What would be the proper SD format in your opinion for History of Jiangxi or Geology of Pembrokeshire, for example? -1ctinus📝🗨 21:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
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)- 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)
- 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/contributions 23:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I’m not exactly following with what you are saying. What would be the proper SD format in your opinion for History of Jiangxi or Geology of Pembrokeshire, for example? -1ctinus📝🗨 21:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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/contributions 22:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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/contributions 01:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Places should generally end with
- 4. Do all filmography, discography, and bibliography articles qualify for WP:SDNONE? -1ctinus📝🗨 12:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- There's no overarching rule. WP:SDNONE is less informative than "American actor's filmography", which is what I'd use MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Maybe the shorter "Performances by the American actor" would be better? We wouldn't need to clarify film since "filmography" is in the title. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I like that MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe the shorter "Performances by the American actor" would be better? We wouldn't need to clarify film since "filmography" is in the title. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- There's no overarching rule. WP:SDNONE is less informative than "American actor's filmography", which is what I'd use MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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/contributions 23:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 5. Which election articles qualify for WP:SDNONE? Does 1804 Connecticut gubernatorial election? Does 1960 New Zealand general election? -1ctinus📝🗨 12:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've been previously using WP:SDNONE for all election articles. I think it should stay that way. LR.127 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most election articles have a fully describing title and so
noneis fine. If there is a temptation to add a SD, then perhaps the article title should be changed instead? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC) - 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, GHTV contWpWS 21:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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/contributions 23:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Transparency, this is the stance I agree with when it comes down to elections. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
template capitalization doesnt matter, duh
|
|---|
|
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC) - 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)
- 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)
- 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/contributions 23:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- 8. What is the format for sports drafts such as 2004 WNBA draft? As you can see, my attempt was rather clunky. Does it qualify for WP:SDNONE?-1ctinus📝🗨 12:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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 — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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:
- 2004 WNBA draft: WP:SDNONE
- WNBA draft: "Annual women's basketball draft"
- NFL draft: "Annual American football draft"
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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: GhostInTheMachine Uhai Qwerfjkl-1ctinus📝🗨 12:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- You could probably create a new section here and post on the respective WikiProject pages to try and get some input, since some of these are more technical. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)