Wikipedia talk:Short description

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WPSHORTDESC)
Shortcut

WP:SDNONE and "History of"

There are almost 2000 articles that start with "History of" that don't have a short description. I believe that it applies for WP:SDNONE (which is horribly vague in my opinion). If I get the greenlight from another editor without disapproval, I will script it to add descriptions to it semi-automatically. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should be OK as long as you will be approving each and every one manually, as there are quite a few "history of X" articles where "X" won't be self-evident to many readers and needs explanation, eg History of the Tasmanian AFL bid and History of the Cleveland Guardians. If you are thinking of setting up a script that will run through the list without personal intervention for every article, you'd need to obtain bot approval. ~~~~ MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per WP:MEATBOT. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem with some of these, is that none of my hypothetical attempts seem to make good short descriptions; take History of the Detroit Tigers as an example:
  • "Aspect of history" (per wikidata) - vague and adds nothing
  • "Baseball franchise history" - clunky and worded in a similar way to the title
  • "History of a baseball franchise" - not too crazy on the "a" article, still makes it clunky
I would like to find a good formula for coming up with descriptions for these "History of" articles that fail WP:SDNONE, as I don't have any good ideas. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I whole-heartedly agree all "Aspects of history" should be gone asap. Like I said below, I was going around and changing those (and similar SDs) to "none" but ran into articles that didnt seem to make sense to be "nones". It was actually while working on SDs in Australia that got me thinking about it, specifically History of the Northern Territory. Unless you know that's a territory of Australia, "none" doesn't make sense. Wouldnt "History of the Austrailian territory" (or something to that effect) be better? Masterhatch (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I am trying to come up with an ideal formula for articles such as the one you mentioned, as described above. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best you can do, I think, is to use AWB or similar to step through all the relevant "History of . . ." articles, accepting "None" where it works and skipping those where it doesn't. The skipped ones then need to be handled individually. Articles where "None" isn't appropriate vary, and there isn't a general formula. In the example you gave, I'd use "History of a baseball franchise" MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few months ago, I changed a whole bunch of "History of..."s to "none"s. Then I stopped. It seemed to make sense for many of those to be "none" but then I ran into others that i wasnt too sure about. It makes sense for History of Canada (a commomn term we don't often wiki link to) but it seemed to make less sense for provinces, such as History of Saskatchewan. To me, for a province (or state or city or region) wouldnt an SD of "History of a Canadian province" for Saskatchewan make more sense than "none"? I was going to bring it up here but I never got around to it. Masterhatch (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

adding a generator to Template:infobox musical

I have made a short description generator for infobox musical and I just want some extra eyes on it before I add it to the template. 

{{#if:{{Has short description}} |<!--Do nothing--> |{{short description|{{#if:{{#invoke:string|match|{{{premiere_date|}}}|%d%d%d%d|ignore_errors = true}}|{{#invoke:string|match|{{{premiere_date|}}}|%d%d%d%d|ignore_errors = true}} m| M}}usical{{#if:{{{music|}}}{{{lyrics|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{Plain text|{{{music|}}}}}|{{Plain text|{{{lyrics|}}}}}|{{spaces}}by {{Plain text|{{{music|}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Thanks! -1ctinus📝🗨 01:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you put it in the sandbox, you can test it at Special:ExpandTemplates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A version with fixed bugs has been added to the template, It seems to be working well. -1ctinus📝🗨 17:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles appear to be done

Searching -hastemplate:"Short description" hastemplate:"Good article" isn't returning anything for me, do we cross it off the project tasks checklist? Orchastrattor (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without short description

Hi short description experts, if you're interested some Italian foods are without short description (e.g., gelo di melone). JacktheBrown (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using the SD category script when looking at Category:Italian cuisine and its subcategories should make it easy to pick out the 5 to 10% of articles without SDs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95, in some cases User:1234qwer1234qwer4/shortdescs-in-category.js is more helpful for adding short descriptions. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a few. It was easy to fix Gelo di melone in just one click. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are simultaneously both "Short description matches Wikidata" and "Short description is different from Wikidata"

It appears that articles can be simultaneously placed in both the Short description matches Wikidata category and the seemingly inconsistent category Short description is different from Wikidata. For example, see UEFA Europa Conference League and 2024–25_CONCACAF_Nations_League. Can this phenomenon be investigated to help determine if there is an appropriate way to fix it? Thank you. Coining (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is because the infoboxes of these two pages (Template:Infobox football tournament and Template:Infobox international football competition) also automatically generate short descriptions. These were later overridden by a manual short description that matches the Wikidata description, but for some reason the automatic shortdesc, which differs from the Wikidata description, is still being detected. For example, I removed the manually overriding short description on 2024–25 CONCACAF Nations League, and now the page is only categorised under Category:Short description is different from Wikidata. Not sure how to fix this though. Liu1126 (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks for at least, seemingly, finding a manual solution. I'll await any further advice, but I may proceed by bringing up your observation on those template talk pages. Coining (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this less-watched discussion page, where other options were discussed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it seems that the fix used by Template:Infobox film still fails; Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel, for example, uses infobox film but is still double categorised, which is very strange since the conditional should, in theory, prevent the dual invocation of Module:SDcat that is causing the problem.
In the final comment in Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 8#Adding tracking categories, RexxS said that there's no easy general solution because Lua can't simply get the local short description from page_props, so I guess we'll just have to bear with it until someone does a whole revamp of the code. Liu1126 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox film in that "Alvin" article is working fine; it's {{Infobox video game}} that is causing the dual categories in that one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. I just searched incategory:"Short description matches Wikidata" AND incategory:"Short description is different from Wikidata" AND hastemplate:"Infobox film" and found a few results, but upon closer inspection it seems that none of these are caused by Infobox film itself. Guess the fix works then, though I don't know if it would be worth the effort making this standard for all automatic sdescs. Liu1126 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liu1126, can you help me to understand why you believe that it is the templates that are automatically adding the short descriptions? In the UEFA Europa Conference League article, the errant short description was added well after the template (see Version comparison showing edit in September 2020. Coining (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some templates have an automatic short description embedded within their code (at the end of the template code, enclosed within <includeonly> tags), like the two I mentioned above. This short description doesn't appear inside the wikitext of the target page (because the template is transcluded), and it gets overridden when an explicit instance of Template:Short description is added to the target page (due to its noreplace parameter). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions#Auto-generated and bot-generated descriptions for more info. These manual short descriptions aren't necessarily "errant"; in cases where the automatic short description isn't ideal, it is recommended to manually override them. Liu1126 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally under a million!

We hit a big milestone today. It may have been my edit (I have been updating a ton of templates) or somebody else's edit, but we have hit the final million milestone. We did it WikiProject Short Descriptions! (Pardon my weird CSS) -1ctinus📝🗨 01:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! GraziePrego (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! :-) In December 2022, we went below 1.5 million which means we added 500,000 short descriptions in 1.5 years. If we continue at this rate, we will have completed the task of adding short descriptions in three years. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects with short descriptions

Editors who watch this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Question on redirects with short descriptions. Certes (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long and/or bad short descriptions

Just wanted to report that I've been shortening or otherwise changing short descriptions that match common mistakes, using a quarry script.[1] I know other methods of searching are available but I've found a nice workflow this way. I can turn on one or two filters to get a bit of variety with the type of problem being corrected.

So far I've managed to prune down all the SDs over 100 characters and nearly all those of exactly 100 characters. Counting all the SDs in excess of 60 characters, there's over 100 thousand such articles that may need attention. It's steady work :) Wizmut (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing God’s work for short descriptions. It would be awesome if you were able to track long short descriptions generated from templates if it’s possible. I wager there’s a lot of template generated short descriptions between 80-99 characters hiding in sight. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked into your question, but the only coherent output I've gotten is a list of articles which have SD-generating templates that are not generating any SD: [2] I'm not sure why this happens but there's thousands of them.
The problem with finding induced SDs is that the database which tracks instances of templates on pages, templatelinks, will say that Template:Short description appears on any page with either an explicit or induced SD. Overall my attempts at distinguishing between the two using the database have come up short. Wizmut (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of creating a short description for Template:Infobox book

I am working on a proposal for creating a short description of Template:Infobox book in the template's talk page. Any constructive help to improve the proposal would be greatly appreciated. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Short_description&oldid=1227457905"