Wikipedia talk:Short description

Shortcut

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

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]
With Elizabeth Holmes, the short description is currently "American businesswoman". That seems to skip over why she is notable. I don't have a issue calling her a fraudster, after all that simply means "a person who commits fraud, especially in business or commercial dealings". Thus, someone who is convicted of a fraud, is correctly called a "fraudster", if that is why they are notable. Given the discussion here, "American businesswoman convicted of fraud" seems like a good solution. Rublamb (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either one is fine, because either one briefly describes her and distinguishes her from Elizabeth Holmes (writer) and Beth Holmes and Elisabeth Holmes Moore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RFC on the label "fraudster" and Holmes that clearly decided the label was a bad idea. There have been a multitude of other similar RFCs for other subjects and similar labels with the same result, and so on, hence the motivation for writing the essay on the subject noted above. One of my secondary aims for this inquiry here is to continue to raise awareness and sensitivity to the issue that often such labels are a bad idea. The definition argument you give has been worked over time and again. (And Holmes was a notable, high-profile businesswoman well before the fraud became apparent, but that's beside the point here; and not that I agree with that SD...) I similarly think it is a bad idea to have an article that studiously avoids such labels, and then have such a label creatively and carelessly employed for the Short description. As noted in the essay, the discussions on the crime label issue have been voluminous - we should avoid repeating them! Bdushaw (talk) 20:13, 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]
Where the SD tends to be on the longer side, as here, dates can be omitted. WP:SDDATES says that "biographies of non-living people ... generally benefit from dating, but since the description should be kept short, other information may need to take precedence." In these examples, if the consensus is that a slightly longer text is needed to avoid what you call a 'crime label', I'd leave off the dates. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no good reason to omit the dates. The reason for the 40-character advice is that in some edge cases, SDs are truncated. Truncating the dates in those edge cases while providing them in the majority of cases is user-friendly behavior. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 40 character limit. It is not even a target. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you all for the discussion - I've gone with "American convicted of presidential assassination attempt" with the date. For me it has been useful, I hope also for the guidance for Short descriptions. Bdushaw (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions on redirection pages

I'm afraid that I don't understand what this is intended to convey:

where the redirect page is the subject of an {{Annotated link}} (which is increasingly the case)

  • The redirect target page or the redirecting page?
  • the advice would make sense if the redirection is to a section at the target article, but it doesn't say that?

What have I missed? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten that line so that it now reads
3.   where the redirection page is to a section of the target page and thus a more specific SD is required;.
I leave it others to decide whether the line The short description of a Redirect to section should refer to the section content and should not generally be the same as that of the article itself. should continue to be at the end or whether it can be appended to to item 3. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably close enough for most cases. A different short description is typically needed for a redirect to section or a redirect from subtopic (often both apply at the same time). There are a lot of redirects where the target article's SD is sub-optimal to just plain wrong. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on birth years for BLPs

I propose rephrasing this sentence:

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.

To this:

Care should be taken when the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy applies: birth years for living people should not be included if not sourced within the article.

The reason for replacing "unless" with "if" is that if I'm not mistaken, this sentence sets a necessary but not sufficient condition (i.e. "You may or may not add the birth date, but if you do, it has to be sourced within the article"). But some contributors seem to interpret it as "if sourced in the article, birth years should be added to the SD of BLPs" and pointed to WP:SDDATES to justify adding birth years (e.g. " (born 1976)") to BLPs. The proposition also changes "birthdates" to "birth years" for extra clarity (no one is arguing for adding day and month anyway). I'm open to other phrasings if you think my proposition isn't ideal. Alenoach (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s astonishing how people will interpret what seems fairly plain language. But yes, by all means clarify the wording if need be. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting one "if" statement and two "not"s in this wording will make it more confusing, not less. How about: "birth years for living people should be included only if they are sourced within the article"? (we could also write "may" instead of "should") – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"should be included only if" leaves room for misinterpretation (it's close to "should be included if"). Using "may be included only if" is an option. Alenoach (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. I'd suggest:
Care should be taken when the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy applies: birth years for living people may be included only if reliably sourced within the article."
Adding "reliably" provides a useful link to WP:RS, for beginners who might think that a date in the short description can be 'sourced' to any date in the text. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Alenoach (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SD on the page "List of S&P 600 companies"

I added a short description to the page here but it was reverted under the criteria SDNONE. However, just below this is the criteria SDLIST which states that articles that that are lists should never have the short description "None". So I'm a bit confused. Can I get some clarification? Thanks for any help Pearsejward (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stop reading in the middle of the sentence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SDLIST does not say that articles that that are lists should never have the short description "None": it says they should not do so solely because they are lists. Not all list articles are the same, and not all should use "None"; they should be looked at individually. In this case, the wording "S&P 600" is not "sufficiently self-explanatory to English language speakers worldwide" (WP:SDNONE), and a proper short description is required, I've suggested "US stocks with small market capitalization". MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Very helpful Pearsejward (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Concept in" considered harmful

I keep finding short descriptions like "Concept in mathematics", despite the warning in WP:SDEXAMPLES to "Try to be more specific". When short descriptions are used to disambiguate mobile searches, these only have any value as disambiguators from other search results that happen to be from remote topics rather than others in the same field (consider for instance someone trying to distinguish Blaschke sum and Blaschke product, two very different topics named after the same mathematician, one of which had a short description of this form until today). When short descriptions are used in lists of annotated links, such as Wilhelm Blaschke § Mathematics or many see also sections, it is worse, as the context of the list usually provides more context than "concept in mathematics" would. And from the point of view of keeping short descriptions short, "Concept in" is actively harmful, as it adds 11 characters (counting the space at the end) without adding any meaning. I think our wording in SDEXAMPLES should actively discourage this sort of wording rather than providing it as a positive example with a vague admonition to be more specific. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The guidance tells you how to write a short description, including what to avoid, and provides a list of examples, ending with a final long-standing option of "Concept in [academic field]" – wording which is discouraged and allowed only in cases where something more specific isn't possible due to the complexity of the subject. In such cases, "Concept in" is by no means content-free, serving as it does as a means of specifying the broad field in terms that are clear to non-specialist English-speaking readers worldwide. "Concept in mathematics" will clearly be understood as "Something [that's too complicated to explain] in the field of mathematics". "Concept in" is a useful last-choice fallback when more specific terms aren't available or would require specialist knowledge to interpret. The disambiguation purpose of short descriptions according to WP:SDPURPOSE is to distinguish for the benefit of general readers "especially between similarly titled subjects in different fields" (my italics, eg mathematics, art), and not to make fine distinctions for the benefit of specialists between two highly technical articles within the same general field.
Let's talk about a specific example, Star coloring, in which yesterday you reverted my short description of "Concept in mathematics" to "Graph coloring avoiding 2-colored paths" with an edit summary starting "Please do not EVER use "concept in" in your short descriptions". No. A general reader might expect "Star coloring" have something to do with art, or perhaps astronomy. The title doesn't in itself suggest mathematics, and "Graph coloring avoiding 2-colored paths" does not achieve that as it relies on specialist knowledge of the technical mathematical meaning of "graph" contrary to WP:SDJARGON. A non-specialist reader looking at that short description will be none the wiser, perhaps guessing based on the common usage of "graph" that the article is about some sort of artistic technique to do with the colours used to display bar or line charts. There may be something better than "Concept in mathematics", but your proposed wording is not it.
When an editor works through the list of short description examples and finds that the article they're looking at really can't be captured in a just a few words, the correct response is to go broad and mention just the overall field, not to give up and feel free to ignore the fundamentals WP:SDPURPOSE, WP:SDJARGON and WP:SDNOTDEF with a short description addressed to mathematicians that will be incomprehensible to the vast majority of readers. When used within an article, the {{Annotated link}} template provides an override specifically designed for more appropriate language to be used where it is needed, for example in the See also section of a mathematics article. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought first that this was another case of clash of perspectives: "top down" (what is presented to a search) -v- "bottom up" (the list of relevant topics presented in an annotated See Also list). But now I wonder if it is actually something deeper, a world view that any topic in Maths, Science and Technology ("MST") is ipso facto jargon. If the SD of every MST topic is to be reduced to "concept in Mathematics" or "mathematical concept" [and this is by no means the first case of its kind] then the whole principle of Short Descriptions is fatally undermined.
So, although it is true that editors are advised to supplement the SD presented by a {{anl}} if the context merits it [or even do a complete local variation], that is for the 'long tail' cases. The base SD should be meaningful and if that means breaking the arbitrary 40 character limit, let it be broken. To put "Try to be more specific" another way, WP:Think of the reader (and not just those readers who discarded MST studies at age 16). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first thought, that this is a "top down" -v- "bottom up" discussion, is probably right. This isn't to do with anything mathematical being ipso facto jargon – I can't speak for others but that is absolutely not my world view. But in this example expecting more than a very small proportion of readers who see Star coloring in a search result to recognise, wihout more, that "graph" is being used in a very specific technical sense fails the fundamental WP:SDJARGON rule "use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject". Better might be something like "Type of mathematical graph coloring". MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Type of mathematical graph coloring" conveys, beyond the article title "star coloring", only the clarification that this is part of mathematics (rather than, as one might guess, astronomy). That is, it is almost completely content-free and unspecific. It is a bad short description. It does not disambiguate any search that is looking for a specific type of mathematical graph coloring and where the searcher wants to pick this one out of all the other search results. It is useless as an annotated link in any mathematics article, where one already knows that the topic is mathematical. In short, it has no value as a short description. Your argument about "a small proportion of readers" is pointless: only a small proportion of readers will ever see this short description, and it is those readers, not all readers, that the short description should target. Some of them will see it because of the word "star" and those are the ones who need to know that it is mathematics, or at least not astronomy, which any mathematical terminology in the short description can convey. The rest of them will be coming to this from a context of mathematics and (if they need a short description) need one that is specific enough to distinguish this from similarly-named mathematics articles. If this is the way you think short descriptions should be written, I can only conclude that you either do not understand what short descriptions are used for or are deliberately trying to undermine their value by making them as useless as possible.
To put it a different way: our categories group items on similar topics together. Our short descriptions have the opposite function, to differentiate items on similar topics or with similar names, to ungroup them. Your vague short descriptions appear to come from a position of categorization, not of differentiation, and that makes them bad as short descriptions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your "I can only conclude" deduction might have been an offensive personal attack in some other area, but in the context of short descriptions it is just hilarious. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok, then, maybe it is me that doesn't understand short descriptions. I think their function on Wikipedia is to be displayed in search results to help differentiate those results, and to make it easier to write short blurbs in lists of links such as see-also sections by allowing the annotated link template to copy the short description rather than hand-crafting it. Your short descriptions are almost entirely useless for that purpose: they cannot be used at all in see-also sections, and they only disambiguate searches whose results are already far apart in topic, not the common case where a specific technical word leads to many closely-related results.
So tell me: what other function am I missing? What function do you think short descriptions serve, for which vagueness rather than specificity is actually preferable? And if vagueness is so preferable, why do you still use short descriptions that are not as vague as possible, when "Wikipedia article" or "Concept" would be even vaguer? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that is what it means to me too. But clearly not to some. How about this for a helpful, informative, useful SD - not!
By comparison, "concept in mathematics" is dangerously close to being helpful. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To apply my position in my post below, something like "Coloring in graph theory avoiding 2-colored paths" is 49 characters with "graph theory" in the first 40 to clue readers into seeing it is not about graphs in general. "Mathematical graph coloring avoiding 2-colored paths" is slightly longer at 52 characters, but is clearer about it being about math. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if two similarly named things are in the same general field, then a SD like "Concept/term in X" is probably not the optimal SD, and some additional information is often helpful to include. However, WP:SDJARGON, WP:SDNOTDEF, and/or WP:SD40 all still apply.
However, I'm not sure your examples are good examples of this.
The SD for Blaschke sum ("Polytope combining two smaller polytopes") is useless if you don't know what polytopes are. The average reader with some familiarity with STEM is more likely to incorrectly guess it has something to do with isotopes, polymers, and combination reactions than think of geometry. The previous SD "Aspect of convex geometry" is better even it is more vague because geometry is something most people learn about in elementary school. There also doesn't appear to be an issue of distinguishing it from Blaschke product, since that as far as I can tell, is not about geometry. However, something like "Polytope in convex geometry" is a better fusion of indicating a general field while also providing further details for those more familiar. Even something like "Polytope in convex geometry combining two smaller ones" would only be 54 characters and still have the core information in the first 40 characters.
The SD for Blaschke product is not as bad, but "Analytic function with prescribed zeros" leaves room for confusion with general data analysis techniques that involve zeros whereas the previous SD "Concept in complex analysis" at least uses "complex analysis" which while still somewhat jargony, is at least a discrete term for a mathematical subfield and is again, not really confusable with the sum article, which is about geometry. "[Mathematical f/F]unction in complex analysis bounded by zeros" or something similar would probably be a better balance while not being overlong.
My position, even in cases where there aren't similar named things in the same general field, is that a field that will be recognizable to most readers should be included in the first 40 characters, and the overall SD can then be as long as 60 characters (which IIRC fits most common use cases) for some more specific/differentiating details. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go back to first principles. The major misunderstanding that seems to have prompted this section is that it's permissible to write short descriptions to prioritise their use within {{Annotated link}} templates at the bottom of technical pages, where they are seen and used by specialists, at the expense of basic fundamental requirements such as WP:SDJARGON, WP:SDNOTDEF, and WP:SDSHORT. Template use is not and has never been one of the primary purposes of an SD, as set out in WP:SDPURPOSE. Right from the start, when the template was first created (by Pbsouthwood I believe), it was always provided as a convenience for editors who might find it useful. It was always recognised that in many cases the SD as written would not be ideal for 'See also' sections, where more specificity is often useful, and that editors would need an override functionality.
That remains the position: WP:SDPURPOSE sets out the primary purposes, which do not include template use, while simply noting as a fact that "Short descriptions are also used in lists of links" and that "The template {{Annotated link}} is available for this purpose". Wikipedia:Short description#Annotated links notes that the template "may be used", and "may be useful". Template use is simply not a defining feature of SDs. Of course there's no objection to writing a SD that covers all possible use cases, where that's feasible, but there is never any excuse for ignoring the clear admonition of WP:SDAVOID to "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject".
In the example we have here, "Coloring in graph theory avoiding 2-colored paths" as suggested by Patar knight works well, as 'graph theory' makes it clear that it's something to do with mathematics (not art or astronomy) without wasting characters on 'mathematics' or 'mathematical'. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some short descriptions are easy, some are not. There is no rule that could cleanly distinguish a good SD from a bad one for all cases, so we have to rely on editor discretion. Sometimes our editors possess discretion. Sometimes the best we can do is not make it worse. When all else fails, we have talk page discussion and consensus to fall back on, like any other content.
Also, if a short description is too difficult, move on and do an easier one. If you can't make it better, leave it alone. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelMaggs: your claim "The major misunderstanding that seems to have prompted this section is that it's permissible to write short descriptions to prioritise their use within {{Annotated link}} templates at the bottom of technical pages" is false. Please read what has been written instead of reacting to your imagined version of what might have been written instead.
My complaints about your vague edit summaries have always been primarily about the use of short descriptions as mobile search disambiguators, and only secondarily about annotated links. When properly written a short description can do both. When properly written a short description can disambiguate both search results that are far from the intended target, and search results that are similar to but distinct from the intended target. Your vague short descriptions only do one of these (the far from the target disambiguations). You can do better. You should do better. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't there be a conspicuous notice to editors to use annotated links at most only when they are unable to use common sense instead? They are at best a last resort when nothing else can be done.

Does anyone ever see a list of a half-dozen or more annotated links in which there is not at least one that is completely absurd and will badly mislead users? I found a see-also section in which one item was Cantor dust, and was described as "set of points in a line segment." The concept of "Cantor dust" exists only because of the existence of certain sets that are NOT in a line segment that are called "Cantor dust." But the section about Cantor dust was within an article called Cantor set, and the short description there said "Set of points in a line segment." That may be the best that can be done by someone who doesn't know what the article titled Cantor set is about, but that's the highest compliment that can be paid to that particular short description. And probably to at least fifty percent of all short descriptions. It is true that the Cantor set is a set of points in a line segment, but the whole point of having the separate concept of Cantor dust is to deal with certain related sets that are NOT in a line segment.

I've seen many many annotated links using short descriptions, and the example above is typical of their level of competence. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a list of over 100 annotated links on my user page that I think are ok. Like everything else, it takes a certain level of curation, both in making sure the articles that are linked have short descriptions of adequate quality and in many cases using an explicitly provided gloss instead of the annotated link with its short description when the short description is good for the main purposes of a short description but poorly targeted in a specific article's see-also list. But in your example, Cantor dust is a redirect, and in situations where the redirect is a better choice than the article title it is almost always incorrect to use the annotated link and its short description, because that goes with the main article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects to section should always have their own short descriptions. Unfortunately there many cases where that has not been done (Cantor dust being a case in point right now) and, in default, the SD is inherited from the target article. Editors who use #FormatSeeAlso (described above) are required to make good any such deficiencies it finds.
There are a few further points that need to be reasserted
  • Automatic annotation of links is not compulsory: if you can provide a better annotation by hand, please do so. (Indeed I might add that using FormatSeeAlso has prompted me on occasion to just that.)
  • Some annotation is better than no annotation. Article titles are typically terse and may be meaningful only to cognoscenti: the annotation tempts readers who are capable of understanding the topic but didn't know it exists.
  • As David and I have argued previously, 'content free' SDs are a waste of space and an insult to our readers.
  • There is no 40 character limit (shouted from the rooftops). That was a design error in the iPhone app. True, an SD longer than 100 characters looks like someone is trying to give a definition or to repeat the lede and so needs to be edited. But utility must always trump brevity (but there is no excuse for verbosity).
So you can fix your immediate concern by giving Cantor dust its own SD and, going from the particular to the general, do the same in any other examples uou find. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by There is no 40 character limit. It's not a hard limit, but there are several cases the SD is cut off at 40 characters or even less. Anything in a SD that is cut off contributes nothing to utility, so brevity will typically improve utility. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arising from this discussion, Anne drew (talk · contribs) has enhanced her script (described above at #FormatSeeAlso) so that it also checks any existing {{annotated link}}s and flags any that are redirect-to-section articles without their own short descriptions. [@Michael Hardy:, these annotated links are actually doing us all a favour by exposing silly short descriptions that otherwise only visitors doing a search would see.] I strongly encourage colleagues to install it and use it profusely. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend any editor interested in short descriptions to turn on Preferences → Gadgets → Testing and development → Show page description beneath the page title. That way the short descriptions are exposed regardless of whether they are used in annotated links. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the replies above. I still think of annotated links as at best something to use when nothing intelligent can be done. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally here's another context where short descriptions are used: on the Good Article nomination listing. These used to just list article titles, but the short descriptions often provide more context allowing potential reviewers to find articles that might interest them to review. Because this is advisory and editor-facing rather than reader-facing it's less critical that the short descriptions be of high quality, but it's still helpful for them to be specific and informative. It's not a context where it would be a productive use of editor time to carefully hand-craft a bespoke description for this listing that is only used for this listing. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. In that GAN context, I expect that even a terrible SD equivalent to "math thing" or "Spanish person" would be more helpful than nothing at all. Scrolling through the list shows me that nearly all of the SDs look quite good. It's possible that GAN topics are biased toward those that have easy SDs, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Concept in mathematics" would not be helpful because the GAN nominations are already classified into broad topics. "Spanish person" could help, though — for instance because it means the references are likely to be in Spanish so knowledge of the language might be needed for reviewing. Alternative hypothesis: the editors who improve articles in preparation for GA nomination are more likely to also improve the SD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of "Short"

I've noticed from time to time editors going through clusters of articles, changing an existing template beginning as
"{{short"
to
"{{Short"
I'm not aware of there being any issues with existing templates that have a lowercase 's', and I've assumed it's just editors either boosting their edit count or being overly attached to exact presentation (I'm guilty of that on other stuff, so not a criticism). However, I'm curious if there actually is a meaningful reason to make this change - other than being exacting about it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good reason to make such a change. The first character of template names is case-insensitive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To spell it out even more, there is no reason to make that change other than to satisfy a personal obsession. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I figured as much. I guess there's no reason to advise an editor that it's unnecessary. It only wastes their time (though it does waste mine too a bit, as it 'wakes up' any article in my watch list that has that template, so i get an email alert, oh well). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions when the article title has parenthetical disambiguation

[edit]

I'd like to discuss the best practice for short descriptions when the article title contains parenthetical disambiguation, e.g. Moonlight (2016 film) which currently has the short description 2016 American film by Barry Jenkins. I have two questions:

  1. Should short description ever repeat information in the title's parenthetical disambiguation?
    • e.g. should the Moonlight short description include the year 2016?
  2. Should annotated links be formatted to remove parenthetical disambiguation?
    • e.g. should annotated links to Moonlight remove the (2016 film) display text?

Here are the four permutations of link formatting vs. short description content:

Option Annotated link style SD Content {{Annotated link}} result Search result
A Full title Include year Moonlight (2016 film) – 2016 American film by Barry Jenkins Moonlight (2016 film)
2016 American film by Barry Jenkins
B Full title Exclude year (replaced with genre) Moonlight (2016 film) – American drama film by Barry Jenkins Moonlight (2016 film)
American drama film by Barry Jenkins
C Truncated title Include year Moonlight – 2016 American film by Barry Jenkins Moonlight (2016 film)
2016 American film by Barry Jenkins
D Truncated title Exclude year (replaced with genre) Moonlight – American drama film by Barry Jenkins Moonlight (2016 film)
American drama film by Barry Jenkins

Of course, short descriptions are used for things other than annotated links, such as search results. When you search "Moonlight", the film appears with the title Moonlight (2016 film) and the description 2016 American film by Barry Jenkins. We shouldn't overly optimize for annotated link usage at the expense of other surfaces that use short descriptions.

My suggestion would be to:

  1. Clarify the avoid duplicating information that is already in the title guidance so it's clear that even parenthetical information should not be repeated in the short description; and
  2. Mention in the {{Annotated link}} documentation that parenthetical disambiguation should not be stripped from the title without good reason.

This corresponds with option B in the above table. I welcome your thoughts! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • B looks good to me (though maybe you should add a fifth column for the search output, unless it is the same as the {{anl}} output?).
    But I don't understand your point #2? Whether it is a search return or an ANL, the article title is always given first and in full, then the SD (which is why we have rule #1). So how can the parenthesised element be stripped? (unless someone writes {{anl|Moonlight (2016 film)|''Moonlight''}} in a See Also list and I don't see that can hope to legislate down to article content). We have much bigger fish to fry: Moonlight (1932 film) – 1932 French comedy film by Henri Diamant-Berger [= Moonlight (1932 film) – 1932 film right now, in case someone can't bear to let it stand] - who on earth thought that a sensible SD??? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a column for the search result. To answer your question on point #2: I have occasionally stripped the disambiguation to make the "See also" section look cleaner (e.g. {{anl|Moonlight (2016 film)|''Moonlight''}}). To me, option C creates the most appealing "See also" entries, but it forces redundancy in the search results to achieve it. That tension is what I'm trying to resolve. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 17:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That confirms for me that B is the right answer. But even if you do your preferred form, it only has an effect in the article in which you use it (and it might even be appropriate there - indeed we encourage editors to annotate manually when the 'for free' SD option doesn't suit the context). It has no effect on other cases, unless you think anyone would write a truncated SD to save having to do a pipe in an ANL in the See Also of some other article? If so, it's a problem that is background radiation compared with the many cases of fatuous and (mathematically) trivial SDs "because Short Descriptions should be short" . --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think we're in alignment on this! I've made two bold edits to help clarify this. In the future, if I want to hide parenthetical disambiguation in "See also" sections, I'll use a custom description instead of the {{Annotated link}} template. Thanks, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with B. Annotated links should not automatically remove disambiguators (even though in many contexts where they might be used, manual removal might be called for). For short descriptions, disambiguating search is more important than generating good annotated links, and both are more important than consistency of formatting of the short descriptions among similar articles, so not duplicating disambiguator information in the short description makes sense to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of SDNONE

The discussion between me and Marcus Markup at Talk:Influence and legacy of Swami Vivekananda#Short description is transcluded here:

Short description
Marcus Markup, my short description has nothing to do with being a definition. Clarification is absolutely necessary because, as I said, the title does not "sufficiently describe the purport of the article" and many readers (including myself) have no idea who Vivekananda is. What consensus do you wish to reach? Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 16:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may not know what a "Swami" is either, but that does not mean we should use the short description field to define/describe what a "Swami" is. We disagree with the purpose of what short descriptions are for, and I therefore reverted your addition. For your edit to therefore stick, you'll need to find another editor to agree with you. I would welcome that... I am a team player... but in the meantime, the consensus version of the article (without a short description) must remain, per policy. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the purpose of short descriptions isn't to describe? it's lio! | talk | work 17:43, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that short descriptions are intended to disambiguate and clarify. The definition of the subject belongs in the lead of the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, so Indian monk and philosopher is intended to disambiguate and clarify Vivekananda from other Swamis, for example Swami Samarth, an Indian Hindu spiritual guru. I also agree that short descriptions shouldn't try to fully describe the subject, that remains in prose. But for readers, short descriptions can help them know if the article is what they are looking for at just a glance. it's lio! | talk | work 17:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that your POV is becoming more and more common on Wikipedia, and it's getting to the point that the consensus will be, that the Short Description field should be used to define the subject, and not simply for disambiguation, and that policy and guidelines will be updated to reflect that. I've grown weary of defending the way things used to be, and will accept the way things are now... and I doubt I'll be dealing with such things again any time soon. Please feel free to restore your desired version. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see your distinction between "definition" and "disambiguation". Intrinsically, short descriptions are meant to help the reader, and blank short descriptions don't do that, apart from when they aren't needed. In this case, it's needed because the reader may not know who Vivekananda is. That's the simplest way I can put it. It'd be great if someone else came here to share their views as well. it's lio! | talk | work 19:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't know who Vivekananda is, they can hover over/open the article. It is my opinion that the field is not there to educate the reader about the subject, but so that people looking at lists of articles or search results can get to their desired article. That said, I'm done here... peace out. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Short descriptions are there so that readers don't have to hover over/open the article. I believe that confirming the subject of the article is a way for them to get to their desired article. Happy editing and holidays, it's lio! | talk | work 19:40, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to solve a problem which does not exist. Nobody is going to see the "Influence and legacy of Swami Vivekananda" article and decide whether they should open it or not based on your adding that he is an "Indian monk and philosopher" as a short description. Gratuitously including information of no use to actual researchers just gunks up the encylcopedia, and compells people to read and process information they don't need to. It's like making an article a sea of blue with excessive Wikilinks... it drowns out the actually useful information. Sometimes, less is more. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I can perfectly imagine someone seeing the title and deciding to read it because they know in advance that it has to do with Indian religion and philosophy. It in no way "gunks up the encyclopedia" since every short description is individual and is merely a little template at the top. I also fail to see how short descriptions compel people to read and process information; it's always secondary to the title itself, and readers can definitely skip over it. Unlike your sea of blue example, it doesn't congest anything in any way, nor does it drown out the title. it's lio! | talk | work 21:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Short descriptions are not just "templates at the top of articles". It is metadata. ...and readers can definitely skip over it No, actually, they can not, always. This metadata is used for many other applications, including Google search results, the search results on the mobile Wikipedia app, and any user of the MediaWiki API. You are compelling readers to process useless information, which is "gunking up the encyclopedia" to me. Marcus Markup (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why should the short description of, say, Swami Vivekananda himself be treated differently? Why should we compel readers to process the information of his identity on his biography, and not his influence and legacy, of which he is still the primary topic? it's lio! | talk | work 04:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the situations are not equivalent. An article titled simply “Swami Vivekananda” consists of nothing more than a proper name. Outside the body of the article, that title alone does not tell a reader what kind of subject it is. In that context, a short description such as "Indian Hindu monk (1863–1902)" adds genuinely new, orienting information when the page appears in search results, watchlists, mobile views, or API outputs.
By contrast, "Influence and legacy of Swami Vivekananda" is already fully self-descriptive. The title itself clearly identifies both the subject and the scope of the article. Any short description added there would necessarily restate what the title already makes explicit, providing no additional context while still being propagated across external surfaces.
So the distinction is not about whether Vivekananda is the primary topic in both cases, but about whether the title itself already performs the explanatory work. When it does not, a short description is useful; when it does, the metadata becomes redundant. This is why the biography reasonably benefits from a short description, while the legacy article does not. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a practical level, I think this discussion highlights a broader maintenance issue. The short description field has come to be treated by editors as mandatory whenever it is empty, rather than as a tool to be used selectively when it adds clarity. Thinking it is not for disambiguation but instead, for literal description, is actually a reasonable assumption... the name of the field is, after all, "short description" and when the designers created it, a better name would have been "disambiguator" or some such. But I digress... that assumption creates ongoing corrective work for experienced editors, who then have to remove or justify the removal of redundant metadata instead of spending time on substantive content improvements. That is why I gave up the fight two days ago, and now advocate the encyclopedia change the purpose of the short description field itself... from a disambiguation aid to a concise definitional label... so that its routine presence reflects an intentional design choice and no longer becomes an ongoing source of friction.
In the words of Troy McClure, "My work here is done." Marcus Markup (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree, but I see where you're coming from. Do you mind if I reference this discussion at WT:Short descriptions for community input? Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 15:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be honored. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, I don't see the short description field as mandatory whenever it is empty, I suppose I just have a narrower view of what "self-explanatory" applies to, as well as the points you made. it's lio! | talk | work 15:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Impact of Indian monk and philosopher” is a perfectly good short description. It complies with WP:SDPURPOSE and provides useful information to readers who have never heard of Swami Vivekananda. “None” would not be adequate since, per WP:SDNONE, The short description "none" should be used sparingly, and only where the entirety of the title will be reasonably clear to English-speaking readers worldwide. Bear in mind that readers outside your own country or culture may never have come across terms that to you are extremely well-known. I have the impression that some of the above arguments have been made without reference to WP:Short description. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I refer continually to all relevant guidelines and policy. That my interpretation of its purpose, purport and application in this case differs from yours is noted. That it is inadequate in its descriptions and needs clarification is, rather, HKLionel's request, I believe. And that it in fact needs to be changed is my point. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any input is appreciated, as I feel that the current WP:SDNONE text does not sufficiently address this. it's lio! | talk | work 16:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think MichaelMaggs is correct in his post (though I would argue that adding a "the" before "Indian" flows better). Swami Vivekananda is definitely not a figure that would be known by English speakers worldwide, so a SD would be helpful in this case. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't see it as "helpful" at all for any real world use I can imagine. Who is going to come to Wikipedia, look at a list of articles, and then decide whether it's the article they were wanting based on our adding gratuitous text saying “Impact of Indian monk and philosopher" to the “Influence and legacy of Swami Vivekananda" listing? It does not seem to address any need an actual reader might have. But as I said above, I have thrown in the towel regarding this issue, I accept that my POV on short descriptions is not that of the consensus, and I'm no longer going to edit them except when they can be marked as a "Minor" edit. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are a lot of things we do on Wikipedia that might not be helpful to the average reader, but we still do just because there is the potential to be helpful. And then there's the fact that countless niches exist, so there could definitely be someone who reads an article because they see, through the short description, that it has something to do with their interests, no matter how vague the SD is. HKLionel TALK 18:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of disagreement here is not whether somebody, somewhere might find a thing marginally useful, but whether the benefit justifies the trade-offs. In practice, what makes an encyclopedic tool useful is often not what it allows, but what it does not allow. That something might be "useful" to an edge case (which, in this case, I can't actually imagine) can't alone be the standard, or we’d have no principled way to avoid adding redundant or low-signal metadata everywhere. Deliberate restraint is what preserves signal, reduces noise, and keeps ancillary features from becoming an end in themselves. We could Wikilink every term in an article which someone might find useful in some way, but we don't do that because we show discretion and realize that sometimes, less is more, and enables actually useful information to stand out. The article is not about Vivekananda per se, it is about his influence and the title "Influence and legacy of Swami Vivekananda" is complete unto itself for 99.9% of users. Compelling that 99.9% to also read "Impact of Indian monk and philosopher", so that 0.1% of users don't have to hover over the article is adding unnecessary clutter that solves no demonstrated problem in this case. I will continue to advocate that the field be made mandatory, so that there can be no question of its applicability in debatable cases such as this. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As usual at talk:SD, we have the usual competing perspectives of "top-down" via search v "bottom-up" via annotated links. But now, in this particular case, we may be letting that distract us from what is really quite simple: the SD for Swami Vivekananda should say " Indian monk and philosopher". But "Influence and legacy of Swami Vivekananda" shouldn't need an SD because it is self-explanatory. In what context could it arise where Swami Vivekananda has not already been identified? If I were doing a See Also, it would be done like this:
The second SD is clutter. To me, SD=none is correct (but I wouldn't bother to delete it if I saw it). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC) but if I were building a See Also, I would consciously not use {{anl}} rather than have something so obviously silly. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC) [reply]
In what context could it arise where Swami Vivekananda has not already been identified? The most obvious example would be someone who is aware that articles about the impact/legacy of figures exist and is just using the search bar to to see what other articles of that type exist. People go down weird Wikipedia rabbit holes on the time. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also in respect to use in See Also sections, using annotated links that would pull the SD isn't mandatory, so it would be fine to leave blank where Swami Vivekananda is already identified. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, that's actually how I found the article, because I was curious how many articles of this type existed and how many people have independent legacy articles after reading Legacy of Che Guevara. HKLionel TALK 19:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As Swami Vivekananda isn’t self-explanatory, a title containing this name isn’t either. It could arise in contexts like, for example, focus on the influence and legacy of significant historical figures, in which that of Vivekananda would be treated as an independent topic, rather than a subtopic of his biography.
Precisely, an editor can just not use an ANL if the biography is the main focus, and the subject’s influence and legacy is discussed as secondary to the subject. A lot of SDs seem redundant, but they are there because there are always possible purposes they can serve, so my interpretation of an appropriate blank SD would be only when there is clearly no doubt on how self-explanatory the title is. Better to aim for the chance of being helpful than having none at all, as well as the fact that SDs are by nature meant to merely complement the title, making them much less clutter-like than the SEAOFBLUE example that Marcus has raised. HKLionel TALK 19:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are use cases, as I described above is worth it, but it is a scenario where it definitely doesn't meet WP:SDNONE in that Swami Vivekananda is not self-explanatory to readers, but is also a pretty marginal use case given the niche topic. However, I do agree that the scope of WP:SDNONE should be explicitly drastically reduced instead of vaguely referencing that if one is helpful, since there are almost always additional descriptive/contextual details that are helpful. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why SDNONE probably needs some form of reevaluation, as I agree that SDs probably shouldn't be indiscriminately added lest they run contrary to their original spirit, yet as long as it seems helpful then I see no reason to not add one whenever I come across an article which title I wouldn't understand at first glance, nor the average reader. I get where SDNONE is coming from, but there should probably be clearer lines drawn to distinguish potentially useful disambiguation from SDs that really wouldn't serve any useful purpose. HKLionel TALK 19:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's convention to generally exclude articles for simplicity, but I'm not opposed. HKLionel TALK 18:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Short description for Estonia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is not about making improvements to the page Wikipedia:Short description. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Choose what should be stated in short description for Estonia:
  1. Country in the Baltic region of Europe (as in Latvia and Lithuania)
  2. Country in Northern Europe (as in Finland and Sweden)
Gigman (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either is fine. We don't need an RFC. Where is the prior discussion at Talk:Estonia? I have removed the RFC template per WP:RFCBEFORE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1330308124 "no consensus for these edits"
Edit war shall determine who is right? Gigman (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Discussion determines consensus. Start a discussion at the talk page for the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last time the discussion was held at the talk page of the article, it ended inconclusively. There was no proper RFC closure and no clear consensus was established. It's precisely for that reason (provoked by a recent edit war) this page was chosen to host a new discussion, in order to attract more participators with diverse points of view.
Please do not interrupt the RFC process anymore. Gigman (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An edit war that you are currently involved in and initiated with User:Neptuunium at the article Estonia, then proceeded to slap an edit war warning on their talk page when both of you are clearly involved. Maybe this is part of your "Anti-Nationalist Estonian Movement (WANEM)"? ExRat (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the contributions of this user before accusing me of anything next time. Gigman (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their contributions have nothing to do with an edit war the both of you are involved in and you placing a warning on their page for the edit war that you both are involved in. Please see your talk page. ExRat (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a general discussion about improvements to the page Wikipedia:Short description? If so, please make that clear. If it is specifically about the article Estonia, the discussion should be at Talk:Estonia. You are free to leave neutrally-worded notes at other talk pages, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia - templates such as {{fyi}} and {{subst:please see}} are available for this. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the RFC can be closed then. Gigman (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How's it done for Latvia & Lithuania? I expect that the same would be done for Estonia. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uses of spaces between dates

The current examples for using dates all currently show our MOS-compliant form of "(1668–1735)". Should we also follow the MOS when 'circa' dates are used? Our MOS says that we should have spaces in article text - ie. "(c. 1668 – 1735)" - but how should this be dealt with in a short description? Should is be "(c. 1668 – 1735)" or "(c.1668–1735)" or "(c. 1668–1735)"? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"(1668–1735)", without spaces, is long-established usage. Whether "c." should be followed by a space or not seems to vary in practice. Some editors like a space, but I'd prefer to avoid it as making short texts longer without additional information seems pointless. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of 'long-established usage' or any user's particular preference: it's what the MOS says to use. The guidelines on spaces in dates for using circa can be found at MOS:CIRCA, which includes spaces after the "c." element and around the hyphen too - the example provided is "John Sayer (c. 1750 – 2 October 1818) ...". The question is whether this also applies for the short description. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your question was understood. You asked "how should this be dealt with?". I replied with my view (c.1668–1735). Now, if others agree we could profitably discuss how best to recommend that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced we should have a different format to the rest of the MOS, but let's see how others view it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear how this is even a question. The SD, just like a date range in an infobox or a navbox, is part of the article content and should follow MOS: a space after "c." and a space on either side of the en dash. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95, It's only a question because of this edit. I don't tend to get involved with short descriptions, but it seemed an odd statement. The examples on the guideline certainly don't show any spaces, but they don't show any examples with circa either, so I thought it best to ask the question to clear this up, even though I think the MOS would support the use of spaces in these situation. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
but MOS:YEARRANGE says that the ndash should be unspaced... 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But not when circa is used - see MOS:CIRCA. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just brilliant. So it must be 1750{{ndash}}1766 unless you put a c. first whereupon it must be 1750 {{ndash}} 1766. Whatever happened to consistency? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it probably is consistent, if you look at it from the point of view that years without anything else don't have dashes, but if you add anything - another date, circa or flourit, then dashes are added. Consistency, but not necessarily logic... - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale behind this is that c. only applies to one of the years in the range. To compare, you would probably agree that the proper form of linking a hypothetical January 1960 and the year 1965 would be "January 1960 – 1965", and not "January 1960–1965". January is only a property of the first year, not the second. The same applies to circa. This all falls under the "at least one item on either side of the en dash contains a space" logic under bullet point #2 of MOS:DATERANGE. YuniToumei (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above explanation is a good one. The edit by HKLionel linked above was incorrect per MOS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good explanation, thank you.
(fwiw, year1 – year2 looks better more familiar to me in all circumstances but that's an argument for another forum.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As a guideline, the MOS reflects global consensus. Per WP:SDCONTENT [t]he short description is part of the article content, and is subject to the normal rules on content. One could argue that deviating from it for the purpose of short descriptions would fall under the impermissible category of WP:Local consensus. I do see the argument that a shorter date range style of "(c.1668–1735)" would be desirable to keep short descriptions, well, short. However making that exception might need a WP:PGCHANGE to the MOS itself, not to the short description information page which has not gone through the P&G process. YuniToumei (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; though whether it's actually worth going to the trouble of suggesting changes to the MOS is doubtful. The MOS does contemplate that some things need to be shortened where space is limited, but MOS:CIRCA gets very hung up on whether c. applies to the start of a range, to the end, or both, and the role of spaces in indicating that. There may be better things to do than get into weeks of detailed discussion about the exact meaning of spaces within a short description. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right. In that case by maintaining the status quo I see no further arguments against applying the MOSCIRCA guideline to short descriptions like the one at Elizabeth Alkin and keeping the spaced endash as SchroCat did. Perhaps Alkin's SD could be added to WP:SDEXAMPLES so that more editors working on short descriptions are aware of this guideline. YuniToumei (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea, what does everyone think? HKLionel TALK 09:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have been bold and added it. If someone reverts or objects we can discuss further. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed: Ampersand

Is an ampersand (&) allowed in place of an 'and' in a short description? This isn't allowed in article prose (unless part of a proper noun) but I wonder if that applied to short descriptions as well. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 23:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As in the discussion above, please follow MOS. Let's not favor shortness over sloppiness. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with that position. It was someone else using an ampersand, and I wondered if I was in the right to change it to 'and'. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 23:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Short descriptions should still follow general article policies, and I would only recommend an ampersand in places where reliable sources did as well. A hypothetical example off the top of my head would be a tool line that somehow meets GNG might have an SD of "Brand of Black & Decker power tools". VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 00:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Estonia § RFC: Short description of Baltic states

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Estonia § RFC: Short description of Baltic states. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Delta Force members#Short description

Would someone please take a look at this discussion, I really have no idea what Thewolfchild is getting at. They have not made a single argument with P&G-based rationale. HKLionel TALK 11:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Short description on College football

In the College football article, there is a short description with {{Short description|College version of American-Canadian football}}, yet the page shows "Missing article description". When I saw it first it was {{Short description|College version of American/Canadian football}} and I tried changing the "/" to "-", thinking that maybe the "/" was the problem, but apparently not. Does anyone have an idea what is going on here? rogerd (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "Local description" on the "Page information" page shows a blank description. {{Infobox sport overview}} includes {short description|none|noreplace}, which seems like it should output a short description that can be overridden locally, but in fact, the "noreplace" is ignored when the short description is "none". That template-driven short description forces a short description of "none" on the article. I moved the short description to work around the issue. There is likely to be a better fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Stop embedding short descriptions in infoboxes, where they seem to cause more problems than they solve? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What kinds of problems, other than this edge case? – Jonesey95 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This problem is due to a bug in the Short description template — {{short description|none|noreplace}} is being treated as {{short description|none}}. This means that an infobox that sets a SD of none is overriding a valid local SD in the article. Looking at the template edit in January 2025, there is a change to use the new behaviour of the magic word: p1=none generates an empty magic word, but the noreplace is being lost.

A while back, I added a workaround using {{Has short description}} for some of the infoboxen, but it really needs fixing in the SD template itself. I think that the opening test needs to be altered from 

{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|none|{{SHORTDESC:}}...

to something like 

{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|none|{{SHORTDESC:|{{{2|}}}}}...

Sorry, I should have pushed for a fix a while back, but it got lost in RL issues... — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery, Fayenatic london, and Jonesey95: Just in case. You are all busy people — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented that template change as requested, and didn't notice any resulting changes in articles.
As the College football article was in Short description is different from Wikidata, I changed Wikidata to match. Now the article is still in that one but also in Short description matches Wikidata. Anybody got time to chase that one down? – Fayenatic London 19:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have just undone the workaround in the College football article, by moving the SD template from below the infobox back to the top. The change to the SD template seems to have had the right effect. So life is good. All is well. Thanks Fayenatic london. In the next day or two, I will experiment a little with undoing some of the workarounds I put into infobox templates a while back. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GhostInTheMachine and Fayenatic london for looking into this! rogerd (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome! From the order of categories on College football, it's now clear that Short description is different from Wikidata is generated by the infobox, not the SD template. – Fayenatic London 22:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A belated reply to Jonesey95's What kinds of problems [do they cause], other than this edge case? This page is on my watch list so I have no idea why I have seen nothing since my post of 10:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC) until now. The main problem is that they are inaccessible to {{annotated link}}, which has caused a lot of hassle with Australian geography articles - see for example Template talk:Annotated link/Archive 2#Failure to return SD from infobox?. No problem for top-down searches when you already know what you want, big problem for bottom-up discovery (via See Also) when you don't. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is a this a location?

The guideline for locations suggest using the country, etc. in the short description. My question is, are schools, colleges, and universities a location? I know there are a few that are virtual, but it seems that most educational institutions have a fixed location. Rublamb (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly find it useful that, for instance, Concordia University has a location: "University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada". There is another Concordia University in the city where I live and therefore this location in the short description helps do exactly what short descriptions should do as their primary function: disambiguate search results beyond what the article title (and any disambiguators in it) would already do. So I think the answer is: yes, locations should be included in short descriptions for schools that have a fixed location. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like "Online University founded in 2006" might be even more useful location information for a short description than a purely physical location.
Dates of foundation aren't typically very useful to distinquish. Best practice is to include the country. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WPSHORTDESC