My bad 🥴. I searched it up and it's not as common as I thought it was. Sorry about my bad suggestions recently, I was using a laptop and was suggesting more for the sake of it from successful requests. 1ctinus (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
heya! if you'd like to make the link green (or some other color) as well, feel free to use this: [[Bill Wurtz|{{font|color=#0f0|text=bill wurtz}}]] (bill wurtz) Vukky🌞 (talk • not a bot) 19:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elin Pelin Point, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgarian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hey there, I wanted to ask: what do you feel is the utility of a short description like the one on Foreign relations of China? I realize I might've spent today undoing a lot of your work, and I want to cool it immediately if I'm not helping. Remsense诉12:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The utility is to differentiate between articles that are missing a short description and don’t need a short description. Some articles don’t need a short description if their titles are self-describing, such as “foreign relations of china”. see this page for more information -1ctinus📝🗨12:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I agree! I ask because you re-added a short description to that page a few days ago, and I was about to set it to "none" before I noticed. Remsense诉12:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My basic criteria is that if i can’t make a short description that isn’t just the title arraigned in a different way with the same words, it should be blank. -1ctinus📝🗨12:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - re your addition of a default description of simply 'referendum', would it not be better to follow WP:SDNONE and have a short description which was the same as the article title (which in all cases, will be more detailed than just 'referendum'). Cheers, Number5700:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Referendums have "Referendum" in their title name. WP:SDNONE would not apply for those articles. That being said, with referendums that have "referendum" in their title it would, and that could be coded into the template to have a switch case for "none" for articles with "Referendum" in their title, and a year to go alongside it. I might program both but dealing with the wikitext code is super annoying and time consuming. -1ctinus📝🗨00:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having mulled it over some more, there are other quite important issues, the first one being quite serious:
The infobox is used on quite a lot of non-referendum articles (like 51st stateorInverness Caledonian Thistle F.C.) and you are giving such articles an incorrect short description if there is not one there already
Articles that use the infobox include referendums, plebiscites and ballot measures. A short description of "referendum" is not appropriate for plebiscites as in some countries that has a different legal meaning to a referendum (and will look weird in other cases – readers may be thinking 'Why is the article title 'plebiscite' but the description 'referendum'?')
I'm also not sure 'referendum' is an appropriate short description for ballot measures?
Based on these issues, I think it might actually be best to abandon using the infobox to add a short description? Number5701:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1 is addressed in the code by Is infobox in lead. Number 2 and 3 are serious concerns that I don't know how to deal with since I do not know the difference between those terms. A more broad term might be useful. It also might be more useful to put this discussion in the Template talk instead of my user page. -1ctinus📝🗨02:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem if there was a mistake, but the row for Portugal in the table now reads: played 2, won 2, lost 1. Please clarify and adjust as appropriate, making sure that the totals at the foot of the columns are also consistent. Thanks. Ehrenkater (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Which article? I was running batch edits to add short descriptions and I made a huge mistake by forgetting to filter out articles without short descriptions. I ran a batch reverter to revert the most recent edits on the page, so any edits that may have been made in the last hour have been reverted to fix the fuck up I made. that may be why. -1ctinus📝🗨16:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake is now fixed, I reverted everything that needed to be. I act in good faith and I add short descriptions to a lot of sports articles, and fixing batch edits is pretty simple if I can figure it out and not be the greatest dev. -1ctinus📝🗨16:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have had to replace several new short descriptions of books you have added that say only that the book is by somebody or other. That is useless as a short description. If the book comes up in a mobile search, readers are going to see that short description and be uninformed. Say what the book is about, not who wrote it. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SDEXAMPLES. There's only so much you can fit in ~40 characters. Saying the year, what kind of book it is, and who wrote it are all important to any literary work, even if its non-fiction. That's why this format is standard and used -1ctinus📝🗨16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, I was editing hundreds of township articles to have a short description, and it is a little repetitive of a short description so if you want to change hundreds of mine to none I would be fine with that. -1ctinus📝🗨20:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is fixed. This is embarrassing... when searching for articles to add, I misspelled "short description" as "shrot description". -1ctinus📝🗨21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not blank a page after you tag if for speedy deletion. A patrolling admin needs to see why it was tagged and removing all of the content prevents that from happening. LizRead!Talk!00:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]