Wiki Article
User talk:Absolutiva
Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net
 | Absolutiva is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Short description
[edit]Hi, Absolutiva. In this edit at Politics of Ukraine you changed the short description from none, to "Political system of Ukraine". The correct SD here is none, so I reverted. I wanted to explain, because I see you doing other short descriptions as well.
It is unfortunate that the people who came up with the short description idea called it "short description", because that has caused no end of problems ever since. In particular, what it is not, is a definition or short description of the article topic. It was created to serve a very specific purpose that is slightly reminiscent of a disambig page, that has to do with getting the user as quickly as possible to the article they want to read, when presenting them with a list of articles with similar names, such as you might get when you use the search bar to search for an article. An example will clarify:
I remember vaguely that there was a book that came out every year and was the bible of used car prices. Everybody called it "the blue book". Suppose I want to find that on Wikipedia. So, let's say I do a search and get these results (invented example):
search result #1: article title only
|
|---|
Automobile Blue Book Blue book Blue book (magazine) Blue Book (FCC) Blue Book (Bryce and Toynbee book) Blue book exam Blue booklet Kelley Blue Book Project Blue Book Serbian Blue Book The Blue Book Network |
So, which one is it; is it even there in the list? A little hard to tell, but it sounds like it might be #1. But if I clicked that, I would have been disappointed, because the Automobile Blue Book is a book of route maps. So, if it's not #1, then which? Not the Serbian one, and probably not the Network one, but I wouldn't lay money on it. So which one has the used car prices?
This is precisely the raison d'etre for short description. Here is the same set of search results again, but this time, alongside the article title you get short description as well (some I made up) on the same line. It now looks like this:
search result #2: article title and short description
|
|---|
Automobile Blue Book road guides for travelers in the United States Blue book disambig page Blue book (magazine) Former American magazine Blue Book (FCC) FCC report Blue Book (Bryce and Toynbee book) Blue book exam Type of exam in the United States Blue booklet Czech military service exemption Kelley Blue Book American vehicle valuation company Project Blue Book U.S. Air Force study of UFOs Serbian Blue Book Serbian documents from WWI The Blue Book Network American marketing software company |
Now it's easy to see that the Kelley Blue Book was the article I was looking for, so I click that, get it in one, and go home happy. That's pretty much it. (There are some other situations that aren't search results, but they always involve lists of articles, where the article title by itself is not enough to find the right one first time, every time, when surrounded by other articles with similar names; think database reports, and other kinds of lists of articles.)
For some articles, the article title is enough—no other article with a similar name could exist, or could possibly be confused with it. Those articles don't need a short description, and it's just needless clutter to add one. The "Politics of Ukraine" is an example of that type; it simply isn't going to be mixed up with any other article, and it shouldn't have an SD. Maybe when somebody makes a rap group and calls it, "Politicos of Ukraine" then it will need one; but now, it doesn't. So when you see an article, ask yourself: "Is there any possible search I could do that would list this article in a list along with some other articles with similar names, where I might not be sure which is the one I am searching for?" If the answer to that is "no", then short desc = empty. For all the other articles, remember it is not a definition, but just a couple of words so they go, "Oh yeah, *that* Blue Book, okay, that's the one! [click]". The minimum number of words that will get them to the right article in one click is the right short description.
If you look around at articles and wonder if I am making this up, because such a huge number of short descriptions don't do it the way I describe, I am giving you the straight story; read the history of it. All of those other short descriptions you see are wrong, maybe hundreds of thousands of them; and a good percentage of the ones that have SD's, should be empty. Chalk it up to the terrible name they chose for it, and good-faith editors trying to do the right thing just based on its name. Now you now the whole story. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Mathglot, short description is needed to distinguish from politics in the colloquial sense. Unlike for example, Politics of Australia, as displayed here by Safes007, replacing short description from "none" to "Political system of Australia" for three times before (1, 2, 3) as per WP:SDPURPOSE. If Safes007 continued edit warring on short descriptions for "Politics of Australia", I should request for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Absolutiva 10:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have reverted their edit at Politics of Australia back to your version 1302871701 of 22:01, 27 July 2025 ("Changing short description from 'Political system of Australia' to one that is intentionally blank") which was correct. Their edit summary, "short description is needed to distinguish from politics in the colloquial sense" demonstrates that Safes007, like many, many, many editors (maybe the majority?) did not understand what short description is for when they reverted your edit back in July. Hopefully now, they do if they read through this message, and DR will not be needed. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will change to "none" instead. Absolutiva 22:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have reverted their edit at Politics of Australia back to your version 1302871701 of 22:01, 27 July 2025 ("Changing short description from 'Political system of Australia' to one that is intentionally blank") which was correct. Their edit summary, "short description is needed to distinguish from politics in the colloquial sense" demonstrates that Safes007, like many, many, many editors (maybe the majority?) did not understand what short description is for when they reverted your edit back in July. Hopefully now, they do if they read through this message, and DR will not be needed. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 7
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited East Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Editing while discussion is active
[edit]It'd be a good idea to stop editing the native names while a discussion on your edits is active. Even if you see the current state of those infoboxes as undesirable, I'm sure you don't see it as an emergency and that you can afford to await an outcome from the discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Suggestion
[edit]Hi there,
Fantastic edits on England.
The page still needs work to combat sandwiched images and segments.
I suggest under history, ancient history, to put the 'Housesteads Roman fort' image on the left side or do something there. Also, the image could be updated. Maybe put two images in one to make space there?
Keep up the good work! Concernedwikpieidans2 (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Lithuanian Wikipedia
[edit]
Hello, Absolutiva. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lithuanian Wikipedia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Hey, when you reverted me by restoring an earlier revision with the edit summary No improvement
, did you mean to include my edit as well? Placing the date range in front means the parentheses aren't needed, saving characters while avoiding confusion with biography birth & death dates. Thanks, HKLionel TALK 13:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- Same dates as short description in other concentration camps. Absolutiva 22:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- Then it would be better to change short descriptions for all concentration camps. HKLionel TALK 05:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
Your Trump edit
[edit]Why? ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Symbols are widely used in short descriptions with en dashes (–), not the code that causes mobile problems and 2022 skin vector. Absolutiva 23:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Your nomination of Mao Zedong has failed
[edit]Your good article nomination of the article Mao Zedong has 
failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of EasternShah -- EasternShah (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)