Sections older than 31 days days may be automatically archived by .
This article was listed in the category Articles with long short description. See here
With short descriptions, we have a situation where we are aiming to have a maximum of 40 characters. The driving reason is that the short description is displayed on the mobile access to the article in a search result. 65% of access to Wikipedia is now via mobile devices or tablets. With courtesy, your reversion somewhat defeats that objective to display a short description that is readable on the mobile device. Descriptions over 40 characters get chopped off. In this instance, your guidance is sought. What form of short description would you consider appropriate? --Whiteguru (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Whiteguru: Fair enough. I reverted because a nonsensical short description is worse than useless for those users. I agree that the pre-existing text was too long, which is why I then cut it down, but apparently not by enough. 40 characters is really short. I'll have a think to see if I can come up with a briefer description, but am struggling to do so. Some scientific topics cannot be explained to non-experts in such a brief phrase. (For anyone wondering what we're talking about, see  and ) Modest Genius talk 11:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Antony HewishEdit
I suggest you actually read the RfC. It certainly did not conclude that the template should not be changed. It concluded that either size was okay: which means the original size when the postnoms were added should be retained, not the size when the template was first used (given some editors applied the template to thousands of articles that already had postnoms, that would mean that the small size was preferred over the normal size - not what the RfC conclusion said). However, I can't be bothered to argue further. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: I did read the RfC. The original question (which you wrote!) refers specifically to the template: "should we keep the template default for the size of post-nominal letters at 85% or increase it to 100%?". The outcome was 'no consensus' and the closing rationale stated "status quo ante should remain with the template default at 85%" and recommended "seeking consensus on the talk page before changing the size in an individual article (either to or from the default)". I agree that this isn't worth arguing about, and suggest it's not worth changing in articles either. Modest Genius talk 11:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)