User talk:Vuehalloo

There is no 40 character limit on short descriptions.

Please read Wikipedia talk:Short description#60 character limit. And multiple iterations in the archives. Please self-revert.

And btw, "supranational" is the most significant description of how the EU is different from the US or the UN. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@JMF: Regardless: the fact remains that many (as in most) small devices will only show the first 40 characters (this is by deliberate design due to small screen sizes - which in turn dictates the requirement to keep the descriptions to under 40 characters so that all devices show the whole description). The upshot is that any short description beyond that limit is simply not displayed. Anyone looking for "European Union" and seeing an apparently 'helpful' description of "Supranational political and economic uni" may think it is some sort of university - and there will be some people on the planet who really do not know what the EU really is. "Political and economic union" is both correct and sufficiently apposite and will be correctly displayed by all devices.

I would agree that adding 'National' to the front although keeping the description to under 40 characters, would muddy the waters as that might suggest that one country is involved. The practical upshot is that many a short description would not be as complete as it really ought to be if it is longer than 40 characters, but that is a limitation of the technology. Further: the meaning of some descriptions could be materially altered if part of the message is truncated. The short description should be fully readable on all devices and not just the one(s) that you happen to own.

To provide a more complete picture: I have added this post to the discussion that you linked to above. Vuehalloo (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The consensus guidance is given clearly at SDSHORT after extensive discussion at the template talk page - see the archives. Specifically, it does not say 40, 60 or even 100. In a variety of contexts, we declare that Wikipedia is not constrained by errors in access software (mainly Microsoft browsers).

The SD is to be read in conjuction with the article title, so there is no credible risk of confusion with a University. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Most important of all: you do not get to impose an arbitrary rule of your own when the guidance has already been determined. If you don't want to accept it then you need to open a new discussion at the template talk page and try for a new consensus. Don't hold your breath. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Apostrophes

G’day from Oz, where we speak English too. Regarding the edit summary left when you undid my edit, if you have been teaching that apostrophes are used to write plural years, you have led many people astray.

The UK Government’s style guide says you are mistaken. The Australian Government style guide says you are mistaken. The Canadian Government style guide says you’re mistaken. The Singapore National Library style guide says you are mistaken. Even the US Government style guide, the guide from a country where usage of apostrophes in plurals is rife, says you are mistaken. The BBC style guide says you’re mistaken. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation style guide says you are mistaken. The Guardian's style guide says you are mistaken. The Chicago Manual of Style says you are mistaken. Please do a Google search of the phrase “ apostrophes in decades” to see what is and isn’t correct. Please also search within Wikipedia for “the 2000’s” to see how infrequently the phrase occurs.

You could also just ignore all of the above and simply consult MOS:DECADE.

The placement of apostrophes in my edit summary was deliberately wrong - I happily admit that that might not have been obvious. I will keep an eye on your Talk page for your response, or you could just self-revert your edit. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@YSSYguy:Quoting style guides from American or Australian (or any non English) sources is not helpful as neither has used English for over two centuries. The BBC style guide is deliberately written to make programmes conform to American as American broadcasters are not allowed by US law to broadcast any material in English. The Guardian is a poor choice because it is infamous for its poor grammar, spelling and punctuation (so much so it's popularly known as "The Graudnia" or even "The Grauniad").

In real English the decades, such as the two thousands, when expressed as a number are not real nouns but numbers. When used to describe a decade the number is used as a noun to name the decade, but as it isn't a real noun (or even a word) it becomes a noun by proxy. Similarly in the phrase "You will do as you're told, no if's or but's", the word 'if' is not a noun but a conditional and 'but' is a conjunction. However: in that phrase they are being used as nouns by proxy as a name for the actual words. In real English (i.e. not in bastardised versions of the language) proxy nouns are apostrophised when the plural 's' is added. Unfortunately: this has given rise to a common error where people apostrophise ordinary plurals when adding the 's'.

MOS:DECADE was clearly written by an American (none of whom have the faintest idea how to use apostrophes correctly anyway). Google is untrustworthy because over 90% of on-line content is inaccurate because like Wikipedia (also well known for its inaccuracy) nearly all content is contributed by people with an axe to grind or don't know what they are talking about.

Also in real English: a singular noun ending in 's' has "'s" added for the possessive. e.g. "Archimedes's screw"; "St. James's Gate" etc (because there is only one Archimedes and one St. James). The apostrophe represents a missing 'e' because in ye olde English both would be written "Archimedeses screw"; "St. Jameses Gate". For plenty of examples of this try Geoffrey Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales" (original 14th century edition). Americans and Australians seem to be unaware of this. Vuehalloo (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Just dug out my book on English usage and punctuation (Oxford University Press). There are four pages on apostrophe usage, of which, just over half a page is dedicated to apostrophising proxy noun plurals. Vuehalloo (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It’s a very long time since I have read Chaucer, but I am well aware of usages such as "St. James's Gate", however I usually leave off the second ‘s’ - I might have occasion to write “that’s the Williams’ house”, but I definitely don’t try to keep up with the Jones’s (although I might visit the Joneses). We can agree that Americans are hopeless at using apostrophes, such that, if I see “2020’s written, I assume that the writer is probably American, which is probably coloured by my several decades of using maintenance manuals for American-built aircraft, where the use of apostrophes for plurals is ubiquitous (although I will also agree that it’s creeping in to Australian English - apparently the young’uns in this country are beginning to use ‘ass’ instead of ‘arse’ and ‘mom’ instead of ‘mum’, among other horrors, but I digress). In fact, it seems to me that we are in agreement on all circumstances of when an apostrophe is or is not used, except for when it comes to writing decades; I am in my fifties, which I would alternately write as “in my 50s”, and I was born in the 1960s, or the Sixties, or the ‘60s. You say that this is incorrect for “The Queen’s English” (still seems wrong to say “King’s English”), but as I noted above, the UK Government’s style guide says that “the 2020’s” is incorrect and at the time of my previous message I could not find one that says “the 2020’s” is correct. Crossing i’s and dotting t’s :-) at the end of the day, it isn’t rocket surgery (or brain science for that matter), WP has a style guide and it says that “the 2020s” is correct, but I won’t go all David Mitchell about it. Cheers from Oz YSSYguy (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)