Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:27, 22 April 2013

Character sets

An issue has been raised that character set warnings (eg: "You need a Sanskrit/Japanese/whatever font to see this text") count as a self-reference, and should be removed. Comments? Orpheus 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

References in an article to itself

It's acceptable for article to use phrases like "are discussed below" and whatnot, right? I mean, there's no assumption that parts of articles should be useful on their own, is there? (I ask because an editor recently changed the lead text of Arrow's impossibility theorem to remove such a reference, citing this policy, and I really think (s)he misjudged.) Thanks in advance for any input. —Ruakh_TALK 21:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a bit ugly and mixes real encyclopedic facts with thoughts about the process (meta-information). Compare with things like the following sections will explain how... or in the next section we will see that..... In this case the phrase is completely redundant: if things are being hinted at in an introduction, it self evident those things need to be explained further down the road, otherwise they would not be introduced. — Zanaq (?) 08:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Category descriptions

To simplify categorization, I used to include {{selfref}} with a notice stating on how to categorize articles the usual article in the category (e.g. ). Misplaced Pages:Avoid_self-references#In_the_Template_and_Category_namespaces seems to allow this, but it isn't entirely clear what "templates lakes this" means. I'd like to add to that section. "Use {{selfref}} when providing sample categorizations. -- User:Docu

I don't think it's necessary for categories to have instructions about how to include an article in them. It's the same for every category, so a new editor just has to learn it once. But if we start doing it, it will spread to many, many categories, adding a lot of self references. If there is consensus to do it (which I don't see yet), it would help if another template could be used, instead of using selfref directly, so that it's easier to skip those uses of selfref when going through to remove unneeded selfref tags. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The advantage of {{selfref}} is that users of the download version can remove all self references at once whatever their content. If we introduce additional templates, this just complicates things. -- User:Docu

Yes, that's right. Templates like Template:Wrongtitle use selfref internally, but they make it easy to see why the selfref has been inserted. I was thinking a template like {{category howto}} could do a similar thing for category instructions. When I go through looking for unneeded selfref tags, I ignore pages that have a tag that explains the selfref. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To simplify checks, it's possible to filter whatlinkshere by namespace. To some extent all category descriptions are self references. Besides, most problematic are self references in article namespace that aren't in any template. Imagine how stub notices would be without templates! -- User:Docu

Stubs don't use selfreference (at least not consistently). Neither do cleanup templates. Basically, it's just wrongtitle type templates and templates for the age of living people. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Stubs generally do use templates, except maybe . -- User:Docu

Yes, they use templates, but those templates don't use {{selfref}} internally, at least not the ones I have looked at. Templates like {{wrongtitle}} do use {{selfref}} internally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Allegations of apartheid

Can someone please explain to the people working on this template that the link they keep adding to Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Apartheid is breaking mirrors? -- 67.98.206.2 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please. We do not need this extra-heat for now. You all know about all the AfDs going on, the ArbCom, etc. You do see that most of the articles of the templates are protected. It reflects the heat level on this subject. This link is for now necessary to centralize all the discussions, to try to work for a consensus/mediation about ALL THE ARTICLES on the same talk page. While I do agree that it does not comply with that MoS page, please do remember that MoS is only a guideline. This link is only temporary, as a tool to help for negociation. It will be removed in due time. Thanks. NicDumZ ~ 21:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the namespace here is all part of the ongoing WP:POINT violations currently being presented to ArbCom at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_apartheid, whose whole goal is to upset and bring in as many WP:IDONTCARE editors in as possible as a means of deleting Allegations of Israeli apartheid. This isn't proper. Please compare this template to the list of others at Misplaced Pages:Avoid_self-references#Examples_of_self-references and try to understand why this doesn't template doesn't fit the mold. -- 67.98.206.2 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how allowing users to negociate on a sensible topic in a centralized place would be a WP:POINT. I don't think that any user ever referred to this template to prove something. (Well, then, where is the WP:POINT you were referring to ?)

Sorry, I don't understand the need to be fastidious on a MoS suggestion, on such a heated context. As I side note, you will notice that I was one of the first users to add a statement in the ongoing ArbCom denouncing the acts of certain users. I don't see, then, how I can be included in the "ongoing WP:POINT violations currently being presented to ArbCom". Thanks for reading this. NicDumZ ~ 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put links at the top of all the Allegations of X apartheid Talk pages which direct readers to WP:APARTHEID. I believe this is a perfectly good compromise. -- 67.98.206.2 22:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as long as no relentless users complain about it, it will do. I do not personally worry about this issue. I worry about the side effects there might have on the talk pages, for example accusations against a certain user to have logged out to hijack the negotiation process by removing the centralized discuss alert. :) Thanks for your help. NicDumZ ~ 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see it has been restored once again by someone else. The willingness of editors to violate and ignore guidelines here is remarkable. What exactly is the eagerness to try to pull into WP:APARTHEID people "on the street" and not already in Talk space? It just seems like an attempt to get as many uninformed editors in a room as possible and I'm not sure how that's good for wikipedia. What's so important here? -- 67.98.206.2 22:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well. That's exactly why I wanted to warn you. In these debates, an editor doing the slightest change will be considered as disruptive, and deadlocked explanations will follow. :( NicDumZ ~ 09:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Underdiscussion

Hi all. The Template:Underdiscussion has found its way into two main namespace articles, at the top of Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and in a section near the bottom of Dextroamphetamine. I removed it from the latter, and requested its removal from the former (which is protected), but the removal was undone shortly thereafter by a regular anon. I think I should add a noinclude notice that the tag is intended for project space only, and mentioned as much on the template's talk page, but it seems like not too many folks have the template on their watchlist.   justen   19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User names on content pages

Does adding a User name to a photo credit create a self-reference? There is a discussion underway at Talk:Main_Page#Photo_credit_for_picture_of_the_day. Johntex\ 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Portals

Could this page provide an opinion on whether portal tags are self-referential? I guess the portal space is separate from the article space, but they're both related to the information, not the process. Should portal links (like the one to the right) be included in the article space? There was a previous discussion of this topic at Misplaced Pages talk:Portal/Archive 3#Use of portal links on articles, but I think it could stand being directly addressed here as well. --Bookandcoffee 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo Request

In wonder whether some users could help on the following matter. One user recently did this on the Penelope Keith article. I can't stand this silohete image, its completly unnecessary, but the other user keeps reinserting it. But I have seen another user (can't remember who, will try and provide diff) remove them saying its a breach of WP:SELF. Having then read this page I can see this, as if the article was copied onto, say, answers.com then it would be wrong as clicking on the image would not let you upload it. Am I right, is the image meant not to be used by WP:SELF? Clarification would be much appreciated. --UpDown 13:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That image is to be used. You can't cite WP:SELF as a way to remove that image. Garion96 (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a guideline to that effect? --UpDown 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff for the editor. I'm wondering whether there is actually any policy? I shall ask User:Dalejenkins for his thoughts.--UpDown 17:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A stub notice is a self-reference. I don't see anyone removing those from short articles citing this manual of style. Garion96 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A stub notice has the benefit that it categories the article, so editors can be aware its a stub. This does not category it, so it remains largely useless. The photorequest on TalkPage categories it, and is all that is necessary. But, as I asked before, why is the policy on this. Because frankly I see no reason why I should not remove it from the article in question as there is nothing to say it should be included. I believe it to be ugly in the extreme, totally un-needed and indeed encourages people to upload wrong photos. --UpDown 07:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But that is not the main reason of a stub notice. See also the line "You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it". It asks editors to expand the article. Replace this image is asking editors for free content images. Not only editors but also people just reading[REDACTED] who would not go to the talk pages. See also this MFD at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner and successes at Category:Fromownerviewed. There are more successes actually but many of them have already been moved to Commons. Garion96 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure of the "main reason" of a stub notice, but I believe categorisation is highly important. People who aren't editors are unlikely to know what a "free image" is, and we should not encourage them to upload photos are they are likely to be not-free. --UpDown 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There appears to be an informal convention that "meta information" such as stub notices, requests for citation, and disambiguation links are all italic. What if the image in question were changed to be more subtle? For example, with the same silhouette, but small sans-serif text saying "No free image exists. You can help Misplaced Pages by providing one." Would that make everyone happy? —Ben FrantzDale 20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about redesigning the images at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Redesign of placeholder images. Garion96 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take it up there. —Ben FrantzDale 01:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My problems is not the current design, its the whole thing. It is ugly and unnecessary, and frankly ruins the page unnecessarily. There is no need for it whatsoever. None. As usual Misplaced Pages is treating the reading public as thick idiots. If someone wants to upload a photo they will work out how to do so, we don't need to spoon feed them, its very over the top. --UpDown 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It does work. Garion96 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace this image is a self-reference, but an intentional exception to the rule for the purpose of article development. The text isn't there to baby the reader into uploading, it's there to explain "why don't you have a real photo?". I would be fine if it just said we don't have a photo. Dcoetzee 23:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

GFDL Compliance and ASR

There's currently no way to split off a section of an article to another page without separating the text from its history, which creates GFDL compliance issues. So we are required to attribute and link back to the source (i.e., the original article), just like we do when we copy from a non-Misplaced Pages GFDL source. I'm paranoid about attribution notes being deleted, so I've been leaving them on the article page and on the talk page. Another editor raised the question whether an attribution note in an article page, referring to another Misplaced Pages article, is discouraged by WP:ASR. I'm thinking that it's no worse than a cross-reference (See Also) link. What do you think? -- But|seriously|folks  22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think copyright policy overrules this page.Genisock2 14:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New section

The Transhumanist added a new section today. I have removed it and put the link to it below so discussion can happen. Here is the diff The Placebo Effect 00:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Just linked at the mailing list is m:How to win an argument, for which see this edit in reference to point #4. *cough*

See also his changes at Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists). --Quiddity 00:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists are an exception to the avoid self-references guideline. The new section I added to the list guideline page accurately describes the state of affairs on Misplaced Pages with respect to lists, and basically consolidates clauses presented in various other places in the list-related guidelines, specifically:

1. Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions, which can be traced back at least as far as 2003, here
2. Misplaced Pages:List#Lead section, the self-references in leads can be traced back to the very beginning of the stand-alone guideline, here, under "Intro".

Therefore, I've just added see references to WP:ASR to these specific guidelines, so ensure that editors who read this guideline are aware of them.

Though with respect to my previous edit, Quiddity seems so intent on finding fault with me, that he jumps straight to making accusations rather than assuming good faith and asking me for my reasoning. Take a look around Misplaced Pages. The vast majority of lists refer to themselves, and have been doing so for years. Direct edits to guidelines are allowed if made in good faith -- there is no requirement to discuss changes first on talk pages. I did nothing more than to summarize existing guideline convention, both explicit and implicit. Note that the self-referencing provided for in our list guidelines is described with examples, implying strongly that self-referential descriptions in general are acceptable. That is, all the examples of naming a list and describing the contents of a list are self-referential, and there is no reason to assume that the rest of a title or description can't be self-referential as well. In this guideline-context, the use of "article" is acceptable, because it is an accurate descriptor for what a list lists. And this is exactly what has been happening. Look around, and you'll find that "article" turns up many times in list titles and leads, just as "list of" does, and other more creative self-references can be found in various list leads. What lists list are articles, and lists have been referring to what they link to for years. Very little distinction is being made between "topics" and "articles" on lists, because the items in a list are almost all linked, and when linked, they point to articles. The Transhumanist 09:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That edit, coupled with phoenix-wiki's referencing something he had just added at Misplaced Pages:Lists as an "official definition", just struck me as perfect examples of that humourous essay I had just read. You have good intentions, just unusual methods ;) --Quiddity 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not the impression you gave: "*cough*". The Transhumanist 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Those examples you use are self-referential about the articles themselves, not self-referential about the Misplaced Pages project or their website-nature, which is what the ASR guideline is intended to address. Articles are allowed to refer to themselves as articles. Possibly the Lists of mathematics topics needs to go through Misplaced Pages:Featured article review, as standards have changed since 2005. --Quiddity 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to change this guideline's title

Perhaps one problem with this guideline is that some editors may be interpretting its title "Avoid self-references" without reading the guideline. The title itself is ambiguous, as it does not specify what kind of self-references it is referring to. Some editors may be assuming that it means "all self-references", including references to an article by the article itself.

Maybe we should rename this guideline to Avoid referring to "Misplaced Pages" or to the Misplaced Pages project as a whole.

What do you think?

The Transhumanist 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's misleadingly narrow. It's not only bad to refer to Misplaced Pages explicitly, but also things like the medium, the editing interface, the community, and things like the editability of pages. If you have other ideas for titles encompassing these I'd like to hear them, but the current title is pretty good. Dcoetzee 23:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's another one: Avoid non-article self-references.

How's that?

The Transhumanist 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what that even means, and is still too narrow, as it's possible for categories to refer to themselves as categories and so on. Dcoetzee 01:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone who reads the lead section, or even just the nutshell, will be fine. We don't need to change the title just to accommodate people who don't read anything! Just as we don't need to add disclaimers to the WP:IAR title. --Quiddity (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is it gets cited wrong. I don't see how that can happen unless the person takes the title at face value, without reading the guideline. The Transhumanist 10:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's another idea. The guideline covers both self-refernces that should be avoided and acceptable self-references. The title implies that all self-references should be avoided. Since all types of self-references are covered, perhaps the guideline should be renamed to Misplaced Pages:Self-references (over the redirect). The Transhumanist 10:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This was the approach taken at the more controversial Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections. I could go either way - on the one hand, it is more accurate to say this guideline is about self-references in general; on the other hand, anyone who cited it would (hopefully) be citing it in order to point out a particular self-reference that ought to be avoided. Let's see what other people think. Dcoetzee 12:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Or it could be renamed to Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid which appropriately implies that it applies to certain types of self-references and not to others. The Transhumanist (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that one. Maybe then we won't have the discussion again that some editors think Image:Replace this image1.svg falls under this guideline. They never object to stub notices for some reason though... Garion96 (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent): Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid seems to me an excellent choice; it's more pointed than WP:SR but not as (incorrectly) inclusive as WP:ASR. If no one has any good objections in the next day or two, I suggest being bold and just moving the page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm compelled to agree with the newly-proposed title. At first I thought the idea of renaming a long-standing policy was a bit bold, but this is a succinct and less misleading description. Go for it, as long as, of course, the text is updated appropriately. Dcoetzee 03:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. --ais523 15:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The word "Misplaced Pages" as an example

This is similar to the (apparently unresolved) question above about browser screenshots. In articles about coding schemes (barcode in particular), is it acceptable to use "Misplaced Pages" as an example of an arbitrary word to show how it is coded? As I read the policy, it should be, as the example still makes perfect sense in print or on a mirror; at worst someone will wonder why the word was chosen, but they will not be confused on the real topic of the article. But some of the editors who commented above appear to feel otherwise. Even if it is acceptable, would it be better to use the name of the coding scheme? Here there is no fair use issue. Matchups (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's primarily that I find it exceptionally tacky to use "Misplaced Pages" as an example when another word would do. Since the word "Misplaced Pages" is unrelated to the article, I could be a devil's advocate and suggest that we use "Britannica" as the example word as it has just as much to do with barcodes as does the word "Misplaced Pages". —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If we had to pick an example word to recommend, it should be either an inherently funny word or "lorem". (I'd suggest "Slartibartfast" or "Jabberwocky" or "duck" :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does not make much sense to use the word "wikipedia", maybe a common English word or something else is much better. --SF007 (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to change this guideline's title (2)

I feel that the current title (Self-references to avoid) is pretty idiotic/strange, I propose changing it to something much better. What self references shouldn't be avoided? _→AzaToth 20:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The title was changed precisely to indicate that there are a number of self-references that shouldn't be avoided - and the page discusses some of them, such as disambiguation notices. Dcoetzee 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Then since it discusses both references that should be avoided and ones that shouldn't, perhaps it should simply be renamed to Misplaced Pages:Self-references? Seems most logic to me. LjL (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-referential category?

Can those more experienced in recognizing legitimate self-references please check out Category:Articles with Alice and Bob explanations? I'm not sure it's in keeping with our goals of avoiding unnecessary self-references. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the existence of this category is in line with this policy, as it does not refer to Misplaced Pages or the medium or interface, only to an abstract group of articles. Dcoetzee 17:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Application of this policy

There is a debate about whether this policy applies to a company page here Talk:Phorm#Edits_to_Wikipedia a fresh pair of eyes from someone who is familiar with this policy, to give an opinion would be appreciated. GameKeeper (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Template link to Project

Can/should a primary subject template link to the Project focussed on that subject? In particular, how do poeple feel about an edit like this , and is it justifiable on the basis of self-reference? Note that the link was displayed as "Project". --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Category namespace self-references (particularly in category descriptions)

It seems to me that Category: space should be treated largely like article space (in particular, the categories in which articles are sorted and browsed through should be) with regards to self-references, since it's there for the navigation of readers, not for the ease of editors. This also seems to be supported by the section given here about categories and templates.

However, I find that lots of categories have instructions written on them about "What articles should be moved into this category" - or indeed moved out of it. It seems logical to me that the description of a category might, if this is not obvious, contain a brief summary of what type of article to expect to find in this category, but not a set of instructions to editors. The relevant place for instructions to editors is (surely?) in the Category talk: space for the category. I am thinking of adopting, as a matter personal policy, the habit of simply cutting and pasting such self-referential instructions if it can not be transformed into a simple reader-friendly (rather than editor-friendly) description of the purpose of the category.

A particularly egregious example is Template:CatDiffuse which is found in many of the biggest and most important categories - the ones we are most likely to send readers to as a place to get started when browsing. That template is entirely directed at editors rather than readers and acts rather like a "clean up" or warning tag would in article space, alerting readers and editors to problems with the article. However, what CatDiffuse is actually applied to categories merely deemed to be at risk of degenerating - not necessarily categories that actually require clean-up. The equivalent action in article space, of putting a warning tag on all the most-visited articles in Misplaced Pages, regardless of their current quality state, declaring that "This is a highly-visited article and therefore care should be taken during when you are editing it" would be seen as a gross violation of WP:SELF and quickly reverted. However, some high traffic articles do have notices to that effect placed at the top of the talk page.

Template talk:CatDiffuse has a discussion about whether that template in particular should be employed only in Category talk: space. I'd be interested in the more general question of whether WP:SELF disapproves of instructions to editors being put into Category: descriptions (it's a shame there's not a way of making text visible only to logged-in editors and not general readers!) and indeed whether WP:SELF actually needs clarification on that point - it seems mostly concerned with the use of self-referential categories rather than the description space available on categories itself. TwoMightyGods_Necessity 12:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A slightly broader observation - it's not only the space in category descriptions which is unregulated by the current version of WP:SELF, but also Portal: space doesn't get a mention at all. To what extent are self-references (such as links to the relevant WikiProject) suitable in a portal? TwoMightyGods_Necessity 15:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of WP:STYLE?

The template says that these guidelines are part of the Manual of Style, but it doesn't appear to be mentioned/linked to over there. Jobarts 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to self

I do not see any mention about lists.

To make that a bit more clear. If a list is a spin off from a parent article it would be logical to state that. However this set of guidelines is somewhat confusing as to if that should be done (As in "This is a spin off list from article F"). To go a bit beyond this, a list will have items on it. According to another set of guidlines, Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists, under the header "Lead and selection criteria" it contains two important statements that have a bearing on the "Self" guidelines. The statements are:

• Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria.

• Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Misplaced Pages...

So if part of the list specific criteria were that all entries on the list had their own non-redirect article in English Misplaced Pages, based on one set of guidelines, that is acceptable. However based on the "Self" guidelines that is not acceptable. If you remove the word "Misplaced Pages" it makes no sense - "All Entries on this list must have their own non-redirect English article".

What does one do in regards to lists? Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

One could say in the list criteria "Each entry should have its own article in this encyclopedia." GRBerry 22:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles should not contain editing instructions except in comments. The point is moot. Dcoetzee 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Interwikis self references

An AWB Feature request asks to automatically convert wmf external links to interwiki; I have authored a script to do this (example) and this page since come to my attention. My question is does this policy apply to interwiki self references? — Dispenser 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sort of - in the sense that, for self-reference links, converting external links to interwiki links makes sense, whereas for links treating them as encyclopedia topics, it does not. For example, an article that discusses the Spanish Misplaced Pages should not break when that article is exported and reused in another application. Any references to Misplaced Pages itself must also use external link format, even if it's to the English Misplaced Pages; you can see this in the article Misplaced Pages, e.g. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress |title=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is a work in progress |accessdate=2008-07-03 |publisher=Misplaced Pages}}</ref>. Dcoetzee 01:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

linking[REDACTED] user pages from articles about that person?

Hi, I noticed that someone added a link to my Misplaced Pages user page on an article (FFTW) about some software that I wrote. I suspect that this is inappropriate under the WP guidelines, but it's not entirely clear to me from this page.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right - this almost certainly wouldn't be considered an acceptable cross-namespace link. It's okay to link from your user page to the article, or from the article talk page to your user page (probably), but not from the article to your user page. The policy doesn't currently discuss this, but I'm just giving my intuition for it - I've never seen an article link to user space. Dcoetzee 05:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"See below" and the like

I've always seen parenthetical comments like (see below) or (see #section) as self-referential, for precisely the same reason as the examples given. However, these aren't mentioned in the page. I think a note on these should be added, because they are common in lower-quality articles and usually indicate that the prose does not flow adequately from subject-to-subject, or that the lede fails to provide a proper summary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think these are okay. You see similar inter-section references in a paper encyclopedia, and it makes sense as long as the section isn't removed from the context of its article. They may be a sign of bad writing in some cases, but that's not a self-references issue. Dcoetzee 12:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What about in cases of spoken variants? Then the material isn't "below". In addition, as an explicit instruction to the user, isn't it a case of inappropriate second-person? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Refocus this page to document the larger policy of which ASR is just a logical consequence

Something's been bothering me about this page for some time, and now I've figured out what it is. At first I thought it was just that there were actually two related policies being discussed on this page and no one had yet articulated that "avoid self-references" was only one of two intersecting policies. After thinking about it, however, I realized that it's less "two intersecting policies" and far more "one overarching policy, of which 'avoid self-references' is a logical consequence".

Here's how I think the various aspects of this policy actually interrelate:

• Don't assume anything about the circumstances in which the content will be read.
  • Don't assume the medium.
    • Don't assume that it will be in print.
    • Don't assume that it will be online.
  • Don't assume the time and place.
    • Don't assume the reader is in a particular nation or on a particular continent.
    • Don't assume that the reader is reading at a particular time.
  • Don't assume the venue.
    • Don't assume that the reader is reading on "Misplaced Pages".
      • Don't assume that the reader will understand Misplaced Pages jargon.
      • Don't assume that the reader will automatically find any relation of the subject to Misplaced Pages meaningful/interesting.

Some of these sub-policies are already well-described on this page ("Don't assume print", "Don't assume online") and others are not ("Don't assume the time" should be on this page, but the closest I can find to it is actually WP:DATED.) What's the solution? I don't know. We could retool this page to describe the larger policy, or we could create a new page for the larger policy that links to WP:ASR and WP:DATED and any other existing pages which describe policies that come under this umbrella. What seems clear is that we do need to focus on the larger policy and make sure that is covered. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

References to how to add to a list in the article itself

I found at least one example of a list List of Puerto Ricans, which describes the procedure for adding new names to the list in the article itself, rather than in the talk page. i see this as being self referential, but some editors there dont see this as a problem. i find it jarring, though i totally understand the motivation behind it (to cut down on inappropriate additions to a list which has attracted them). I wonder if there is a specific guideline on WP about where to specify list criteria, and how. i know i simply try to describe the parameters in an encyclopedic manner (this list includes x,y,z, but does not include a,b,c, for reasons 1,2,3), and not as a how-to. i really want to change this articles lead, but i also want to be polite and respect what has evolved there.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally this type of suggestion is placed in comments <!-- Blah --> and not in the article text itself. Dcoetzee 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Referring to an ongoing mediation in an article

There is a proposal to add a tag like this (officially) to the text of Roman Catholic Church to indicate that one specific word ("officially") is the subject of an ongoing mediation. I think this is a bad idea as it is a self-reference of Misplaced Pages to one of its processes (mediation). If the tag was at the beginning of the article, I think it would be tolerable although not a great idea. To tag a specific word in the manner being proposed seems like an awkward self-reference in my opinion. I'd like to hear what other editors think.

--Richard (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:philosophy topics and ilk

Template:Philosophy topics and others (such as Template:Philosophy of science) have self references in the bottom. Ok or not ok? Specifically I refer to the WikiProject references; those are almost always left to the talk page. I also don't think it is appropriate that the special:recentchangeslinked is on the template either. --Izno (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bengali romanization

A discussion potentially involving self-reference issues has been instigated at Talk:Bengali script. Please weigh in if you care. — AjaxSmack 01:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Local bias

I reverted this edit by The Transhumanist (talk · contribs), partly because I think the wording was fine as it is, but mainly because the use of a locally biased example as outlined on "POV: Local bias" essay; "Jay Leno" in this case:

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous or is the subject of a joke told by Jay Leno, it should not report this about itself).

 Nuβiατεch /_contrib 20:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Jay statement dates from 24 November 2007 and was removed 8 October 2008. The context is correct, even though it includes Jay. The Jay reference could be removed without harming the sentence.

In the edit you reverted, I had removed the following:

Articles in main namespace may discuss topics passing Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines exclusively. Lists of Misplaced Pages articles belong in Misplaced Pages:Portal namespace, as discussing Misplaced Pages contents.

That was added on 8 October 2008, but there was no consensus for it. A proposal in March 2008, entitled "Misplaced Pages:Move navigational lists to portal namespace failed. No proposal of this type has succeeded in the meantime. A change to[REDACTED] of this magnitude needs a wide forum of discussion and cannot be implemented by a single editor simply by editing a guideline.

Also, the phrase "may discuss topics passing WP:N exclusively" contradicts the notability guideline which states: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Misplaced Pages. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people." But the quote above doesn't limit the "topics discussed" to the subject specified in the article's title. This contradiction needs to be fixed.

The Transhumanist 23:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. I'll revert my own edit, then remove the Jay Leno reference, and step out of the way.  Nuβiατεch /_contrib 09:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

SRA and images

I have a question, why isn't there a clause considering the use of the Misplaced Pages logo in articles not about Misplaced Pages? It's not free content, but still - doesn't using Misplaced Pages as an example for software (especially with web browsers showing it) also count as a self-reference? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking a bit about this too. Pictures such as this one: have unnecessary references to Misplaced Pages that don't function as a good example of what the device is able to do. Should such images be replaced? JosJuice (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to see this question resolved (and as JosJuice notes, this concerns not just the Misplaced Pages logo, but more generally images that use Misplaced Pages as an example). There are tons and tons of images that do this—including many screenshots (e.g., the main image on the Firefox article), visual examples of various kinds (e.g., this graph of Misplaced Pages.org traffic used as an example on the Web traffic article), and other miscellaneous occurrences (e.g., this example of a postal bar code that appears in the ZIP code article)—and it's not clear whether they violate the policy. This is a common enough issue that I think this guideline ought to specifically address it. —Caesura 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And when it comes to browsers, I know for a fact that IE9+, Firefox, Chrome, and Opera have "neutral" built-in home pages that may be a better way to depict the browser than using than just using Misplaced Pages's main page. Why we don't count this as a self-reference to avoid, I will never know. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

How to tag problems? Are examples ok?

1. Is there a cleanup-style tag to mark problematic self-references with? If so, it should be linked from this page.
2. Are examples that refer to Misplaced Pages ok? See the long section in Simpson's paradox.

Thanks. Stevage 14:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

County templates

Some (most?) US county templates place themselves in the main article space. For example, {{Adair County, Iowa}} places itself in Category:Adair County, Iowa. This seems like a self-reference to be avoided because the template is a tool used by editors for creating county articles and not intended to be for main space readers. Thoughts? ✤ JonHarder 12:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

From the article Saxo Bank

I find Employees have several times edited this Misplaced Pages article I'm pretty sure that phrasing shouldn't be used, but what should be? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit late, but you'd want something along the lines of "Employees, several times, edited the Misplaced Pages article on the subject." Makes sense even on another wiki (and Misplaced Pages is wikilinked there for much the same reason, as you'd wikilink any other encylopedia in that context...) --ais523 11:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Chembox validation self-references in chemical infoboxes

Please join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation#Infobox additions violate self-reference guidelines. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiWorld

Is a WikiWorld comic considered self-reference? In specific, I'm wondering about this edit to George P. Burdell, which removed the image to the right. —Disavian (/_contribs) 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that the reference to WikiWorld, a Misplaced Pages WikiProject, or inclusion of its illustrations are a self-reference to the project and should be avoided. ✤ JonHarder 12:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Until Britanica starts putting WikiWorld cartoons in their articles, Misplaced Pages shouldn't either. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject & other maintenance links on navbox templates

Navbox templates frequently contain at the bottom of the navbox a link to the portal and to the category of the topic. Recently, I have noticed several navbox templates on major articles that include links to behind-the-scenes aspects of the encyclopedia; including but not limited to, links to the a) WikiProject, b) talk page of the WikiProject, c) recent changes to articles linking to the template, and d) the stubs' category. This seems to me to violate the spirit of this guideline which aims to keep behind-the-scenes links off of the article page and on the article talk page. I realize navboxen are not part of the article, but are instead transcluded onto the article -- but for all intents and purposes the average reader will not know about this.

Therefore, I request that this guideline be updated to specifically address such navbox links. I would propose that such maintenance links be prohibited to appear on the article page via the navbox transclusion; and instead be included on the WikiProject template that is included on the article talk page, or be <noinclude>'d on the template page so as not to appear on the article. --64.85.215.230 (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC) (Dynamic IP address, will change when I log off.)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Simplifications

I've made a few changes to simply the presentation of ideas in this article, and to remove superfluous language. Any thoughts? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that the following bullet point disappeared in this edit of yours.

* Any link in an article in the main namespace that links to one in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Such links are self-referential, because the Misplaced Pages namespace is not part of the encyclopedia. This applies even if the link is a piped link.

I was using that guideline in this discussion about the following article text in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

The Misplaced Pages definition of Notability of people is used in this article. "Notable" is not used in the common language meaning of "a person of distinction or great reputation",

I haven't been able to find anything about namespaces at WT:MOS, although I admit that I haven't been through all 125 archives. I wonder if you can clarify, does your edit represent a consensus that it is now perfectly acceptable to reference Misplaced Pages-namespace guidelines in article space? We currently have, under 'Examples of relevant self-referencing', the text "any links in the main namespace to the Misplaced Pages namespace". I am having trouble parsing a sentence out of what I see there, so I thought it better to ask before I pursue further discussions with other editors. Thanks for your help. --Nigelj (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I had no intention of changing the meaning of the guideline, and find several parts which still recommend avoiding such a link, if possible:

• "In this framework, if you link from an article to a specific Misplaced Pages page, use external link style "
• "articles produced should be useful, even outside the context of the project used to create them"

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's good. Thanks. It's just a little harder to engage in a debate without something specific to quote. Do we take it that 'relevant' in 'Examples of relevant self-referencing' means relevant in the sense that you mustn't do them? --Nigelj (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is just my two cents, but I'm not a big fan of many of these revisions—especially the October 11 reorganization, which I think makes the guideline less clear for newcomers.

Previously the guideline was very clear. The basic rule ("Avoid referring to 'Misplaced Pages'") was given at the top, with further guidance ("Think about print") and exceptions ("Neutral self-references are acceptable", "Writing about Misplaced Pages itself") given in simple language under clear headings. The page has had this same basic form for years.

Now nearly the entire guideline is crammed into one big section, "Types of self-reference", perhaps with the intent that editors look for the type of self-reference that most closely matches the situation they are dealing with. However, I don't think that the subheadings of "Types of self-reference" are a good way of capturing the kinds of self-references that may exist in Misplaced Pages. I think the new structure will actually make it harder, rather than easier, for editors to find information relevant to them.

I also think much of the language is more stilted, which makes it harder for newcomers to get the point. Some of the rewritten text is difficult to understand. For example, the basic explanation under the first heading was previously "Avoid self-references within Misplaced Pages articles to the Misplaced Pages project"; now it is "Mentioning that the article is being read on Misplaced Pages, or to Misplaced Pages policy or technicalities of using Misplaced Pages should be avoided where possible", which is far more abstruse.

Fundamentally, this guideline is a simple one: don't refer to Misplaced Pages, unless you're writing about Misplaced Pages in a context where it's appropriate to do so. Over time, this page has accumulated a bunch of explanation and examples to illustrate this rule, but the rule itself is simple. I feel that the new structure obscures rather than clarifies this. I do think you made some good improvements, especially in simplifying wordings and the like. But on balance, I don't care for the reorganization. —Caesura 22:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Section on self reference tools needs clearer explanation

This section is almost incomprehensible (especially the description of {{srlink}}. I tried to improve it a bit by incorporating some of the explanation from the template's documentation. But still could use some rewriting. This explanation, from the documentation for Template:Selfref is the clearest explanation I found for srlink. "{{srlink}}, for the opposite case when you want a link to the Misplaced Pages: namespace that does show in mirrors without breaking (for instance when writing an article about Misplaced Pages or something connected to it)."

Is srlink only used for links to Misplaced Pages namespace? If so, should say so in the explanation here. If not, then maybe use this as a basis for writing something understandable to somebody who doesn't already know what the templates do and when one should use them. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Practical examples

Are practical examples such as in the Mouseover article acceptable self-references? (permlink) Asking since this particular example appears harmless but it defies the advised notion of "writing for a print encyclopedia". --213.168.117.36 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is useful to have an example, but the example could be explicit rather than implicit, at the same time making it print-compatible (in the same sense that animations and other media are print-compatible). That example could just as well be included in floating box with a caption as multimedia. I'd argue more readers would find it and more readers would understand that it is part of the article not "meta". —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The templates that render self-referencing graphics

I suggest that the paragraph:

The templates that render self-referencing graphics for the maintenance needs of developing articles, like {{stub}}, {{npov}}, and {{refimprove}} are unavoidable, but articles should normally avoid self-referencing templates such as {{shortcut}} and the others.

is altered to explain that some self-referencing templates such as {{stub}}, {{npov}}, and {{refimprove}} serve a dual purpose, they inform editors of problems with an article but they also warn readers that there is a problem with the article of which readers should be informed, but articles should normally avoid self-referencing templates such as {{shortcut}} and the others that provide no immediate benefit to the reader and are in essence editor to editor messages:

Templates that render self-referencing graphics which directly benefit the reader as a warning to the reader that an article needs further development to meet the minimum requirements of Misplaced Pages policies such as {{stub}}, {{npov}}, and {{refimprove}} are permitted, but articles should normally avoid self-referencing templates the provide no such direct benefit, such as {{shortcut}} and the others, that are primarily for the maintenance and development of articles (instead consider placing them on the talk page of an article).

-- PBS (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I just want to point out, if it isn't self-evident, that if this new wording is approved, PBS is going to use it to support his argument that maintenence tags like {{dead end}}, {{underlinked}}, {{copyedit}} etc. should be placed on talk pages, rather than in articles. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"... is beyond the scope of this article"

Recently another editor disagreed with this phrase's appearance in an article - "articles should not talk about themselves." I agree that articles should not say e.g. "This article was referenced in an article in the New York Times", but "beyond the scope of this article" is a very common usage - Google finds 11,000 occurrences on English WP. Who's right?

I settled for using an {{about}} hatnote, but that doesn't work so well if the thing the article isn't about doesn't really come up until somewhere in the article body.

Similarly, "(this other thing that we just provided a brief introduction to) is described more completely in ]" is ok, yes? Even though it's "talking about Misplaced Pages"? There are cases where I'd rather do that than just Wikilink (this other thing). Jeh (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Meta content in the portal namespace

It seems like most portals (including featured portals) have either a 'Things to do', 'Project collaboration' or 'WikiProject' section. Portal:United States even transcludes the whole subpage Misplaced Pages:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/to do. This is the only discussion I could find about it ("The listing of WikiProjects is excluded ... because we have determined that it is useful for portals to list related WikiProjects"), but it dates from 2006 and does not discuss 'Things to do' sections. I think it goes against our guidelines about not mixing the content we present to our readers and meta content and is more confusing to our readers than it is helpful. Nay or yay? jonkerz ♠talk 17:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Scope statements?

Does the prohibition of self-reference exclude scope statements? The nutshell says articles may refer to themselves. But the lede says: "Typically, self-references within Misplaced Pages articles to the Misplaced Pages project should be avoided. These take several forms." And then the opening text of "Types of self-reference", having given an example of a scope statement ("This article discusses...") then discusses some uses to be avoided. I believe I understand the kind of self-references that should be avoided, and I believe that scopes statements should be (and are) tolerated, but the text is confusing. Could we have this explicityl stated? And perhaps consider an alteration to the text, perhaps something that describes the allowed uses before discussing the proscribed uses? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Dictionary definition of notable