Talk:Self-reference

From Academic Kids

A Very Special Note from the Management

Q. Should I add self-reference as a link somewhere if I figure out a clever way of doing it?

A. No. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, Wikipedia:Self link, there's already a self-reference in the "Examples" section, and no matter how clever or original you think it is, it's really not. Trust us.

---

The intended self-links are now shown bolded. How to fix? -- Paddu 17:10, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fixed by using a link to a section. -- Paddu 06:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Self-reference representation on this node

When I visited this article a couple months ago, I was confused by all these links back to the same article. "How stupid of them" I thought. Then I got it. I laughed, sent links to the page to friends, etc. To me it was the ultimate expression of geek humor. In fact, it was the first time I really took notice of wikipedia, decided it was cool, and since that time have started contributing articles myself.

I hope those of you who are sense-of-humor challenged and removed the links will reconsider.

So, what's the story? Are self-links verboten for some reason? If someone can explain why they were all taken out (I suspect it's something besides a lack of humor), then please do so. GTBacchus 14:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All we need is an easy to find section describing why there isn't a self-referencing link

First of all, self links aren't rendered as links: see Wikipedia:Self link. I can't link to this talk page with [[Talk:Self-reference]], because that ends up as Talk:Self-reference. Indirect self-links are possible, but unlike regular links, they serve no purpose: an article cannot refer to itself to provide additional information, which is what links are for (at best, it could include section links for quick navigation within the article). In fact, if you encountered this normally, it'd be a flaw, to be corrected. That's another good reason not to do it: don't make people who fix things waste time on exceptions.

As an aside, links to an article typically should not be repeated (self link or not), one is usually enough, with the rest regular text.

Finally, this joke is so obvious and done to death that omitting it makes the encyclopedia better. Including self-reference in self-reference doesn't make it a better article; not even a funnier one. The farthest you could probably go is to add something like "This article is an example of self-reference, by virtue of this very sentence."JRM 17:16, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

I really disagree with your assessment of this as a "joke". If that's true, then all self-references are jokes; instead of, a means to draw out and study the properties of referencing objects through language. It's just that a reference to self-reference in this page is more of a study on how this wiki can accomplish a self-reference.Sp00n17 18:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you're applying a slippery slope argument here: I don't think all self-references are jokes, on the contrary—Gödel's incompleteness theorem is more prone to fill me with awe than split my sides. But in the context of a Wikipedia article, calling the mere insertion of self-links "a means to study the properties of referencing objects" would be too much credit. Self-reference is trivial for hypermedia; in Wikipedia it's only slightly more difficult because of the restriction to indirect links.

Just adding indirect self-links has zero informative value. It may be amusing, some people may even think of it as "clever", but that's all. JRM 18:44, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

"Gödel's incompleteness theorem is more prone to fill me with awe than split my sides."... Okay, I did find that rather amusing. I'd have to agree with the fact it lends no informative value. Sp00n17 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right. A self-referenced link to this page is perhaps the first thing on everybodies mind when they first read Self-reference. Problem is that it's not healthy for the wiki to have one.Sp00n17 18:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problem is, since everybody is going to think about it when they goto this page ... and don't find it, then they'll try to add it. Instead of messing with the wiki-system which doesn't smile on self-references... why not just place a small section explaining why there isn't a self-reference link on the page. Doing so would prevent people from adding it in.Sp00n17 18:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestion has insidious merit; the article would then refer to itself in the explanation of why there's no self-referencing link to it. JRM 18:44, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Oh, scratch that: I see the Examples section already has a self-reference. What more do you want? The remainder of the discussion belongs on the Talk page, and we can just refer people who absolutely have to add clever links to that. No meta-content in the article needed. JRM 18:49, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

All I wanted was a means to prevent any more self-references to self-referece added to self-reference. Of course you're right, there is an example already. It references a section within the page. If people still post self-references even with the example there, then perhaps something more is needed. At this point, I'm fine with the examples as is.Sp00n17 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One self-referential link is fine. It would be harmful only if it was similar to the hypothetical dictionary entry that used circular definition (e.g., the entry for x saying "refer to y" and the entry for y saying "refer to x") and provided no new information. Wikiwikifast 03:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, but it's going to be a cold day in hell before I make waves over something like this. :-) Share and enjoy. JRM 04:51, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

The pedants win, for now.

Misspelled/Mispelled?

I remember looking at this page before and seeing, in the Examples section, "One word in this sentence is mispelled." I took this as "mispelled" referring to itself, but now someone changed (corrected?) this sentence to "One word in this sentence is misspelled," which is correct in spelling, but it's a false sentence with no self-reference. I don't want to change it back in case it's supposed to be like this, but I just want to let everyone know.

No, it's not supposed to be like that, but this is going to cause false positives on spelling checkers everywhere. I nuked the whole sentence on the grounds that we've got too damn many examples anyway—one less clever self-reference isn't going to hurt, and we won't have to worry about "corrections" anymore. If this upsets anyone, feel free to put it back in, but you better promise to watch over it, then. :-) JRM · Talk 23:44, 2005 May 9 (UTC)