Wikipedia talk:Self-references to avoid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

/Archive

Contents 1 Self-ref external links 2 Disambig tags 3 Think about print 4 A new way of handling self references? 5 Eric Goldman 6 Disambiguation 7 Point Of View =?= biased 8 In the Template and Category namespaces (new template message proposed) 9 Add a section? 10 situations where self-references are okay 11 Wikiproject's Collaboration of the Month/Week 12 I'm getting sick of this 13 Suggestion, maybe... 14 Sudden Additions? 15 Recent addition 16 "Writing about Wikipedia itself" proposed change 17 Screenshots 18 Template:Expert-subject 19 Pennsylvania Punch Bowl 20 Character sets 21 References in an article to itself 22 Category descriptions 23 Template:Allegations of apartheid 24 Template:Underdiscussion 25 User names on content pages 26 Portals 27 Photo Request 28 GFDL Compliance and ASR 29 New section 30 Proposal to change this guideline's title 31 The word "Wikipedia" as an example 32 Proposal to change this guideline's title (2) 33 Self-referential category? 34 Application of this policy

[edit] Self-ref external links

What about external links that discuss the Wikipedia article? For example for Seth Finkelstein there is this Guardian article "I'm on Wikipedia get me out of it". Would this be ok in an article or self-referential? -- Stbalbach 05:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking (at least for people), it depends on whether Wikipedia has had a major effect on the person's public life, or if the person is notable due to their experiences with Wikipedia (in addition to any notability they may have through other methods). For non-bio articles, it depends on how much the thing being described depends on Wikipedia (for instance, it's OK to mention Wikipedia in Wikimedia Foundation but not in Elephant (contrast Talk:Elephant). --ais523 07:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Think about it this way: if you were writing this article for an unrelated site, and you yourself had no connection to Wikipedia, would you mention Wikipedia? - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig tags

I've ran into this problem on the policy page: I put up a disambig tag to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and yet it has been removed 3 times. Disambig tags are very commonly used for this purpose - and I find it very useful. Examples: delete, guideline. I find it utterly stupid that people are deleting useful and unobtrusive disambig tags. Fresheneesz 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected it. It should at least have been in {{selfref}} tags, and I've tried to make the wording slightly more standard. --ais523 13:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Think about print

Quote from project page Don't forget, we want to make the creation of a print version of Wikipedia as easy as possible, so try to use terms such as "this article" as opposed to "this website", and certainly don't use terms such as "click here" (which make no sense when using a screen reader, for instance). You may also find it helpful to imagine you're reading the article in another encyclopedia. End Quote

I am kind of new but have run across this statement and simular ones a couple times. I understand the wiki pages are subject to printing and inclusion in school project and stuff. I have a couple of questions Jeepday 14:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Question - Who is the we that wants to make a print version of wikipedia?
• Question - Are statements about "print versions" of wikipedia referening to a single page or hard copy multiple volume editions?
• Question - How would a print version of wikipedia be a wiki?
• Question - Why would you want to make a print version of wikipedia?
• Question - Who would finance (and profit?) from a print version of wikipedia?
• Question - How would you keep a print version of wikipedia updated?

There was a print version of some of the pages of the German Wikipedia a while back IIRC. As Wikipedia is GFDL, companies can created printed versions of Wikipedia and sell them if they wish, even making profit (the GFDL has no restrictions on commercial use.) I think they checked all the pages for vandalism first, and I remember talk of including a postcard so that readers could submit improvements (although I have no idea whether that was done on the German version or whether it was a proposal for the future). I don't think they intended to keep the print version updated. WP:1.0 may also be of interest if you're thinking about print. --ais523 15:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So as I understand it from the answer above and the answer about Version 1.0 Who profits the Wikipedia community feels the very first entry on the page Wikipedia:Avoid self-references should be "Think about print" so a group of individuals with an intent to profit on the sale of millions of copies "I'd expect Version 1.0 (on DVD) to sell in the millions. Walkerma 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)" can more easily profit on donated labor to a free information source. Is that a fairly accurate statement of why this article should encourage editors to “think about print”? Jeepday 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your opposition. Wikipedia is about trying to spread free-content knowledge to everyone; bear in mind that any sold CDs, DVDs, or even printed encyclopaedias would still be GFDL and so could be redistributed freely. (For instance, I could make a CD of my favourite Wikipedia pages and sell it now if I like, but whoever bought it could make copies and give them to their friends without having to pay me anything). Not everyone in the world owns a computer, and violating WP:ASR would just make it considerably more difficult to give them this information. Besides, even on the Internet companies are already profiting from Wikipedia's content under the GFDL (see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks); Wikipedia is more popular than them because people don't have to pay or to see adverts to access the same content. Some wikis use a non-commercial licence, but commercial use on Wikipedia is explicitly allowed (see {{db-noncom}} for an example). --ais523 11:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new way of handling self references?

To me it seems there are two groups. Group 1 wants to have a small note at the top of all articles in the Main namespace that share the same name as an article in the Wikipedia namespace. Group A wants to remove all self references from all of wikipedia because of how they appear on websites that mirror wikipedia, as well as in publications that may contain a printed version of a wikipedia article. The two groups will always be set against each other with neither willing to comprimise. What I propose is adding new functionality to MediaWiki that will handle self references in a novel fashion. For all articles that share the same name as an article in another namespace, for example Neutral point of view, instead of having a Self Reference in the article, add a new tab to the right of Watch at the top of the page. This tab would be a link to the article in the other namespace. This method should also support some kind of markup within the article source so that articles with unique but similar names can be linked, such as Template and Template Messages. I have created a mockup that demonstrates the concept, however the final design of such a tab will be up to the community. Each namespace may have its own image, or the tab may have no image at all, that can be decided much farther on.

Please consider this as a viable alternative to the self-references that are on many wikipedia articles. --Carterhawk 07:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That couldn't handle something like the dablink to WP:POINT from Gaming the system (which is a redirect to Rules lawyer). Likewise, you wouldn't want a link from about to Wikipedia:About. --ais523 09:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is a dablink from about to Wikipedia:About. Oh well... --ais523 09:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Why couldnt it handle it? and 2)This idea does not require total automation and probably shouldnt use it. A new type of wikimarkup for handling this would be the prefered method. --Carterhawk 10:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've written a script (User:ais523/selfreftab.js) that makes {{selfref}}s into a tab marked 'wp' at the top of the screen, which you can use if you like. This is a bad idea to put sitewide, though, because new users (who could most use the link) are less likely to notice it. --ais523 13:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Super cool, I love it and will use it from now on, thankyou so much. I suppose now the question is, how to make it as noticable as the existing selfref template, without making it obtrusive. --Carterhawk 13:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Goldman

Is he independently notable? -- Zanimum 14:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. The current content suggests that he is at least marginally so. It would probably take some research on his other work to know. I'd say that, at worst, the article is harmless. - Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

What about disambiguations at the top of articles which point to useful Wikipedia space pages - are these permitted? For instance a disambig to WP:DRV at the top of DRV was recently taken off? I personally think such links are helpful to newbies or generally to people who don't want to fiddle around with Wikipedia's search engine. When I was less experienced, I found searching for wikipedia policies or special pages like WP:DRV through the Wikipedia search engine a bit of a pain. What was really helpful was when there were disambig lines at the top of mainspace articles to similarly named Wikipedia special pages. (eventually I worked out that using google 10 times more effective than the wikipedia search engine, but i still look for disambigs occasionally) Bwithh 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point Of View =?= biased

• Quote:do not use specialized Wikipedia jargon (e.g. "POV" in place of "biased"),
  • biased should read bias. POV is a noun.
  • POV is the abbreviation for point of view. I have seen wikipedians using the term POV when they really mean bias. But it is not accurate. And we should not encourage it.--129.49.88.64 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In the Template and Category namespaces (new template message proposed)

I created a template message supposed to be used at the top of categories belonging to the Wikipedia project (see Category:Wikipedia administration for the first exemple). The aim of this template is to allow readers to clearly see at first sight that a Wikipedia project category does belong to this kind of category and what is its aim (thanks to a description given in parameter). 16@r 23:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add a section?

Could someone add a section about referring to Wikipedia when it isn't notable. For example, On the Straight outta Lynwood page their was a mention about White and Nerdy mentioning Wikipedia when it was only one line in the song. The Placebo Effect 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] situations where self-references are okay

There are rare situations where an article will actually need to mention Wikipedia, or even its own Wikipedia article. This is sort of covered in this page already, in the line "Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article, for example: John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy". But "major role" is a bit too limiting, consider the recent Fuzzy Zoeller thing. It is a stretch to say Wikipedia played a major role in his life, but nevertheless his recent actions were covered by the mainstream press and I think should be mentioned in the article on him. I would propose changing the word "major" to "notable", notable in the literal sense that the article would do well to make a note of it. --W.marsh 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject's Collaboration of the Month/Week

Some Wikiproject's COTM have banners added to the article space. I really dislike these and would much prefer them to be added to the talk , rather than the article space. See The Maltese Falcon (1941 film), Mormon pioneers for examples. Note: the main COTM does add it's tag to the talk page. I tried to change this for the tax wiki project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taxation#Taxation Collaboration of the Month but the projects members still wished to keep this on the main article space. I still disagree. Can we build some concensus on this. GameKeeper 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the project members at WikiProject Taxation that disagrees with moving the banner to the talk space. I think it falls under the area of "Limited use of self-references are sometimes found in the Template namespace" as "Use of templates in the article namespace that self-reference because they link to articles in the user, talk, or Wikipedia namespace or that are special articles." The COTM is just like any other cleanup, expand, NPOV, etc banner. I prefer it on the article mainspace as it draws more attention and helps promote the collaboration. However, I feel the banner should be small (examples Tax, Muhammad Ali, Mormon pioneers, List of United States Representatives from California). Collaborations are difficult enough as it is without hiding them on the talk space. As a discussion for this group, I'd suggest we look at this from the point of - Does it violate Avoid self-reference policy? If it does not (which I believe), then I would leave the decision of this template placement standard to the WikiProject Council. Such a policy would effect many WikiProjects. Morphh ^(talk) 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also agree that current collaboration banners should be on the article page and not the talk page. Such a banner serves a similar purpose to {{current}}, indicating that the article is currently undergoing a period of heavier editing than normal and that the contents of the article may change quickly. However, once the collaboration period is over, the banner should be removed from the article page. Slambo (Speak) 11:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm getting sick of this

Can we please put in big letters somewhere on this page that this policy does not prevent us from having articles that are related to Wikipedia like Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales? People seem to keep not realizing that this is just a MOS issue. JoshuaZ 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the letters in Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references#Writing_about_Wikipedia_itself are big enough. If someone is misciting the policy, just calmly link that. I'm not sure I'd categorise it as "just an MoS issue" - it's important for a number of reasons besides writing style. Deco 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion, maybe...

Before I make my suggestion, let me first explain how I believe this guideline works. (This way you won't have to waste time reading a suggestion based on a faulty premise.)

• Unacceptable entry to [[WP:X]] : "As it says in [[WP:Y]] the values of..." Directly sourcing another Wikipedia article would be wrong.
• Acceptable same situation: "See also: [[WP:y]]" Providing a link to another Wikipedia article is acceptable.

If I'm correct, I'd propose changing this guideline's name to WP:NWC or WP:No Wikipedia Citations in the interest of clarity. I've found myself wondering, from some comments I've read, if some people assume no self references means "don't reference yourself". Anynobody 06:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost, but not quite. The 'acceptable same situation should be' "{{selfref|See also: [[WP:Y]]}}", which means that mirrors can automatically remove the link if they don't copy WP:-space pages. --ais523 09:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sudden Additions?

Am I just noticing this...but it seems {{selfref}} is getting thrown at the top of a lot more articles than it used to...I mean, I happened to notice RFA. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To some extent, it's due to a common solution for cross-namespace redirects; redirecting them to a related article and putting {{selfref}} on the article aids navigation but doesn't land people in projectspace by accident. --ais523 09:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent addition

I just added

A problem sometimes occurs when a notable person, especially a writer or media personality, mentions Wikipedia. There is a temptation to add any such mention to their Wikipedia article. However, to avoid self reference, this needs to be balanced with its importance in their overall body of work. For example, a radio host mentioning on one show that he read his Wikipedia biography is not a very important event in his overall career.

I think this reflects how we've dealt with any number of such incidents, off the top of my head, Mike Greenberg, Stephen Colbert and Pardon the Interruption. One problem is it doesn't mention a situation where such a reference should stay in... I'm sure there are much better examples but the only one I could think of is Fuzzy Zoeller. --W.marsh 17:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Writing about Wikipedia itself" proposed change

This section should also make clear that there should be a external source, other than Wikipedia, especially when the subject of the article has nothing to do with Wikipedia. The most recent example that comes to mind for me is in articles about copyright law, saying--essentially--"this is how we interepreted it on Wikipedia!" does not qualify as notable unless the New York Times wrote an article saying "this is how they do it on Wikipedia." Savidan 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

The page Wikipedia_talk:Software_screenshots, which is "inactive", states that web browser screenshots like those on Firefox should show the browser rendering Main Page. This seems completely self-referential to me. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references should say something about screenshots. —Ben FrantzDale 14:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. 16@r 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. A screenshot featuring the site is not a self reference - what is it referencing? It simply allows the site to have a single way to example web browsers and other programs that display websites. What would you suggest screenshots should show then? We don't want them all to have random screens as this would just look bad.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't want them to show the Main Page, because it's got the Wikipedia logo in and there's no sensible way to justify that under fair use. The browser's default home page might make sense, or some neutral public-domain page. --ais523 15:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so if the "standard" should be changed, then what should it be? I'd like more consensus than this for something that would change a handful of highly-visible pages (the browser pages). I think the best thing to screenshot would be the browser showing the browser's default home page or the brower's project's home page (e.g., [1], [2]). To reiterate, it makes as much sense to have the screenshots show [3] as it does to show [4] or [5]. —Ben FrantzDale 05:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say ideally default home page, as it's got the best case for fair-use and the combined screenshot is likely to be legally fair-use in different contexts. --ais523 14:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am perplexed by some of the response above. The page in a nutshell says "Wikipedia's free content is reused in many places, online and off. Do not assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia, or indeed any website." Given that, it can't possibly make sense for screenshots to show Wikipedia. I'm not saying I know what page should be shown, but certainly not Wikipedia. One options would be to show the default home page when the software is first installed. —Ben FrantzDale 12:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, while we can't assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia, we can assume that the reader is aware of Wikipedia, since the Gnu Free Documentation License (under which Wikipedia content is licensed) requires that content taken from Wikipedia be attributed to it. Secondly, even if we couldn't assume that — so what? The point of avoiding self-references is so that the content makes sense no matter where you are. Whether or not you've heard of Wikipedia, you won't see a screenshot of a browser open to the Wikipedia Main Page and go, "What's that? I don't understand what I'm seeing!" —Ruakh_TALK 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't debate the first point. As for the second, you say "The point of avoiding self-references is so that the content makes sense no matter where you are." I disagree. In my opinion, the point of avoiding self-references is to be professional and not self-aggrandizing. I imagine someone seeing self-reference and thinking "Why are these Wikipedia people so full of themselves that they consider themselves to be the best possible example of a web page?" I see self-reference as getting in the way of writing the best possible article. The best possible Wikipedia article certainly has a screenshot of Wikipedia in it, but the best possible Firefox article certainly does not, and so by using Wikipedia as an example, I think we have compromised the quality of the page to create self reference. —Ben FrantzDale 02:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

but maybe this is a better way to put it: Why is it better for these screenshots to feature Wikipedia than for them to feature the browser's project page or it's default home page? I would think both of those are better.

[edit] Template:Expert-subject

We have a serious problem with the use of Template:Expert-subject (see what links here). Would it be best to have a bot move the tags to talk? —Viriditas | Talk 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky problem. The information in the boxes is metadata, which is given a loose line by guidelines such as this one (because it's easy for mirrors to filter out); it's certainly arguable that {{expert}} should be on the article itself (in the same way that {{wikify}} is). The problem is that unlike cleanup boxes like {{POV}}, {{expert}} contains wikitext and so is less suitable for mirrors that want to show cleanup boxes as a clue to the article's likely quality. As for mentioning wikiprojects, {{expert-subject}} isn't any worse for selfreference purposes than {{expert}} (they both mention something that only makes sense on Wikipedia). The tags aren't actual article content and so can be filtered out without losing meaning (see WP:ASR#In the Template and Category namespaces); in my view, the main point of WP:ASR is that the text should be reusable in other contexts like a print version. Or am I misunderstanding what you think the problem is? --ais523 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you got the gist of it. However, I'm convinced that the expert tag should be incorporated into a standard WikiProject tag on the talk page. Recruiting editors on the main page should be strongly discouraged for many reasons. —Viriditas | Talk 12:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what the chances are of an expert on the subject, who isn't a regular Wikipedia editor, coming across the article (but not the Talk page) and deciding to improve it, as opposed to the number of people who will be put off by the metadata. {{copyedit}} is something many people can do (most people can fix typos, and there are many who can do more major copyediting), but {{expert-subject}} has a much smaller number of people who can help. Maybe its talk page would be an appropriate place for this, or one of the Village Pump pages (I don't think this page is likely to attract many more people with opinions about this). --ais523 17:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pennsylvania Punch Bowl

I would appreciate someone taking a look at this article, which has a sizable section about my editing of the article. I don't want to get into an edit war; I am already sensitive about the subject because it was part of what led to my stepping down as an admin. Thanks. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [6]). Wikipedia: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 [7]. -- 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)

[edit] Template:Allegations of apartheid

Can someone please explain to the people working on this template that the link they keep adding to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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[8]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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\^talk 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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 [9] 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 Wikipedia 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 wikipedia who would not go to the talk pages. See also this MFD at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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-Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia with respect to lists, and basically consolidates clauses presented in various other places in the list-related guidelines, specifically:

1. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions, which can be traced back at least as far as 2003, here
2. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Featured article review, as standards have changed since 2005. --Quiddity 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 "Wikipedia" or to the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Self-references (over the redirect). The Transhumanist 10:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This was the approach taken at the more controversial Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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): Wikipedia: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)

[edit] The word "Wikipedia" 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 "Wikipedia" 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 "Wikipedia" as an example when another word would do. Since the word "Wikipedia" 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 "Wikipedia". —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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)