Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid

Active discussions

The word "Wikipedia" as an exampleEdit

This is similar to the (apparently unresolved) question above* about browsers still 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)However, see the immediately following note invoked by the asterisk I now add to userUser:Matchups' otherwise intact contrib.
--JerzyA (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

*Note: The asterisk I just added, to the (now years earlier, but --surely-- then spatially "immediately preceding") question
[that pr. q. having now long since been moved, likely into a digital archive associated with that now-old "talk"-contrib]
surely had the anticipatory purpose of clarifying that
the substance of the "question" mentioned there (probably) would be (and has been), preserved (in some sense), both in the WP-page's edit history and in other archives, even if "elsewhere".
I deem that probably accurate clarity worth while, past practices not always having been as had been intended ... and future ones being of course similarly aspirational.
--JerzyA (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2019 (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)
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)
Is "all other things being equal, an illustrative image that does not refer to Wikipedia is preferable to one that does" worth a line in the guidelines here? I've just reverted someone who suggested that an article about an Australian biscuit should have a picture of Jimbo Wales eating one, because this "adds Wikipedia-related content" to the article, as if this would be a good thing. --McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
   We probably have long had a meta-rule that says "Writing perfect rules is a swell idea, as is teaching your giant squid to dance the cha-cha-cha."
--JerzyA (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Referring to other sections in articleEdit

Should one refer to other section in the same article?

After this edit and the explanation in the edit summary, I would like to know what our policy is regarding referring to other sections in an article?

Personally, I agree that it can be useful, and I would do it in the form of an internal link, e.g. in the case of the example above base of [[Herodium#Tomb of Herod|Herod's tomb]].

I would not use phrases like "see Herodium#Tomb of Herod below" or "for more information read Herodium#Tomb of Herod below" etc., which I consider unwanted self-references.

Per WP:CLICKHERE I would surely not use "see here" or "for more information read here".

Do we already have a guideline about this? I didn't see it here, but perhaps we have something elsewhere? And if we don't, I think we should add something about this here. Debresser (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this is the guideline even if there is not some particular text (spirit, not words). I agree that base of [[Herodium#Tomb of Herod|Herod's tomb]] is reasonable and your other example is not. I might in this case even prefer base of [[Tomb of Herod|Herod's tomb]] or base of [[Herod's tomb]] per one or another of our guidelines on redirecting; should an article be written, we would prefer to link directly there automatically rather than have to find and change the anchor link. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Click to enlarge, in image captionEdit

Comments are invited at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Click_to_enlarge. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit count linking to the list of Wikipedians by number of edits?Edit

There is currently a discussion whether the article Edit count should have a "See also" link to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Input welcome at Talk:Edit count#Project link. – Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid".