130:, I'd like to discuss it. I do know that general practice is to keep from categorizing DAB pages, but this does seem like a special case. The page is, by its very nature, an excellent example of self-reference and (non-mathematical) recursion; not acknowledging this fact is arguably a disservice to the reader. Aside from the fact that DAB pages usually aren't categorized, what's the argument against leaving this categorization on the page? Thanks.
147:
case, none of the articles linked from the disambiguation page discuss the topic of self-reference, and that is one reason to avoid adding the category. Another reason is the general directive to avoid mixing mainspace and meta content. The page is only recursive from the analytical point of view of those of us reading it, and even then only in its title, and not so from a navigational standpoint.
146:
Categorization is normally based upon the topic and content of articles. One of the reasons this is usually avoided on disambiguation pages is that by their very nature they are (1) not articles, and (2) categories that may apply to some linked articles individually may not apply to others. In this
257:
occur to me at the moment -- it strives to be known for. -- Except for that, assuming our own article is itself notable is specifically deprecated, and choosing our own articles as examples would be if the temptation were more common. No, any example is not automatically a good or notable example,
313:
240:
should also inform you here: self-references need so much explicit attention because, other things being equal, they detract from our goals. -- I mean this outside of what is in the nature of any encyclopedia: to link primarily to its own articles
227:(relatively rarely IMO) an explicit list of examples may be appropriate for reasons that IMO need to be made clear in each particular article with such a list; IMO a crucial question is what makes each particular example a
32:
I have some 2004 notes re a project on denumerable sets for articles on
Everything2.com signed by a cakedamber but now seemingly removed. Is this you? If so is it possible to get ahold of these articles? Thanks.
327:
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about
Knowledge and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
85:
Fair point about recursion -- "self-reference" is probably a better categorization. Though, to be fair, the "recursion" category doesn't state that it's limited to mathematical recursion.
94:, makes clear by its lead sent and the contents of its ToC that it is pretty much only as an after thot about anything but math, rendering your counter-point a tenuous one.)
275:"; the only really effective means of that is skipping the hyperbole and saying what you mean. While your personal status is not relevant to the appropriateness of the
90:(Re that i note, primarily for the record, that all 4 of the Cat's parent Cats are mathematical in nature, and that the lead of the article the Cat page cites,
224:
see-also entries help readers get not to examples, but to related topics (a situation that
Dekimasu has already noted does not apply her), and
262:
245:, as being those that provide the readers the most reasonable hope of the linked articles maintaining the standards -- in WP's case NPoV,
269:... I love this page. It may be the finest product of human civilization. ... Seriously, this is a great page, and I love that it's here.
237:
165:
148:
258:
and IMO the only practice that makes any sense is to assume our own pages are poor examples and/or non-notable until shown otherwise.
221:
in communicating information about the topic via discussion of how aspects of the specific examples flesh out aspects of the topic,
203:
127:
56:
73:(aka older ≠ wiser) rv'd you saying "this disambiguation page has nothing to do with the category for mathematical recursion",
168:
does raise a fair point, as do you -- the disambiguation page is not directly about itself. However, the page
105:
general idea is that meta-categorization is unnecessary; at any rate, categories on dabs are deprecated per
77:
21:
17:
236:
The question of notability needs more discussion than what i've already mentioned. The spirit of
156:
116:
64:
38:
106:
254:
294:
177:
132:
263:
Talk:Disambiguation_(disambiguation)#A_shining_example_of_what_a_Wikipedia_page_should_be
195:
173:
25:
280:
152:
99:
34:
70:
274:
but frankly, its hyperbole cannot be adequately reined in by "</hyperbole: -->
312:
283:, and i think it is time for you to take your efforts onward to unrelated pages.
250:
246:
290:
210:
That was a compact summary; i think in this roomier spot it is worth saying:
109:. this isn't an article, and the individual article listings aren't self-refs
67:, with the summary "Placing this page in an additional appropriate category",
91:
297:
185:
160:
140:
42:
279:
of any of those edits by you, i think each of them was a violation of
172:
self-referential; in light of that, I've placed a link to it over in
166:
Knowledge:Self-references to avoid#Articles are about their subjects
149:
Knowledge:Self-references to avoid#Articles are about their subjects
206:, which does not provide further information to the article.
126:
Hi there. While I understand your reversion of my edit to
120:
52:
151:
might be an appropriate guideline to refer to here.
117:User talk:Dekimasu#Disambiguation (disambiguation)
217:examples belong in the text of an article to
8:
310:
198:your link the Dab on dab'n, summarizing
115:The following discussion occurred at
7:
14:
311:
231:one with respect to that topic.
204:Disambiguation (disambiguation)
128:Disambiguation (disambiguation)
57:Disambiguation (disambiguation)
243:for coverage of related topics
43:18:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
214:In explication of that, that
194:I have now removed from the
238:WP:Self-references to avoid
345:
298:06:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
186:19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
161:17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
141:17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
102:reverted you, summarizing
317:
28:00:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
261:I smiled when i read at
121:accurate sig/time-stamps
196:Self-reference#See also
78:Category:Self-reference
48:WP refs in WP articles
321:The Original Barnstar
18:Mr Manfredjinsinjin
16:So, we meet again,
76:You added instead
65:Category:Recursion
53:From 28 to 31 July
332:
331:
159:
336:
315:
308:
307:
155:
344:
343:
339:
338:
337:
335:
334:
333:
306:
192:
50:
12:
11:
5:
342:
340:
330:
329:
324:
323:
318:
316:
305:
302:
300:
287:
286:
285:
284:
272:
271:
270:
259:
234:
233:
232:
225:
222:
208:
207:
191:
190:
189:
188:
174:Self-reference
125:
113:
112:
111:
110:
97:
96:
95:
88:
87:
86:
80:, summarizing
74:
68:
49:
46:
31:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
341:
326:
325:
322:
319:
314:
309:
303:
301:
299:
296:
292:
282:
278:
273:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
239:
235:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
215:
213:
212:
211:
205:
201:
200:
199:
197:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
163:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
144:
143:
142:
138:
134:
129:
124:
122:
118:
108:
104:
103:
101:
100:User:Dekimasu
98:
93:
89:
84:
83:
82:
81:
79:
75:
72:
69:
66:
62:
61:
60:
58:
54:
47:
45:
44:
40:
36:
29:
27:
23:
19:
320:
288:
276:
242:
228:
218:
209:
193:
181:
169:
136:
131:
114:
71:User:Bkonrad
51:
30:
15:
255:free access
119:(and bears
178:Cakedamber
133:Cakedamber
107:WP:MOS-DAB
63:You added
92:Recursion
26:Xtreambar
304:Barnstar
153:Dekimasu
35:Ndaniels
277:content
229:notable
253:, and
55:, on
291:Jerzy
22:Avast
202:rem
182:talk
137:talk
123:):
39:talk
24:! --
281:COI
219:aid
20:.
289:--
249:,
184:)
176:.
170:is
157:よ!
139:)
59:,
41:)
295:t
293:•
251:N
247:V
180:(
135:(
37:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.