Talk:Recursion

message: Did you know that a recursive redirect looks like this ? (sadly, wikipedia fixed it for me badly) 109.201.38.128 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's not a recursive redirect (in the sense of WP:Redirect and Help:Redirect), it's a "self link". The presentation of these links as bold text is deliberate. See Help:Self link. (Oh, and please see #Recursion link in "See Also" and #Recursion Recurring Link and #Suggestion to implement "Recursion: See Recursion" in a Wikipedia-friendly way and especially #Reoccurring Recursion Link on this talk page.) – Tea2min (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be a recursive redirect... what is the difference? Cjjjkscratch (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

text: exactly... Cjjjkscratch (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recursive redirects 

message: The article currently has a  tag for the following statement:  The reference clearly supports the second part of this (quote: "cardinal Stefaneschi, holding in his hands the model of the triptych"). What it does not directly support is the connection to recursion, which is not mentioned in the source (as pointed out by  in this edit).However, the article does mention the Droste effect; and in that article (which has good article status), a similar claim is made in the lead section and in the paragraph about medieval art. Do we need a source that connects the Triptych explicitly to recursion, or do we even have to make changes to the Droste effect article? Renerpho (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would be interested in hearing other editors' views about whether I am being overly pedantic about this. --JBL (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, I mostly agree with your revert. Which is to say, if you are overly pedantic then so am I. The Triptych looks like a nice example for recursion, until you realize that nobody seems to make that connection independently of the two Wikipedia articles (this one, and the Droste effect article). I don't like that, at all! Renerpho (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Are there any reliable sources calling this an example of recursion that do not lead back to Wikipedia? I'm not saying it is (yet), but if this turns out to be a WP:REFLOOP, that would be quite funny, actually... Renerpho (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

text: We don't necessarily , a source citing the Triptych as an example of the Droste effect would seem to be sufficient, for example: Svozil p. 12 Paul August ☎ 11:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, that would be fine.  --JBL (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've replaced the  tag with that new source. Renerpho (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recursion in Giotto's [[Stefaneschi Triptych]] 

message: In the image byline of the Droste effect image, change the name Jan Misset to Jan Musset. (see the Droste effect page for the correct spelling) Jvandenieuwenhof (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaron Liu (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI.  See also  at Droste effect.  --JBL (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also pinging  in light of .  --JBL (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my earlier edit was wrong. It was "Misset", not "Musset". For a Dutch source, see "Bedenker van Droste-effect bekend", Trouw, 1 August 1994. AstroLynx (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Lovely, thanks!  --JBL (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2022 

message: It'd be nice to put "see recursion" somewhere in the header; kinda like how Google did it. BruhMoment23578 (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Amusing, but unencyclopedic. And also done multiple times before. --JBL (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we were just to make the first usage of Recursion link to recursion? That wouldn't harm the flow at all but also still be amusing DarmaniLink (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, incredibly amusing. At least, when I was about 13 I would probably have found it amusing. Unfortunately, however, that isn't what Wikipedia is for, but the good news is that there are plenty of other web sites where children can amuse themselves by posting that kind of thing. JBW (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022 

message: Would be for a website to have a link to itself. Example file can be "m.html"
<a href="m.html">Click here to understand recursion</a> Cjjjkscratch (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Google also does it like this. Cjjjkscratch (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example of recursion 

message: To: Paul August. While the current image is technically correct, it is really hard to see the recursive image on the drawing of the box, and thus isn't obvious to the reader why that image represents recursion. In short, I want to add a more intuitive image. My first thought about it is the perennial recursive joke, which when applied correctly would aid comprehension for the reader. However, I'm well-aware that Wikipedia is a no joke place and WP:ASTONISHMENT applies, so I try to strike a balance and instead went with a preview for the page, with a descriptive and no-joke caption. The reason why I say WP:IAR applies is because rules can be bent slightly to aid reader's understanding, because trying to follow these rules to the letter bring catastrophic and ironic effects, as detailed in this Twitter thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: tl;dr: Wikipedia shouldn't be unfunny in the pursuit of professionalism, and exceptions to the "no humor" rule can be made. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

text: The iconic "Droste" image is easily recognizable as an example of recursion (the can clearly contains an image of itself—is that not obvious??) In fact, it's such a classic image of recursion that its name is used for the whole concept of recursive images, i.e. the Droste effect. There could hardly be a more representative image of recursion than this one.  Paul August ☎ 11:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Paul August.  --JBL (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really. Most people don't found the image iconic nor the recursion apparent. The recursion image is so tiny that I doubt it's even visible in smartphones. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On my smartphone, the image of the smaller can on the larger can measures 1/4 inch tall, and so easily visible, and that's before it's enlarged when it's about an inch tall. Paul August ☎ 11:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Old reply, but I've replaced the image with :File:Recursion6.gif. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your removal of the established, and "Droste" image. In my view, your proposed animation is a distraction for the reader. Please gain consensus here before replacing the current image. Paul August ☎ 17:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a strong positive case for the Droste image (beyond the fact that it's attractive and of historical interest), made by Paul August above in May:   Any move to replace it should involve making a similar positive case for the value of the replacement image.  --JBL (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace image of recursion 

message: This is the simplest example of a recursive function in C-like pseudocode.
 function recurse (int N)
 {
    if (N == LOWER LIMIT) return (LOWEST_VALUE)
    else
       return some_function (recurse (N - DECREMENT) )
 }
"some_function" need be or need not be recursive itself.
In the example given in the article, the Fibonacci series, the second return would simply be:
       return (N * recurse (N - 1) ) 
2001:8003:E40F:9601:F9B9:CF8C:65FD:BD5D (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recursion in pseudo code 

message: There was a discussion about this almost 15 years ago now, and I'd be interested to see what everyone thinks now. I think putting a link to recursion in "see also" would be a really good way to demonstrate recursion per WP:GRAPE. Once again, interested in other people's thoughts. AveryMittag (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In that discussion, I saw proposals for a proper vote and I'm unfamiliar with the protocols on that sort of thing. Could they actually call for a vote? Did people ever vote or did the "relatively small number of contributors [that] are very opposed to it" shut down the conversation before a vote could happen? Regardless, I'm genuinely interested in seeing the numbers for that sort of thing, even if it changes nothing. 108.24.166.103 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally disagree with adding it, it's just adding an overdone joke at the cost of potentially confusing the reader. Yes, Wikipedia should have humor if possible, but not at the expense of the reader. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am slightly in favor of adding a recursive example, and I think most readers would expect one. Is this a situation where an RfC would be useful? inavda (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed many times, and the consensus has always been that such a thing is non encyclopedic. I agree. Paul August ☎ 00:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, many articles like WP:UA have some fun and entertain the reader. A small bullet in the "See also" section that says "Recursion - the article you're on right now" wouldn't ruin the reader experience while having some lighthearted fun. IxNoah (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  recursion in "see also" (2024)