Talk:Self-reference

message: hi i put some templates into this article that apply to the whole article. there is a small section being discussed as being trivia but the whole article needs cleanup, so i think these tags should remain. what do other people think? they were reverted immediately  Bouket (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: also the tags are there to invite people to join the discussion, so they SHOULD be there right? Bouket (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates 

message: Should we include a few examples of actors portraying themselves in films? Does this count as a type of self-reference or not? Another related example is Julia Roberts' appearance in Ocean's Twelve, where she played a woman (Tess) who looked like Julia Roberts, and who made a phone call to the "real" Julia Roberts; she also received a (second) credit in the movie as "introducing Tess as Julia Roberts". Do things like this also count as self-reference? — Loadmaster (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this trivial?  Falls under WP:OR and WP:SYN.  If we are going to include this, I think the embedded list would be inexhaustive.  The rfc 2 sections up is pertinent.Curb Chain (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actors who appear as themselves in films and on television, i.e. "cameo" appearances, are not instances of self-reference, but those small number of times where actors portray "themselves" as significant fictional characters are indeed instances of self-reference, and should be included.  It's not "trivia", but there's also no need for a list. Rather, it should be described, and a couple of examples given.  That should be suffiicient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actors portraying themselves 

message: With this edit I removed a hatnote that linked to the guidline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid which states "Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or to Wikipedia policy or technicalities of using Wikipedia should be avoided where possible." (was the irony intentional?) -- PBS (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was a violation of the guideline, because it was the content of the hatnote, not of the article itself. These kinds of hatnote seem to be standard practice for helping people get to the relevant Wikipedia guideline or project page when they've not set the right search options. See the tops of NPOV, Neutral, Statistics (disambiguation) or Bias (disambiguation). It's unavoidable that a navigational aid (such as a hatnote) will in some way draw attention to the technicalities of using Wikipedia. That's different from the article itself doing so. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The hatnote seems out of place for this article. Maybe it could be added as a link further down, perhaps under the See also section? — Loadmaster (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A hatnote is more useful to the reader than a see-also link (the idea is that they have arrived at the article looking for information about Wikipedia's self-reference policy, not that they have read about self-reference and are now interested in what policy Wikipedia might have on the subject), but it seems quite an obscure corner of Wikipedia policy, so maybe isn't worth mentioning here at all. If it did stay as a hatnote, though, we should use the  template rather than the previously-used  one, so that it doesn't appear on mirror sites. --McGeddon (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

text: In many ways hatnotes are actually outside of article space - hatnotes don't appear if you print an article, or export it as a PDF or book, and any self-respecting mirror will strip out  tags. If you regard the hatnotes as part of the Wikipedia interface rather than the article, a little routing of lost editors on commonly-searched subjects seems fine. --McGeddon (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-references to avoid 

message: Per WP:EXAMPLEFARM, please do not add trivial references to popular culture to this article unless it truly enhances the reader's understanding of the concept of self-reference.  Toddst1 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Any additions to the examples section must follow the principle of WP:V.  Unsourced observations are mere opinions and should be removed as WP:OR.  Sources must be provided and they must refer to the self-referential nature of example to pass WP:V. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:EXAMPLEFARM]] 

message: These are not English words, but, in the case of so-called "autological words", I was thinking that since "autological" suggests self knowledge/study, "autonymous" (sic) (literally, "self naming") would be etymologically more accurate, and clearer, in the case of self referencing words. lifeform (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Autonymous" or "autonymic(al)" words? 

message: Should the definition of self reference avoid the exact same words "self" and "refer"? Or is that deliberate? 92.40.94.151 (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A dark horse is generally neither dark nor a horse, so stating that self-reference indeed means referring to oneself serves for a definition. If you know reliable sources giving other definitions, please refer us to them. Paradoctor (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refers to itself 

message: I recognize that this topic is not really a central one, therefore it's seemingly quite underdeveloped. It looks obvious to me, that "hereby" is used to emphasize self-reference in sentences that wish to perform an action by being uttered. It might not be actually needed though in the case of a Performative utterance. Such utterances seem to be used typically, although not exclusively in a legal context. I'll be brave here, and add a few paragraphs in two sections, because it's a favourite topic of mine.
However, one might wonder if this whole article is amateurish? We have sections all beginning with "In...". Well, i'm not too much into complicated wikipedia rules, i think it's a funny article, but it could be concerning to dedicated wikipedia bureaucrats. The idea is discussed, although named otherwise, in some sources i would put here: https://www.worldcat.org/title/426795581 https://www.worldcat.org/title/70766237 https://www.worldcat.org/title/637671814. Sorry for being lame with links. 193.224.72.250 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  the word "hereby", etc. 

message: You see in the language section the cute case of Kurt Gödel "finding" a paradox in the US constitution? I have heard about the story a long time ago, so let me add here a possible explanation. Gödel was required at the time to take an oath of citizenship, and probably his life was already rather stressful. He might have been to serious about reading the US constitution at that point of time, and when he found the self-reference in it (that you see described in the law section of the article), i bet he became sort of terrified, and mislead himself into believing he found a paradox. Obviously not all self-references are paradoxical, constitutions certainly aren't, as they use self-reference for a narrow purpose. 193.224.72.250 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gödel