User talk:Cakedamber

So, we meet again, Mr Manfredjinsinjin. Avast! --Xtreambar 00:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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. Ndaniels (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP refs in WP articles
From 28 to 31 July, on Disambiguation (disambiguation),
 * 1) You added Category:Recursion, with the summary "Placing this page in an additional appropriate category",
 * 2) User:Bkonrad (aka older ≠ wiser) rv'd you saying "this disambiguation page has nothing to do with the category for mathematical recursion",
 * 3) You added instead Category:Self-reference, summarizing
 * 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.
 * (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, Recursion, 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.)
 * 1) User:Dekimasu reverted you, summarizing
 * general idea is that meta-categorization is unnecessary; at any rate, categories on dabs are deprecated per WP:MOS-DAB. this isn't an article, and the individual article listings aren't self-refs

The following discussion occurred at User talk:Dekimasu (and bears accurate sig/time-stamps):

Hi there. While I understand your reversion of my edit to Disambiguation (disambiguation), 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. Cakedamber (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 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. Self-references to avoid might be an appropriate guideline to refer to here. Dekimasu よ! 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Self-references to avoid does raise a fair point, as do you -- the disambiguation page is not directly about itself. However, the page is self-referential; in light of that, I've placed a link to it over in Self-reference. Cakedamber (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed from the Self-reference your link the Dab on dab'n, summarizing
 * rem Disambiguation (disambiguation), which does not provide further information to the article.

That was a compact summary; i think in this roomier spot it is worth saying: --Jerzy•t 06:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In explication of that, that
 * examples belong in the text of an article to aid in communicating information about the topic via discussion of how aspects of the specific examples flesh out aspects of the topic,
 * 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
 * (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 notable one with respect to that topic.
 * 1) The question of notability needs more discussion than what i've already mentioned. The spirit of WP:Self-references to avoid 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 for coverage of related topics, as being those that provide the readers the most reasonable hope of the linked articles maintaining the standards -- in WP's case NPoV, V, N, and free access 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, 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.
 * 2) I smiled when i read at Talk:Disambiguation_(disambiguation)
 * ... 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.
 * but frankly, its hyperbole cannot be adequately reined in by " "; 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 content of any of those edits by you, i think each of them was a violation of COI, and i think it is time for you to take your efforts onward to unrelated pages.