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

Click to enlarge, in image caption

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?

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)

Sagan standard

If we could get some more eyes on Sagan standard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there's an editor there repeatedly re-adding a naked self-ref that I'd attempted to remove. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not as cut-and-dried as you make it sound, and you'd do better to join the discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style#Hatnotes_from_Mainspace_to_Wikipedia, raising this specific example. EEng 05:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks for the feedback. It was more surprising that even after they acknowledge reading this page that they still chose to restore it naked without any {{selfref}} wrapper or using the selfref= parameter for {{for}}... nevermind that our readers don't likely understand why we'd be putting a link like that front and center. Thank you for the pointer to that other discussion. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Is explaining terminology of the article permissible?

Can, or should, an article use phrasing such as "To simplify matters, the referents of wa and ga in this section are called the topic and subject respectively" (as seen in Japanese grammar)?

In other words, can an article decide or explain the terminology that the article will proceed to use thereafter?

Whether the answer is "yes/no/it depends", I'd propose that such an explanation should be added as a section in this "Manual of Style/Self-references" page. — JKVeganAbroad (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)