Talk:Esperanza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the Esperanza organization within Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Esperanza.

Contents

[edit] Self-reference

Self-references should be avoided at all costs. In cases of things like Nonsense, Merge, and User page, non-users might actually be interested in viewing our nonsense, merger, and user page policies. But Esperanza is not something that would be notable outside Wikipedia. Ral315 (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else approved this suggestion?--Edtalk c E 02:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A self-reference to Wikipedia "Esperanza" is nothing more than something that readers would be interested in. It's been removed many times, so please stop re-adding it to the main article. -- ADNghiem501 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
How can it not be something readers woulr be interested in? Esperanza is by far the most popular organization. You should join someday...--Edtalk c E 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm...no one seems to be paying attention to this discussion page, so I'll just revert it again.....--Edtalk c E 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, NO. Reasons:
  • Readers don't care about our organizations. We serve our readers (who outnumber editors about 99-1), and Esperanza (or any organization or WikiProject) don't belong.
  • Wikipedia:Avoid self-references
  • Other websites mirror our content. They don't have Esperanza. It's not reasonable to force that upon them.
And finally, don't make changes because nobody responds to you in less than two hours. I'm not online every hour of the day; please give people time to explain their reasoning. Ral315 (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
How can Esperanza not be notable? More or less any other Wikiproject, organization, or group? If you look closely at every single active userpage, a majority of them are currently participating in a Wikipedia group of some sort.--Edtalk c E 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There's also a selfref in NPA to it's policy in Wikipedia. If NPA can allow it, why can't Esperanza?--Edtalk c E 18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Because NPA is a Wikipedia policy, Esperanza is a club. Ral315 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well NPA only applies to Wikipedia editors, not readers. Therefore, because of the selfref policy, all of the policy links must be removed!--Edtalk c E 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop adding a Wikipedia "Esperanza" to the article. It only applies to the Wikipedia project. And don't remove links from it, even if they're red. -- ADNghiem501 11:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The reasons of my adding the link to Esperanza is this: if someone who has heard of Esperanza want's to learn more about it, that person would search for Esperanza, not Wikipedia:Esperanza. This is especially true for newcomers, who don't know that much about namespaces. Adding the link would in a way "help" newcomers.
In addition, if you want to keep the red links, why don't you make articles on them?--Edtalk c E 01:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Keeping the red links help future editors create their articles, in any case. -- ADNghiem501 01:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Self_references for about self-references. I don't think Wikipedia:Esperanza is necessary to be included on the article, and that doesn't help newcomers to find it. -- ADNghiem501 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If there was a newcomer stupid enough to type in Esperanza instead of Wikipedia:Esperanza, then that person needs help. Therefore, to help a newcomer, we have to in a way "guide" them.--Edtalk c E 02:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how about help in the following form: Citing sources, Cleanup, as well as other articles, all have a link, something to the effect that "Click here if you meant Wikipedia:Citing sources" --Storkk 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This is foolish. Esperanza is a childish self-aggrandizing social club which encourages immature behavior and makes Wikipedia look like a kindergarten classroom. By no means does it merit an exception to the "avoid self-references" guideline. — Dan | talk 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, no one knows what Esperanza is about. Wikipedia is a COMMUNITY, and the purpose of Esperanza is to promote this idea. It is a support network, and an organization where Wikipedians can go for advice, stress relief, help, hope, and reassurance. Esperanza is not a community where its members talk amongst themselves for their own sake. In Esperanza, we try to help other Wikipedians, even though they are not members. Therefore, Esperanza is very much important to the community. And in addition, adding the link to Wikipedia:Esperanza will most definitely help and newcomer who wants to find it.--Edtalk c E 15:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I know very well what Esperanza is "about". Its intentions are not harmful, though they do sound like something out of a leaflet for a counseling service for recovering alcoholics. However, in practice, it is meaningless and obnoxious, a breeding ground for infantility, and a distraction from the encyclopedia. The below examples of self-references (with the exception of EA, which is just as wrong as this one) refer to official Wikipedia policies and processes, not absurd (and, thankfully, far from official) social clubs. — Dan | talk 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, what is going on? Why is the Wikipedia:Esperanza club not listed with this article, I was typing it in and surprised not to find it. I think adding it to the article will help things. Gryffindor 19:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. If someone wanted to find out about Esperanza, they might go to Esperanza. As far as I know, you can put in a self-reference like a 'Did you want Wikipedia:Esperanza?' sort of thing at the top. We want to help researchers with things. It's better with people seeing the link to Wikipedia:Esperanza than people wanting to get to Wikipedia:Esperanza but not being able to get there. --lEoN2323 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But by adding a link we're not helping researchers, we're helping a small group of editors. Researchers want to find out about the Esperanza fires, or the meaning in English, not about a Wikipedia organization. Ral315 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There happens to be a perfect example of a self ref on the page right now! The protect tag directs readers to not one, but several pages on the Wikipedia namespace. Do you not have an opinion on that? Readers of Wikipedia would care less about page protection!--Ed Trick? or Treat? 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, processes. The page is protected, and readers who know that "they can edit" should know that they can't on this page. Honestly, I don't know how I can explain the difference between a protection policy and a club. Ral315 (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I want to show you an essay: User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. Read it. I will open up your mind on other people's perspective on things that go on in Wikipedia. You, however, don't seem to grasp the concept that the world does not revolve around a set of rules. --Ed Trick? or Treat? 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I happen to agree with that essay (it was linked from my userpage for a few months, in fact.) The point is:
  • The community has decided that tags should stay as-is. Someone tried to change the protection tag to a small picture in the corner of an article, similar to featured articles. For the record, I think this would have probably been suitable. It was reverted, and staunchly opposed by most of the community.
  • The tag issue is completely off-topic- the question is, and always has been, whether the Esperanza community deserves a reprieve from the self-reference guidelines that the community has decided on.
Guidelines such as avoiding self-references should be followed except in special circumstances. Therefore, the onus is on you to give a good argument for this to be a "special circumstance". I've yet to see you do so. Ral315 (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza is notable as a major element of Wikipedia. There is precedent for making notes about notable Wikipedia groups or elements in mainspace for disambiguation purposes. For example, there is {{selfref|On Wikipedia, see [[Wikipedia:Barnstars]]}} at the top of Barnstar. While I understand that it is important for Wikipedia to avoid self-references, it makes sense to include a self-reference link on this page - a disambiguation page, no less - which leads users to the appropriate Wikipedia page. On the other hand, the self-references guideline does discourage this link somewhat. Let's take a straw poll to check out where people stand, and go from there. Nihiltres 16:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There it is! Barnstars aren't essential processes in Wikipedia. So why does that page have a self ref? Anyway, I think it is a great idea to have a straw poll for this organization.--Ed Trick? or Treat? 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the barnstar reference; I've removed it. Ral315 (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an incredibly aggravating discussion. As someone who knew nothing about Wikipedia:Esperanza before today, but subsequently saw it mentioned on a page and went looking for it, I was (and still am) frustrated to not find it here. Whether you like it or not, or whether you endorse the group or not, it is a part of the wiki community, and it does reside in the WP namespace. I am extremely insulted that someone had the balls to say that someone who is searching for this group "has problems" if they're searching here. Where else would one go? If one types "Esperanza" into the search box, this pops up. Return WP:Esperanza to the page and clearly show that it is a WP project. I can't understand why this conversation has even gone on this long. --Wolf530 (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
First, it should be stated that the user who made that comment was in support of its addition; second, it's in violation of our self-reference policy, which is to only include self-references on essential processes that affect our readers, not just a subset of our editors. By the same notion, we should include a link to the Baseball WikiProject at the top of Baseball, and so on and so forth. Finally, type in Esperanza and hit search. Second link is the organization. Ral315 (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of Self-Refs

Look at THESE:

-Edtalk c E 15:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Read Rdsmith's comment above. Those are POLICIES. Esperanza is a CLUB. You fail to see the difference. On Baseball, we don't link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. Ral315 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If you think about it, all of the Wikipedia policies are self-refs. If anyone reading Wikipedia came across these pages, they wouldn't want to see things such as RFA or FAC. The articles I stated above only apply to Wikipedia editors. Also, Wikipedia itself is a self-ref. Since these links are allowed on Wikipedia, why can't Esperanza?--Edtalk c E 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You miss the point consistently. I'll try once more: Policies are permitted exceptions to the 'avoid self references' guideline because they are policies, those fundamental bases on which Wikipedia operates. Clubs are not permitted such exceptions because they are of entirely peripheral significance. The fact that there exists an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant; Wikipedia is an encyclopedic subject and is included so that our encyclopedia may be more complete in its coverage. Policies are not self-referential because they are not in the article space. (I suggest a more thorough reading of WP:ASR, which states this fact clearly.)
There. I know no other words in which to restate it. This is basic and obvious; that it does not convince you suggests to me that you are being intentionally dense so as to promote your club. Whatever the case, the link you suggest is unacceptable. — Dan | talk 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
RFA and FAC are not policies.--Edtalk c E 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
And what about GA?--Edtalk c E 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fine. Some of them aren't guidelines; they're essential processes. Not clubs. There's a difference. Ral315 (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Your input is requested. Ral315 (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a link to Wikipedia:Esperanza on Esperanza?
  • No; Esperanza is not an essential Wikipedia process, and doesn't deserve to receive an exemption to the avoid self-references guideline. Ral315 (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, unneeded self reference. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Unneeded self reference. Despite what Esperanza claims, it often does get 'special treatment' in regards to rules.--Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course not.The bizarre antics on the talkpage are nothing but a waste of time and effort. Surely these users can think of more interesting things to do, like converting some of those redlinks. riana_dzasta 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Very weak support of nae'blis's idea - I didn't know you could do that. Nifty. Now everybody get back to work! :) riana_dzasta 13:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. It makes wikipedia easier to use. --evrik (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes There are too many self-refs existing on Wikipedia that we might as well allow all of them (see the list above). The links would help new Wikipedians looking for a page, since they are still new to namespaces and that sort of stuff. Also, Esperanza is a very popular organization by now, due to the massive entry of many new members. How do you expect every single member to find their way into the page? --Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No. Enough of this charade. — Dan | talk 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but only in the format {{selfref|For the Wikipedia organization Esperanza, click [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|here]].}} Yes but only on talk page, per compromise suggested below. Anything within selfref tags is not supposed to be copied by mirrors; Esperanza is a term that gets used across Wikipedia and people will search for it. -- nae'blis 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No While I don't agree with some of the above comments, I think that too many self-references are harmful to our project, and one here to Esperanza isn't needed. Thε Halo Θ 12:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No: unnecessary navel-gazing, even with the selfref template. It isn't just a matter of being copied by mirrors, it's a matter of looking like a professional encyclopedia. Many other selfrefs on Wikipedia should be removed for these same reasons too. TacoDeposit 13:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No. If Wikipedians want to know about the club, they can ask around. We should try to leave our readers, who are not editors, out of our politics. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hell, no: the day Wikipedia starts committing incest in this manner is the day it collapses. Moreschi 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No. This again? I thought this had been solved already. Titoxd(?!?) 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, please.Hemhem20X6 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No Though I am an Esperanza member and supporter, my reading of the self-ref policy convinced me. Users interested in WP:Esperanza should be able to find the club easily on the Community portal. Caroldermoid (talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No: Unneeded self-ref. Dab-pages are for readers to find articles and editors dabing links. Esperanza can easily be found on the Community Portal.--VirtualDelight 00:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, but we may conditionally leave a {{selfref}} on this talk page. Misza13 14:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but in the traditional disambiguation-page link format for Wikipedia pages (i.e. Italicised and removed from mainspace articles). Anthonycfc (talk • email) {{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAYNAME}} [[{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}]] [[{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}]] (UTC)
  • Yes. Bearly541 05:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Spawn Man had a clever idea on Talk:Barnstar that may help here: We don't link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball from the article, but we do from the talk page. Would a compromise to put a link at the top of Talk:Esperanza to Wikipedia:Esperanza be acceptable to both sides? -- nae'blis 07:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes I came to this page looking for the wikipedia group specificaly. Wikipedia must be transparent to the readers, not cloaked in mystery. --Carterhawk 21:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No Although I came here myself checking for Esperanza, I agree with the reasoning of self-ref and of readers outnumbering editors. Editors can find the page by looking on a zillion talk pages, by remembering WP:EA or WP:Esperanza, etc. --Firien § 13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. A self reference does not subtract from the integrity of the subject article. It clarifies that it is part of WP (not the subject matter) and makes it easy to find for those who are actually looking for it. The article is after all a disambiguation page. mbbradford 18:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes per Carterhawk. --Wizardman 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

As I'm obviously one-sided on this, I can't "close discussion" or anything, but it seems that after a week, those against a link outnumber those favoring a link about 2:1. My personal suggestion is the compromise that I added recently, the link on the talk page. Does anyone have any problems with this? Ral315 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Has the compromise also been reached in Barnstar?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Barnstar appears to be kind of a no-consensus situation where I'm going to propose the talk page option as well. Ral315 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Fire

When and if this is unprotected, please add a link to Esperanza Fire

sorry to bug you again but it got moved back to Esperanza Fire.--Acebrock 02:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The House on Mango Street

Is it okay for this text to be put in, under people?

For Esperanza Cordero, see The House on Mango Street.

Hemhem20X6 01:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No; it's in the list already. Ral315 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/p/Talk%7EEsperanza_eb5f.html"