![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A lot more is needed on this article, especially examples from entertainment and literature, and it needs improving. Saccerzd 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm responsible for the example of circular programming. Sorry to add it anonymously. It was an accident. -- Getaaron 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I added a small piece on Circular references on Wikipedia, after just dealing with what looked like a copy vio on Ica stones and just having seen a related article posted at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-21/In the news. Jeepday ( talk) 12:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This could be seen as an attempt to mock Christians. A more neutral example would be better. —[ semicolons]— 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The last two lines of Circular Reference as an Explanation repeat what is alluded to in a previous section: "Circular reference are a common errors in excel that can cause problems with your formulas. These errors when a formula refers to itself to determine the answer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.141.120 ( talk) 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The recent edits marked as "tweaks" are a bit more than that and have a lot wrong with them. For a start, it has put back the connection with logical fallacy which is completely wrong, a circular reference is not a fallacy in any way and saying it is is in direct contradiction to the sources I provided for this section. Also creeping back in is "run-around" which is entirely unsourced and has no place in the article. Yes, I can see the connection, but it is not the same thing. Why has the example been removed - an example clarifies the whole thing, and again was following the sources. The lede also should not be saying that it is a programming error. It is not necessarily an error, it may only be an error because the programming environment is incapable of handling iterative processes (typical of spreadheets). Basically, I think the whole lot should be reverted. SpinningSpark 20:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia loves using xkcd cartoons, especially as they are CC licensed, and I just thought this would be perfect. :) http://xkcd.com/978/ Carnivorousfungi ( talk) 17:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I once had a manual for a piece of database software which had an entry in the index reading "Circular Reference see Reference, Circular". The entry for Reference, Circular read "Reference, Circular see Circular Reference". This seems like an excellent example of a circular reference. — Wolfgang42 ( talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC) I believe this may have been done by Knuth in his famous book on algorithms?? 79.65.16.5 ( talk) 21:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at talk:circular reporting#This article confuses two concepts? where additional opinion would be welcome. In particular, should the material on citogenesis be moved to this [circular reference] article? I'm beginning to think it should. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion at talk:circular reporting mentioned above, it is clear that Citogenesis and the like are examples of circular reference, not 'Circular reporting': the material was originally contributed to the wrong article because of the similarity of names. Consequently, I have decided to WP:BEBOLD and have moved the circular citation material from the 'Circular reporting' article to this one. Multiple editors have contributed to development of the section I moved and this note is to acknowledge them. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page have itself as part of the "see also", or would it having Self-reference in the "see also" and vice versa be good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastastraw ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A lot more is needed on this article, especially examples from entertainment and literature, and it needs improving. Saccerzd 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm responsible for the example of circular programming. Sorry to add it anonymously. It was an accident. -- Getaaron 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I added a small piece on Circular references on Wikipedia, after just dealing with what looked like a copy vio on Ica stones and just having seen a related article posted at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-21/In the news. Jeepday ( talk) 12:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This could be seen as an attempt to mock Christians. A more neutral example would be better. —[ semicolons]— 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The last two lines of Circular Reference as an Explanation repeat what is alluded to in a previous section: "Circular reference are a common errors in excel that can cause problems with your formulas. These errors when a formula refers to itself to determine the answer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.141.120 ( talk) 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The recent edits marked as "tweaks" are a bit more than that and have a lot wrong with them. For a start, it has put back the connection with logical fallacy which is completely wrong, a circular reference is not a fallacy in any way and saying it is is in direct contradiction to the sources I provided for this section. Also creeping back in is "run-around" which is entirely unsourced and has no place in the article. Yes, I can see the connection, but it is not the same thing. Why has the example been removed - an example clarifies the whole thing, and again was following the sources. The lede also should not be saying that it is a programming error. It is not necessarily an error, it may only be an error because the programming environment is incapable of handling iterative processes (typical of spreadheets). Basically, I think the whole lot should be reverted. SpinningSpark 20:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia loves using xkcd cartoons, especially as they are CC licensed, and I just thought this would be perfect. :) http://xkcd.com/978/ Carnivorousfungi ( talk) 17:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I once had a manual for a piece of database software which had an entry in the index reading "Circular Reference see Reference, Circular". The entry for Reference, Circular read "Reference, Circular see Circular Reference". This seems like an excellent example of a circular reference. — Wolfgang42 ( talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC) I believe this may have been done by Knuth in his famous book on algorithms?? 79.65.16.5 ( talk) 21:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at talk:circular reporting#This article confuses two concepts? where additional opinion would be welcome. In particular, should the material on citogenesis be moved to this [circular reference] article? I'm beginning to think it should. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion at talk:circular reporting mentioned above, it is clear that Citogenesis and the like are examples of circular reference, not 'Circular reporting': the material was originally contributed to the wrong article because of the similarity of names. Consequently, I have decided to WP:BEBOLD and have moved the circular citation material from the 'Circular reporting' article to this one. Multiple editors have contributed to development of the section I moved and this note is to acknowledge them. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page have itself as part of the "see also", or would it having Self-reference in the "see also" and vice versa be good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastastraw ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)