Talk:Tall, dark and handsome

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tall, dark and handsome article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Gender studies

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

External link

@*Treker: Hello, as I said before in my edit summary, those rules also applyto external links. Male beauty standards have nothing to do with a wiki dedicated to pop culture. If there's an issue you can tell me here, I'm willing to hear you out. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:C895:955B:1CA9:FD41 (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think if any image is to be used at all it should be of Rudolph Valentino since the term was popularized for him, many many men afterwards have been refered to as it, I don't know what the current image ads as far as encyclopedic value.03:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)★Trekker (talk)

Also the poc culture Wiki-link page is very explicitly about this subject. If you insist it should be done away with then the best would be to remove the whole section since there is no point in having a section named "External links" with no external links.★Trekker (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to go through the process for that then. I’m sure you can just steal the main image on Valentino's article, put it in the history section with a caption like “Image of Rudolph Valentino, who popularized the term” or something. Then recycle a source used in the article.

As for the wiki, it’s really not appropriate for external links or sources since it’s self published, unsourced, unreliable, and decrepit. Most TV Tropes links and sources were added in the mid 2000s or 2010-2012, before a consensus was made I believe. It can only be used in special cases, in which case the subject of the article would have to be media and/or pop culture, which this is not.

IDK why but most articles keep the external links section even when there are no links, since it’s not visible. I’ll fix that now.2603:7000:1F00:6B91:6D91:ADD9:685B:25AF (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]