Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Autobiography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misleading advice


If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. Er, no; there are more notable living people without articles than with them. I would certainly not give this advice to, say, an Algerian pop singer who peaked in popularity in the 90s. Mach61 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a hollow, unverifiable claim to make, and I think it should be worded another way. However, to be blunt—the point of the advice is to dissuade people from making autobiographies, because most autobiographies are bad. Any rewording has to somehow maintain the firm tone and intent, or else it's mostly a useless verbiage in the context of this page. Remsense 18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose to merge this page into Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects, and to make the various shortcuts point to that page.

My reasons for doing so are several: the content is duplicative; it is often not clear which page should be recommended to enquirers at help desks; it is confusing for people searching for such pages to find so many variants; and it will reduce the maintenance overhead.

Rather than merging in the other direction, I would keep the "FAQ/Article subjects" title, as it is part of a series; it also applies to people wanting to write about their company or organisation.

Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this is a guideline and therefore holds weight. WP:FAQ isn't even an essay. Further Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects is about subjects who already have an article, which is different to most situations where this guideline applies when people are trying to create a new article. It's not uncommon for us to have a formal guideline or policy and then another page which explains it - following your reasoning would mean merging multiple policies and guidelines into the FAQ. SmartSE (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is an important page with hundreds of incoming wikilinks and probably thousands of incoming external links (I just made one myself from a question on Quora). Andrewa (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose. This is an in-depth explainer with plenty of good reasoning that I think would be either (1) a lot longer than a lot of the FAQ answers on the suggested page and dominate it, or (2) would be required to be trimmed down to fit the size of that and a lot of the valuable info would be lost. Wikipedia has plenty of explanatory project pages explaining community conesus and guidelines and offering advice. We don't need to trim them down for the sake of slimming the project. E-ink is free. If you want this advice proffered there, an except can be included with reference to the page, possibly with {{main}}. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 00:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How To Add information?


What needs to remember when adding information? and to ensure not violating any rules of Wikipedia? I hope someone mentor me. Tricounty17 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading the various guidelines and policies that the page itself links to. Remsense 07:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or have a look at Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and feel free to ask on my talk page of there's anything there you don't understand. Or drop in to the teahouse to seek a more formal mentor. Andrewa (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]