Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
If you are having an issue while editing, which editor are you using?
Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

There is one Wikipedian looking for help. ()

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

Deceased Wikipedian's talk page still being archived

Need some help at User talk:Gobonobo. He passed away (RIP), but his talk page is still being archived, including peoples' condolences. Could someone change it so his talk page no longer automatically archives? NP (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The page is missing the "do not archive template" which exists on User talk:Struway2 - Special:Diff/1318229000. That's why the talk page is archiving condolences. I also have a question for the help desk - e.g. from the talk page I've linked, {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2076514728}}, what does the 2076514728 represent? Does it convert to 17:38, 20 October 2035 (UTC) which is displayed in the hidden comment? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

That would be a Unix timestamp, i. e. the number of seconds passed since 1 January 1970. And yes, it matches that date and time. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I now get what that number means thanks. I added the template I found on User:Iggy the Swan/sandbox to see how this works. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I think one could just comment out the MiszaBot config template to stop the archiving? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The page may well still need to be archived, if notifications of deletion discussions or similar are posted there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Conversely, User talk:Ronhjones has a lot of discussions under the RIP section while having the DNAU in the right place. Not sure if that template affects just one section or every section currently visible. Might well be the latter as the page history shows before May 2020 that the bot archived discussions but not after. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Do not archive until only affects a single section. You can use it to "pin" a thread at the top of the page, for example. But the page you mentioned doesn't have any template that would enable archiving in the first place – presumably that was removed at some point (it does have an archive indexing bot template). -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

NOTNEWS

"If the strongest evidence of real-world significance is that the ideology has been cited by perpetrators of mass violence, this is the textbook single-event notability scenario that WP:NOTNEWS warns against; the attention is inherited from the tragedies rather than reflecting independent scholarly or journalistic interest in the ideology itself."

Probably I misreading it some way. The way I do read it would mean that many notorious ideologies should be non-notable and omitted from Wikipedia then, because they were originally known due to their direct relation to a perpetrating of mass violence. Should it be read and understand in a line of "non-notable, prior to significant scholar coverage involved as an aftermath"? Just "strongest evidence of real-world significance" would still remain to be that "the ideology has been cited by perpetrators of mass violence" in this case. Could somebody do some attempt to clarify it?

Also this could be read as that the tragedies on its own are allegedly not notable due to WP:NOTNEWS, but there is definitively a wide coverage of them on Wikipedia. It is due to violation of the policy, or due to misunderstanding of the policy above? ~2026-49772-80 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Examples would help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Examples of such ideologies or tragedies? ~2026-49772-80 (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples of ideologies that inspired acts of mass violence but lack independent scholarly or journalistic interest in the ideology itself, and that are the subjects of possibly inappropriate Wikipedia articles. Violent ideologies usually but not always attact independent scholarly or journalistic interest, so specific examples to the contrary would result in a more productive discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

And as for the acts of mass violence themselves, these often meet the standards for significant, in depth coverage at WP:NEVENT and therefore writing an article is appropriate for that reason. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

This is means that I failed to articulate the point I'm about (again).

It's already diverged from that is written in the original words in brackets. There is said, that even if it attract independent scholarly or journalistic interest, still the attention is inherited from the tragedies rather than reflecting independent scholarly or journalistic interest in the ideology itself.", presumably falling to NOTNEWS. Because strongest evidence of real-world significance is that the ideology has been cited by perpetrators of mass violence; the scholarly or journalistic interest is caused by it, and significance still would remain on the violence. Aum Shinrikyo or Boko Haram are mostly known due to the perpetrated acts of violence, not due to brilliant articles of Prof. A et al. regarding their ideology, and how it lead to the violence; those articles are aftermath of the violence on their own.

I'm trying to get do the original text in brackets constitute misunderstanding/misapplication of NOTNEWS (i.e. wrong), or it's something I'm missing instead. I'm not trying to find any possibly inappropriate Wikipedia articles at all, but some that would fall to that original wording, beside aforementioned, could be KKK, Wahhabies, Shining Path, Arambai Tenggol, etc, amongst others; probably even Nazis, as most of the coverage of them is due to their real-world significance as a perpetrators of mass violence. ~2026-49848-20 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

To pass NOTNEWS (that is, to be worth writing on Wikipedia), a topic must have received a lot of coverage from reliable sources. The very first sentence in your first message is about perpetrators. Perpetrators are not reliable sources. If you look for reliable reporting about Shining Path, you will find a lot of it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:13, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The very second sentence there (with a soft semicolon break) say the attention is inherited from the tragedies rather than reflecting independent scholarly or journalistic interest in the ideology itself. They're goes together, and the second part means that it still shouldn't pass, as the coverage is in fact due to a violence happened, not from the interest in the ideology itself, and thus doesn't pass NOTNEWS. Indeed that lot of coverage from reliable sources is due to the violent activities of that group. Without it they would receive only a minor one from the niche specialists, because there would be no general interest in that's group ideology overall.

I think the original sentence is very malformed, it should be generally about NOTABILITY instead of NOTNEWS (a narrow example of a lack of notability), and the way it written it would deny notability for a tragedy-related information, only for tragedy itself (contrary to actual practice). But to confirm it, I'm asking for a help here. ~2026-49848-20 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you're saying that (for example) KKK and Shining Path are what might be called "mere terrorists", and that therefore by Wikipedia's current guidelines we should be deliberately and systematically expunging all mention of their ideas, goals, and so on, because as mere terrorists, by definition they never had anything valid or interesting to say.

Is my description coming closer to what you intended? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is way closer to the way I'm reading it. Probably the only, but significant difference, is that the way you're wrote it it could be read as if it is about denying, intentionally providing no publicity to them. I don't see it in original text, there it is as if it merely insignificant if the interest leading to appearing of sources was mainly about some event. And it is at least a confusing wording then, as notability could arise from the event. ~2026-50044-97 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Is the flickypedia IP range blocked?

I was trying to upload a photo via https://flickypedia.flickr.org/ - got the following error (was later able to upload it via flickr2commons, which I thought was deprecated but looks like it was Claude'd back to life).

Upload failed!

Your photo didn’t upload We recommend you try uploading it again later. You can make a copy of the title and caption you wrote for your next attempt.

   URL
       https://www.flickr.com/photos/supercraigtalbert/55522366043/
   title
       Shadow Array.jpg
   short caption
       Photo contain the east side of Shadow Array. 
   error
       {'code': 'blocked', 'info': "Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by \u202aM7\u202c. The reason given is: Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected: per request * Start of block: 07:34, 23 July 2026 * Expiration of block: 07:34, 23 July 2028 Your current IP address is 2600:3c13::2000:8eff:fe9d:9f97. The blocked range is \u202a2600:3C13:0:0:0:0:0:0/32\u202c. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the Stewards Block Wizard.", 'blockinfo': {'blockid': 3455768, 'blockedby': 'M7', 'blockedbyid': 583, 'blockreason': 'Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected: per request', 'blockedtimestamp': '2026-07-23T07:34:33Z', 'blockexpiry': '2028-07-23T07:34:33Z', 'blocknocreate': , 'blockowntalk': , 'blockedtimestampformatted': '07:34, 23 July 2026', 'blockexpiryformatted': '07:34, 23 July 2028', 'blockexpiryrelative': 'in 1 year'}, '*': 'See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/mediawiki-api-announce.lists.wikimedia.org/> for notice vof API deprecations and breaking changes.'}

Scarpy (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Scarpy, Thanks for this message and sorry for the inconvenience. The block itself is meant as a protection against a LTA actively exploiting proxies inside that Datacenter range. Now I've tried to soften in part the block. I'd kindly ask you to try again and let me know. --M/ (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate you looking it to it so quickly! I am, however, trying to upload again with a new photo. I'm not getting an error but it looks like it could be timing out. https://flickypedia.flickr.org/wait_for_upload/e1f084c8-0c4b-48ec-9536-b2f0ac6915fc Frozen at the Uploading... page. Scarpy (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@M/ It eventually generated an error message, below. - Scarpy (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Upload failed!

Your photo didn’t upload We recommend you try uploading it again later. You can make a copy of the title and caption you wrote for your next attempt.

   URL
       https://www.flickr.com/photos/supercraigtalbert/55522260991/
   title
       Shadow Array Alternate.jpg
   short caption
       A photo of the east side of the Shadow Array art.
   error
       {'code': 'permissiondenied', 'info': 'You do not have the permissions needed to carry out this action.', 'messages': [{'name': 'wikibase-api-permissiondenied', 'parameters': [], 'html': {'*': 'You do not have the permissions needed to carry out this action.'}}, {'name': 'badaccess-group0', 'parameters': [], 'html': {'*': 'You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested.'}}], '*': 'See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/mediawiki-api-announce.lists.wikimedia.org/> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes.'}

@Scarpy I am sorry to hear that, especially because this is completely out of my boundaries. The range-block is solved now and this seems to be a bug related to the API usage. Site's "Leave a feedback" links to a commons.wiki talk page: commons:Commons_talk:Flickypedia. Perhaps it is better to report there, still it seem there's quite a lack of answers, but you might want to try. Thanks again for your feedback --M/ (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I posted there and asked. flickr2commons looks like it kind of works again so we have something of a workaround. - Scarpy (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello my question is about investment into the blocked brain which is working out out of Socrates a science

Hello, my name is Mariam el marboua and in my investment into the blocked brain I wrote the research that you will find published by the glorious global scientific journal under the name of fantasies and the pyramidal cells, but I beg you give me a chance in my other researches that got certified too by the glorious global scientific journal I did think of unconsciousness as a tradition and wrote that it will be a beautiful tradition if we work out feeling in the secrecy of the country because if we know what to say in the feeling we would know what to say in the idea SO I BEG YOU GIVE MY PHILOSOPHY A CHANCE TO HAVE A PAGE IN YOUR GLORIOUS PLATEFORME OF INTELLIGENCE, THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR THE GLORIOUS HONOR AND THE GLORIOUS MODESTY. ~2026-49670-11 (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello. We do not host original research on Wikipedia. Please go elsewhere. qcne (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49670-11 We do not host research papers. You may consider other publishing platforms such as DOAJ, JSTOR, Academia.edu, ResearchGate, or if you have the funds and would like it to go through peer review, refer to the academic publishing processes in actual credible journals [i.e. Frontiers, Elsevier, Nature, Springer, etc.] ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 23:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Editing

How do we edit and add our own information ~2026-49865-01 (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49865-01 Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. To edit a page or a section of a page, you push the button that says edit and then make your edit. It should be similar to the process you used to leave this help desk comment. For simple things like fixing a typo (maybe changing adn to and), just do it. For addition of information not present in the article, or changing outdated information, please cite your sources. I will leave you a welcome message on your talk page with links to additional information. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:22, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

When you say "add our own information", if you are asking to write an article about yourself, the answer is you don't do that. If there will be an article about you, it will be written in the far future by someone else who does not know you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Question about Individual Articles' Talk Pages

I posted some new topics in a few talk pages in both the English and Spanish wikipedias, though I haven't gotten any response for any of those articles. They seem to be in not-well-used article spaces (or something). Is this normal? I don't always feel 100% confident of being able to provide adequate input, so I feel that using the talk pages are useful to me, I hope. Zeldstarro (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not unusual for there to be a long delay before you get a reply on the talk pages of less well watched articles; we have no deadline.

That said if you find a serious problem and don't get a reply after a few days you can raise the matter (or post a short pointer to the original discussion) on a relevant wiki project (usually listed at the top of the talk page) or on a notice board like WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 07:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's normal, there are way more articles than active editors. WP:APPNOTE might help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Mobbing, DAB page

Is it necessary to create a disambiguation page for "Mobbing" (Mobbing (disambiguation))? We have three articles: mobbing, mobbing (animal behavior), and mobbing (Scots law). ~2026-50193-27 (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

That seems a good idea. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Can a Wikimedia Commons file be used as a citeable source?

Problem with adding second and third archive to my talk page

I'm ready to just give up

Hi qcne, Thank you again for your help back in August — you saved me from wasting my money with Wiki Authority Group, and I stopped payment and reported them as you and the others suggested. I'm now ready to move forward the right way: submitting a disclosed, conflict-of-interest draft about NetWeaving (the networking concept I created) through Articles for Creation myself, with no paid help involved. One thing I want to be upfront about: I used an AI research assistant (Perplexity AI) to help me gather, organize, and fact-check sources — verifying which claims about NetWeaving's coverage actually hold up and which don't. Given the current guideline on LLM use in article content, I've been working to rewrite the article text in my own words, using that research only as source notes. In places I've kept some of the assistant's original phrasing because it captured the facts well and I found full rewriting difficult since in many places it was identical or almost identical to my own — I'd rather tell you that directly than have you find it later. Given that, I have two questions: (1) is a fully disclosed, good-faith submission like this even viable under current practice, or should I keep pushing to rewrite it further before submitting? and (2) would you be willing to take an informal look at the draft, or point me to anything else I should check first? I'd rather get this right the first time than have it declined or deleted for something I could have caught. Thanks again for your time and for being straight with me back in August. Bob Littell, Chief NetWeaver ChiefNetWeaver1 (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne, I suppose. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ChiefNetWeaver1. We prohibit LLM generated text in an article or draft. LLM also has the habit of hallucinating sources or inferring information from sources that do not exist. As such, if you used an LLM, you should carefully check 100% of it's output to ensure the text actually meets our policies and guidelines particularly that of WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral Point of View.

You are free to create the draft via the WP:Article wizard then drop a message on my talk page and I can take a look to see if the draft has any chance of a successful review. qcne (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Donating by check

One user who seems to make many good-faith but destructive edits

In the event of my death

Is there a limit on the number of albums I can include on a discography?

Upload film poster

How do you find 'edit suggestions' ?

Help Desk and TH

Redirect is inaccurate

Editing has changed

Where to report global abuse?

Died by or committed suicide

An editor on Putney Pusher put "died by" and used MOS:SUICIDE in their edit summary and someone has twice reverted it and is referring to MOS:STYLERET. All the other editor and myself have tried to do is go by what is recommended using "died by" and the other editor is basically saying we are changing it just to suit the style we want ourselves which is untrue it is just more neutral. Which is the best to use? ItsShandog (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

My opinion: There's never been a clear consensus to prohibit "committed" in such instances, as discussed at the RfC linked there. As such, while I think editors are well within their rights to use their preferred form when they're writing new text, it seems out of line for an editor to be changing existing text to suit their personal preferences. That said, I find I'm more open to editors who are willing to compromise on the wording than I am editors who seem to rigidly feel that the only reasonable alternative to "committed suicide" is "died by suicide". There are other ways to convey the same content. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

According to MOS:SUICIDE: The phrase committed suicide is neither recommended nor banned on the English Wikipedia, so per the guidelines it's acceptable. However, as the same guideline notes "style manuals have come to avoid commit suicide, which is now considered insensitive because of its whiff of criminality". Several acceptable alternatives to "committed" are listed. Personally, I feel using one of the many other non-euphemistic expressions, including "died by", is more consistent with the spirit of neutrality and encyclopedic tone, since it's less judgemental, but this is just my own individual opinion; it's not the position of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines yet.

There was was RfC not too long ago in 2021, in which the closer wrote:

... if some other equal or better formulation exists and a change is made, we should not tendentiously revert it. Likewise, I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found. Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation. This will naturally cause us to track whatever trend exists in society. ...

Perhaps you could see what the sources cited in the article use and follow that? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:56, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that a very clear majority of participants in that 2021 RfC argued in favour of allowing the use of "committed". If you wanted to change the guidelines to explicitly discourage its use, you would have to make a very persuasive case that had not already been made in that discussion or provide much stronger evidence in favour of a previously made argument, perhaps both. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 21:11, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Looking closer at Putney Pusher, it seems the reference for the paragraph which uses "committed suicide" is a news article which actually uses the words "took his own life", which would generally be considered euphemistic language (which is discouraged on Wikipedia). Seems here the source isn't helpful. We don't use euphemisms even when reliable sources do.

In general, if you have multiple acceptable ways to express something the variant used first should be retained, as otherwise you get into time-wasting arguments over personal opinions that can't be settled with policies and guidelines. This would mean "committed" should be retained; not because it's preferable to use "committed" but simply because MOS:VAR discourages arbitrary changes in general and there's a broad sitewide consensus (per the RfC) that "committed" is considered acceptable (neither encouraged nor discouraged) variation in phrasing. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 21:34, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@ItsShandog: I hope this long reply was helpful, even if it probably wasn't the answer you were hoping for. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 21:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that in this kind of context the word "suicide" is just as legalistic and non-neutral as the word "committed", and (separately) it also seems to me that modern usage of "suicide" has evolved to make it into our euphemism. Wikipedia, in its stated avoidance of euphemism and its NPOV, should probably make it a rigid requirement to use only "killed himself" (substituting whichever pronoun is appropriate) - which is the common non-slang form that is in fact neutral and non-judgemental - and exclude all the other possibilities.

That is clearly unpopular and not happening, probably because very many people do want a euphemism for "killed himself" despite the general ruling to the contrary. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

TooManyFingers, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, especially on a subject that is surrounded with such emotionally frought language. But I do not see the word "suicide" as a euphemism and was unable to find any thoughtful commentary online that makes that case. Cullen328 (talk) 05:41, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

People can say they don't consider "suicide" a euphemism, but I have a difficult time believing them unless they're also perfectly content - under all circumstances - to have it replaced with "killed himself". (Not with having such a replacement forced upon them, just that they really don't mind which version gets used.) I wouldn't doubt that you may accept either one equally, but it's clear many people don't - and that's a pretty clear sign of euphemism at work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The Samaritans' guidance says "Try to use phrases like 'ended their own life', rather than 'committed suicide' which can stigmatise suicide or make it sound like a crime." They know more about this than the average Wikipedia editor.

Outside of quotations, its hard to find any justification, let alone genuine need, for using "committed suicide", while their guidance is evidence to suggest that doing so causes harms; and is likely a breach of WP:NPOV (doubly so in modern, compared to historical, cases).

The issue is with "committed" (which is hang-over from when attempting suicide was a criminal offence; and its status as a sin in some religions; compare "committed murder", "committed adultery"), not with "suicide"; "died by suicide" is not problematic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I have tried adding "died by" to stay neutral to avoid implying anything but they keep reverting it. ItsShandog (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed someone changed it to died by again no doubt it will be reverted at some stage. ItsShandog (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The Samaritans' expertise in euphemisms for a particular application does not affect or concern Wikipedia in the slightest. Wikipedia is not censored, our non-censorship policy makes a point of saying that protecting readers is exactly the thing we won't do, and there isn't an exemption in there for words or images concerning death. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Who said anything about euphemisms? Or censorship? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thw Samaritans' guidance (the part you quoted) recommends the euphemism "ended their own life", and omits the ordinary words "killed themselves". It isn't necessary for me to show that they used the word "euphemism" in their description of their euphemism. (Their advice is also not intended as a guide for Wikipedia editors.)

That particular advice is intended (among other things) to protect people from the effect of stigmatising words. "Commit (an offence)" certainly can be stigmatising, and I argue that "suicide" is stigmatising as well because it retains a strong association with "commit" and illegality in general regardless of whether "commit" is actually printed; it seems possible that the Samaritans might agree with that, or they might not. In any case, "committed suicide" is excluded from consideration for good reason.

But "ended their own life" is inarguably a euphemism, Wikipedia policy explicitly excludes euphemisms and censoring (explicitly the kind of censoring intended as protection), and the ordinary inoffensive non-stigmatising "killed themselves" is not just being avoided for no particular reason; it's being (self-)censored in favour of outdated legal terminology that the Samaritans don't recommend. Consistently choosing what might be called "a less harsh form", when what's being regarded as "the harsh form" has no stigma, no disapproval, and no words that have been banned from radio broadcast, but is straightforwardly factual, is euphemism. The Wikipedia trend is merely to continue with a potentially-stigmatising euphemism that conveniently comes with plausible deniability of its status as a euphemism, rather than a transparent but non-prejudiced one as the Samaritans recommend. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:06, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The guidance is for all writers generally, which includes Wikipedians, not "for a particular application". It specifically recommends against using "committed", giving a reason for doing so, and suggests one alternative example ("use phrases like..."), rather than prescribing one. Nor does it proscribe "killed themselves", which would fall outside of its concern with being careful not to "stigmatise suicide or make it sound like a crime".

The terms suggested is an alternative; not a euphemism; let alone "inarguably" so. (I note with some confusion that you earlier claimed that "suicide" itself is a euphemism).

Note also that the guidance itself (including the part I quoted) uses the word "suicide".

There is no "censoring". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:05, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Any stigma about suicide arises from the harm the act causes to the living not from a stock phrase that everyone understands, and playing around with silly made-up ways of saying "killed himself" won't change a thing. I've previously suggested "killed themself" in similar cases, only to be told that was too brutal sc not euphemistic enough. Anyway, in this specific case has there been a coroner's verdict? DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

No i actually think it is a bit premature to even write suicide the source only quoted from the family that "he took his own life" this was only yesterday i originally just quoted what the family said until more confirmation was given but then someone change it to died by and then someone else changed it to committed suicide. ItsShandog (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Choc / CHOC

How to change

Random category

Deaths from Alzheimer's disease in England

Grammar (English)

Creating article for comic artist

I made a short draft of an article for Comic Artist and Inker Scott Hanna (30 year inker of John Romita Jr Spider-Man and other comics) in my sandbox and requested in WikiProject Comics if anyone was willing to review an English article. I'm not sure if that was the proper place to ask, but it was suggested to me so it was my first try. Is this Help Desk a better place to make that request? CorsetsandComics (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @CorsetsandComics.

The best way to get feedback on a draft is to submit it for review, and I have added a header to User:CorsetsandComics/sandbox to allow you to do so.

However, before you submit it, I suggest that you sort out the referencing (see WP:REFB), and check each source against all the criteria of WP:42.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this great advice ColinFine. I'm so glad I asked at the Help desk. The article is mostly neutral and informational, but I see I've got a bit more work to do. CorsetsandComics (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I've moved it to Draft:Scott Hanna, the preferred place for drafts. The title of the page aside, I second what ColinFine has written. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:49, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary! I can see where the cite errors are and I see some sentences need me to reference which interviews I found the data in. I will get to studying. CorsetsandComics (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Why I got this error?

About a change

Deleting a page

Draft:2027 NFL season

Notability for elections

Rodrigo Leao

Roger Vivier

Is there a way to see the last time 'In the news' was updated?

Characters not rendering in pronunciation guide

Some important characters are not rendering on this pronunciation guide page.

Help:IPA/Swedish

I'm using the Android app.

image of the problem: https://www.pasteboard.co/095fwf0nrgXK.jpg

Lunarhound (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I get that on my Android as well.

The font on the Android system simply does not contain that particular character "◌̌ ". I guess there's a way of adding another font to your phone to get it, but I don't know how. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand if I'm supposed to just keep responding here by editing this section, or if there is some "reply" button I'm not seeing, but anyway... ironically, the only place it renders is on this editor (not even in your reply). So it seems like to font is on the phone, but not being found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunarhound (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Lunarhound. On a computer, when I'm editing, the character appears as the dotted circle followed by the hacek, whereas when the text is displayed it appears as the dotted circle with the hacek above it. So I guess that the circle character is a zero-width character, but the Android display system can't display it correctly. ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The help page currently uses a DOTTED CIRCLE (U+25CC) followed by a COMBINING CARON (U+030C). The circle character is not zero-width; rather the caron/hacek is a combining character, so it is supposed to combine with the previous character and be displayed above it. The problem seems to be that the dotted circle does not appear in some fonts. Which is unfortunate since the important thing being conveyed is the caron, not the circle, which is just a placeholder for the character above which the caron would appear. I wonder if it would be better to just omit the circle and use a non-combining caron like U+02C7, which would appear as ˇ. (And likewise use a non-combining circumflex U+005E instead of the combining circumflex U+0302 currently being used.) Alternatively another character could be used instead of DOTTED CIRCLE but I don't know how we would choose a character that is guaranteed to appear in all fonts. CodeTalker (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Latin fonts without the letter o are relatively uncommon. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

True, but would a reader understand that a caron over an O is intended to mean the caron itself rather than an O with a caron on top? Maybe an underscore with a caron would work? CodeTalker (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I think this problem has existed for some time now: . I remember reading that linked discussion, seeing a solution there, and editing Template:Navbox diacritical marks/set (which the {{Navbox diacritical marks}} template uses) to use that solution, but reverted due to lack of confidence. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Khalid Ali Al-Rubeaan

Political party colors

Resource Exchange for other Wikipedias

Fox on Frederick Towne Mall

In the Frederick Towne Mall's decline, a local Fox station states that the mall's decline was helped by Illegal immigrants in the mall's parking lot. Should this be added or is it regular Fox propaganda? Furthermore a rumor is that a man died which caused the Hoyts to close which was originally added here, and readded and deleted multiple times. Wobs100 (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

If the Fox claim was discussed (whether credulously or dismissively) by reliable sources, then maybe; if it wasn't, then I don't see why. When was the rumor last added? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I have to check to see if the Fox claim was backed up from others, for the stabbing, it was on April 28 of this year Wobs100 (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Wobs100, The April edit that you point to asserts that the cinematreasures.org page tells its readers that the cinema closed after the stabbing and murder of a man inside the theater. But the page does not mention any stabbing or murder. Whether the assertion was deliberately deceptive or the result of cluelessness about referencing or of EUI (Editing Under the Influence) or whatever, I see no pressing need to worry about it, as it was made half a year ago. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I originally added the closure with cinema treasures ref but the user added it back. Its almost like a feedback loop as it was originally added in 2016 and youtubers like Bright Sun Films:2:55 and Nation Decay (who fun fact provided images and contributed to the article) took the wiki info at face value and added it to their content and users who see the video use it as a "ghost source" and adds it back to the article. To debunk it more another video states it was a rumor and the "stabbing" and closure in 2008, while REALLY it closed in 2009 as seen as on the articles source, cinema treasures and here.

For the Fox, I couldn't find it on local newspapers archives or on Google website Wobs100 (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I am adding more info to the article however if you want to check it out. Wobs100 (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

HERBERT VANALLEN CLARK - CORRECTIONS NEEDED

This individual was my father's first cousin, his mother and my grandmother were sisters.... Genealogy/family history research is my lifelong hobby. I contributed the photo and information posted by the Encyclopedia of Arkansas. Under Wikipedia's "Talk" I provided statements and sources for false information posted by Wikipedia. How can Wikipedia's article be corrected? Or will it be necessary for our family (consisting of approximately 1,200 descendants) to campaign and broadcast Wikipedia's refusal to correct your false/inaccurate posting throughout the www?

Teacakes123 (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

So, Teacakes123, you're asking about Herbert V. Clark. In Talk:Herbert V. Clark#Request_for_factual_corrections_to_the_Herbert_V._Clark_article, you've asked for edits. You've done so politely and informatively, and you've waited over a week, but there's been no refusal or other response. Well, English-language Wikipedia seemingly has squillions of articles, and this particular article will be on few editor's "watchlists". (I might even be the second person, following you, to see this "Request".) I suggest that you post to the foot of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history a very brief notice that there's a list of requests at Talk:Herbert V. Clark#Request_for_factual_corrections_to_the_Herbert_V._Clark_article. Keep this notice factual and nonpartisan. (Eager though you may be to call up hundreds of your kinsmen to storm the battlements of Wikipedia, better not to mention this eagerness.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:34, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Teacakes123. Just to add what Hoary posted above, edit requests trying to get an article pretty much entirely re-written in one fell swoop usually never work. All of the WP:WIKIPEDIANs answering edit requests are volunteers who work at their own time and pace; so, long edit requests asking for lots of changes tend to get passed over or even ignored because figuring out what is what tends to require more time and energy than many want to spend on a single request. In addition, your request is also likely going to go unnoticed for quite awhile by those helping with requests because it's not really formatted the way requests are typically formatted. So, it might be a good idea for you to take a look at WP:EDITREQUEST and follow the guidance given there by breaking up to request in to smaller easier-to-sort out pieces. You can use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to help you do this. You could add a Template:Edit COI to your current request so that it's added to the edit request queue, but I think it's only likely going to end up beng declined as it currently is.

Finally, you need to be kind of careful when you post things like this on Wikipedia. I can understand your frustration since Wikipedia can be hard to figure out when your new to it, but posting anything that resembles a "threat" of some kind if things aren't done the way you want them done when you want them done usually doesn't go down to well and can lead to issues with others. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project entirely made up of WP:VOLUNTEERs, many of who are happy to try an help others such as yourself, but you need to be patient and let the process work. Wikipedia articles aren't WP:OWNED by their subjects or anyone who represents them. Wikipedia articles are created about subjects deemed to be Wikipedia:Notable, and permission of the subject of the article isn't needed. Similarly, articles tend to only be deleted when its demonstrated that subject isn't really Wikipedia notable and most likely shouldn't have been created to begin with; they are almost never deleted because the subject or those connected to subject are unhappy because the article isn't they way they want it to be. Wikipedia tries to WP:PRESERVE content whenever possible, particularly when there's not a really good Wikipedia policy-based or guideline-based reason to remove or delete it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Teacakes123, I warmly second what Marchjuly has written. And a minor clarification. I wrote: this particular article will be on few editor's watchlists; I meant to write this particular article, like most, will be on few editors' watchlists, so few will have been alerted to the arrival of a new message on its talk page (and not all of these will have noticed the alert). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:26, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks