Part 4 of WP:DISASTER reads

If there is no accepted name, the name should be formatted as follows: tornado, tornado outbreak, or tornado outbreak sequence, followed by Geographic location (only if necessary: City, State, Country, Continent, or any combination of these), followed by Year (or Month/year, or day/month/year if need be). Example: Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011

Please rank these title options from most to least preferred for a non-year article:

The next preferred option is used to disambiguate two events in the same (part of the) month. Year ranges can be used for December–January events. This RfC does not change the WP:COMMONNAME name/location parts 1–3 of WP:DISASTER. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This article does not follow WP:COMMONNAME. I would point people to the precedents set by the move request from the name Bangalore to Bengaluru in 2024: Here.

Realistically, Bangalore is far more commonly used name both worldwide and in India. Regardless, that is an essentially anecdotal, subjective statement and there exists a WP standard for this reason. The Bengaluru moves adheres to the standard.

This article adhered to the standard when it changed to 'Denali' in 2015. It currently does not. It is factually true that the AP as well as Britannica are following the federal name change. This is not to mention that every map of the world in every textbook and atlas used in US schools from 1896 to 2015 used Mt. McKinley. I don't believe it is unreasonable to assume this to be proof of a status quo. The Obama name change was an obvious deviation from this well established status quo of more than a century – Wikipedia followed it still, as it was in accordance with COMMONNAME standards.

I would like to understand why that same standard is not being applied presently. We are either to say the COMMONNAME rules are in need of relitigation, or the article title must be changed to 'Mt. McKinley'. Jibolba (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia#First Nations group names in the first sentence of bio articles?:

A: Can belonging to an Aboriginal Australian or Torres Strait Islander group be considered a form of nationality?

B: Should MOS:NATIONALITY be edited to include an example of someone belonging to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander nation with that nationality named as a demonym in the first sentence of the lead, similarly to the example given for Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians? E.g. the first sentence of the Ashleigh Barty article reads:

Ashleigh Jacinta Barty AO (born 24 April 1996) is an Australian (Ngarigo ^{[1] [2]} ) former professional tennis player and cricketer.

Neegzistuoja (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Should "animated" be linked in the lead sentences of articles for animated films? Example: Toy Story is an animated adventure comedy film produced by Pixar Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures. —Matthew   / (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Can we adopt re-classify this informal essay on notability of newspapers as a formal Wikipedia:Guideline?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability→ Wikipedia:Notability (newspapers)

Having a guideline for notability of newspapers addresses the challenge of supporting recent increased interest in developing Wikipedia's relationship with fact-checking, journalism, reliable media, and newspapers in particular.

One existing closely related guideline is for books. Here is that, and several comparable essays for media.

• Wikipedia:Notability (books)
• Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals)
• Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)
• Wikipedia:Notability of reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Notability (media)

Bluerasberry (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Should the following be added as a section at Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages?, which allows editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Which version on the Origins section better reflects the sources neutrally and accurately, in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V) policies? Aeengath (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Should the WP:DYKFICTION guideline apply to mythology, religious stories (for example, stories from the Old Testament or the New Testament), or folklore? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Should AI-generated images be banned from use in articles? (Where "AI-generated" means wholly created by generative AI, not a human-created image that has been modified with AI tools.) 06:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Should the following be added as a section at Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages?, which allows editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Someone removed {{rfd }} from Joshua Sturm prior to the RFD discussion being closed (not to mention moving that redirect prior to adjudication). I tried to list this above, but doing so did not gain a great deal of traction.

Should "do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed" be added to {{Redirect for discussion }}, similar to {{Article for deletion }}? --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Should the following be added as a section at Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages?, which allows editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)