Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:Jhelum

I added [1] the Punjabi IPA for the name 'Jhelum', as per how it's pronounced in Punjabi, which has been done previously on articles (Pakistani and non-Pakistani article alike). This has been reverted [2] by both @MSLQr and @SheriffIsInTown who believe that only the IPA of the national language, in this case Urdu, should be included.

In short, the question is should the Punjabi spelling and IPA be included in this article, the native tongue of the city? نعم البدل (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

There is a proposal to change the statements of the convention for naming (and renaming) articles about Australian places. Innesw (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

If an RfC finds consensus to exclude (or no consensus to include) a person's name from an article (e.g. a criminal suspect's name), which of the following statement(s) should be followed?

• (A) Sources that contain the name in their titles or headlines should not be used.
• (B) Sources that contain the name in their URLs should not be used.
• (C) Editors should not mention the name anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages and Wikipedia namespace.
• (D) None of the above.

03:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Portal talk:Pacific Northwest

I'm curious if "Cascadia" can accurately be considered an alternate name for the Pacific Northwest, as in the infobox. Sources I can find do not use them interchangeably. Cascadia sources often refer back to Pacific Northwest, but there is very little usage the other way around.

Key Question: Is Cascadia a commonly used alternate name for Pacific Northwest?

Don.steinbarge (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Is there support to upgrade Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts to a guideline? 04:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

I would like to formally understand what the community would think of a date-fixing bot. Such a bot would fix dates in articles to conform either {{Use dmy dates}} or {{Use mdy dates}}. To be clear, this bot would not revert any good faith changes that add content and dates of the wrong format; instead, it will just change the date format. In my opinion, there are a few different ways such a bot could be implemented (or not):

• Option 1: no bot, everything stays as is
• Option 2a: a supervised bot (so every edit is manually reviewed before publication) that would have to pass BRFA to be implemented. I think this would alleviate any concerns of the bot creating errors based on context (such as changing date formats in quotes, links, references, etc.)
• Option 2b: an automatic bot that does something similar in proposal 2a, but wouldn't actually have its edits be checked before implementation
• Option 3: some other solution; no guarantee that this is actually feasible

Thanks for your consideration – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

RfC to determine how reflinks are linked or not in the |work= field as done by bot. -- GreenC 20:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)