Jump to content

Talk:Denali

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

Change article name back to Mount McKinley

[edit]

American President Donald Trump announced the reverting of Denali’s name to Mount McKinley during his inauguration speech on January 20, 2025. ReformedPastor1 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change should probably occur on the signing of the executive order 104.12.34.41 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. While the change by the new administration should be noted, it is not something that governs common usage until reliable secondary sources start using the same terminology consistently. Acroterion (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Woah. While that might be true, upon the last executive change from McKinley to Denali, you were the editor involved who moved the article to it's current location within two days of Obamas order. Did Wikipedia rules change since then or were you wrong to move it back in Aug 2015? The road should be the same no matter which side we drive on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I adjusted a mistaken move by Muboshgu from "Mount McKinley" --> "Mount Denali" to "Denali" in August 2015. [1]. There never was and never has been a "Mount Denali." Muboshgu made the substantive move. Acroterion (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've seen people trying to change Denali National Park and Preserve to Mount McKinley, at least in peripheral articles. Denali National Park and Preserve was established by Congress in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Legislation would be required to change the name. Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. However the last formal RM to Denali disdained any kind of common name in favor of consensus (as is standard for Wikipedia). It pretty much happened instantly and the same could easily be done again. The mountain is known by so many different names but the most common today is Denali with Mt McKinley being a second choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The President has now signed the executive order (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-names-that-honor-american-greatness/) however the order directs the US Secretary of the Interior to change the name - rather than actually changing the name "within 30 days of the date of this order"... so Mount McKinley will not be the official name until the Interior Secretary officially changes it Snspigs (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have summited the mountain, you have no right to name it. I summited, many summited. It is Denali, always will be Denali. McKinley is dead and gone, like the old white dude himself. 97.113.216.115 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That logic makes no sense, nobody ever summit the mountains of Mars but we still name them after dead people Nobody89898989 (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. 165.120.194.52 (talk) 165.120.194.52 (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, Trump's intended renaming of Denali to Mount McKinley is not official, only his future plans. Should he do so, and if he is even able to, I'm not too sure if this would necessitate renaming the article regardless, as the mountain may continue to be commonly referred to as Denali, similar to any potential attempts to rename the Gulf of Mexico. While these would both be official names used by the United States government, it's difficult to predict how well these changes would catch on, if at all. In the case of Denali, it at least is a fully American-controlled geographical feature. So as of now, I would suggest to wait for any official actions to be taken. FBryz (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The executive order on renaming the Gulf of Mexico is just pure nonsense as the body of water is shared between two countries, and I think it even has a small surface that falls under the category of international waters. As for Mount Denali, as you said, the geographical feature is within US territory so it can be renamed. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter how many countries share a body of water. This is the English Wikipedia, and the US is the English-speaking country the Gulf is most pertinent to. If it goes through, it should be respected. In Asia, no one can agree on the name of the waters there. The respective languages just use their own names. 2001:16B8:BA26:DD00:1D80:1E1C:9156:7355 (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look you all really need to take a step back from the politics of these situations and treat this like an encyclopedia. These pages act to describe a thing as it exists and how it is referred to. The Sea of Japan is a great comparison to the Gulf of Mexico in several ways. That name is used in English today only because that is the name that stuck, and it is more sensible than the East Sea to anyone outside of Korea. These same principles are why the name "Gulf of America" will likely never catch on in English more broadly, if it even does within the United States.
Not only that, but English Wikipedia, as the most comprehensive wiki using the most spoken language on the planet, takes a more objective stance on names in general, regardless of language. So unlike the Japanese or Korean wikis which simply use the name of their respective languages, English wiki will usually pick the most commonly used name across the board, with clear mentions of any alternative. Gulf of Mexico will remain the official and common name for the Gulf of Mexico everywhere it's used that's not governed by Washington, regardless of the language. This includes international bodies like the UN which have standardised names for international seas and the likes. No one national leader has the power to rename things like this on a massive scale, unless everyone really does take it seriously and start calling it "Gulf of America" - though I personally highly doubt it.
This is a really pointless argument though, as I know with certainty the current name will remain, I just hope people coming here giddy about the new president can understand why these things are less simple than they might initially expect. FBryz (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you would agree that the Gulf should not have "Mexico" in its name either, since, as you say, it is shared between two countries. Regardless, it is now the Gulf of America, and will appear as such on official government documentation. Good point in the reply above me regarding the names of bodies of water in Asia. 70.190.5.50 (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not currently the Gulf of America. Official documentation (of the US government – not any other English-speaking government) will probably refer to it as such within at least 30 days, but it is not yet. And even when it does, the only place it will be referred to as the Gulf of America is in official US documentation. Unless that changes (i.e. the term enters common English usage rather than usage in official documents of 1 English-speaking country), there is no justification per WP:COMMONNAME to change the article's name. Same goes for Denali/McKinley Snspigs (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
America control Mount McKinley and therefore can decide what to call it. Additionally the mountain was called McKinley all the way until Obama changed the name 2015 via executive order so why can't Trump the current president change the name just like Obama. Additionally many Americans still use the name and I wouldn't be surprised if a majority still call it McKinley. Nobody89898989 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I wouldn't be surprised if a majority still call it McKinley" this is all that matters. If you can provide some evidence for a large majority calling it McKinley, that would provide a good reason for changing it. Snspigs (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If something is renamed once, we should usually use the new name. But this mountain has become a political football, going from Denali to McKinley in 1917, back to Denali in 2015, and back to McKinley this year. Ideally, Wikipedia shouldn't get involved in this fight, but we have to choose one name or the other. My instinct is to go with Denali as the original name before the fight started, but if McKinley is clearly more common among reputable writings, we should go with that. What we need is a large scale scan of publications about the mountain to see which name is more common. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the 2015 name change to Denali was largely reflecting practice. It had been called Denali both officially and unofficially within Alaska for decades. People who actually knew the mountain already primarily called it Denali. Therefore society at large and the media were well primed, saw that the official name change made sense, and followed suit essentially immediately including changing style guides. The combination of the official name change with that common practice made WP:COMMONNAME clear that Denali was the appropriate name. We’ll see what happens, but I don’t expect that common usage such as the media will follow as quickly if and when the official Federal name change goes through. There’s very little chance the state of Alaska will follow with an official name change too. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is internationally known as Gulf of Mexico, this name being used by French Jesuites as early as 1672. BTW, maybe change the name of Your country to AMERICA, as You US-Americans (and not only) seem to so often forget, that there are many other countries and territories at the American Continent, of which the USA form only a part (both in landmass, as in inhabitants!). Maybe this crazy renaming theatre will leed to a more respectful, humble approach in the future, not ignorant of all the other Americans. Lumenor (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares about the other so-called countries and territories though. When the world says "America" we don't mean your 56 square kilometers country somewhere south of America.
When we say Canada we mean Canada too. 2A02:A313:8294:2100:24C3:BA:AB21:895A (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Europe and America is the USA, any other country is known by it's name, only children throw tantrums when America is used to refer to the US 78.211.16.95 (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. A huge chunk of Americans maybe even half still call it mount mckinley or at least use them interchangeably, let alone at the time of the change. I personally like Denali more but if the government calls it mount mckinley the article is mount McKinley. 2600:4040:5037:A100:FD9E:5885:98FC:9E1E (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your last statement that the article should be named after the official name to maintain consistency. However, is there a source that supports your first claim, or is it merely anecdotal? LinusShapiro (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amen!!!! 108.174.117.24 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should change back the name. We only changed it after Obama made an executive order so it is hypocritical to not change it when trump has an executive order. Nobody89898989 (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, but then again, this is Wikipedia. Of course they'd take Comrade Obama's executive orders more seriously than Trump's. 2600:1700:9366:E040:506C:D71C:7E0B:3528 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Mt. Mckinley – The name is officially being changed by the U.S. Government (see, inter alia, President Trump's executive order, dated January 20, 2025). Several reliable secondary sources have also reflected this name change. It would be inappropriate and against standards not to change it (some secondary sources: Forbes; CBS; The Washington Post). Infrastorian (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, Denali is still the common name used by people living in the area. Therefore, if the national name is changed then that should be noted but the name of the article should remain Denali to reflect the common name. Harimau777 (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur.
Now official name back to Mount McKinley, the title must be updated as well. Whatareyoupreparedtodo (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to open an RM, if ya want to change the name. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "its former official name" from first sentence

[edit]

Sentence would then read:

Denali (/dəˈnɑːli/;[5][6] also known as Mount McKinley)[7] is the highest mountain peak in North America,

Make McKinley first! Nobody89898989 (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose since it seems likely it'll soon be officially Mount McKinley again, at least federally I question whether it's productive to mess around with this, since it might be better to decide whether to reword it to mention it as the official federal name once that's the case. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trump is a fascist racist Nazi, and Wikipedia editors, as Guardians of Knowledge, should resist any effort by fascists to impose their racist will. Slava Denali! 11:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC) 216.103.158.113 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seen extremely partisan and should not being using inaccurate langue like Nazi as you are diolouting the meaning of those words. Why can't you have some basic level of respect for other human beings. Nobody89898989 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not show ANY bias towards either side. Renaming the article is not supporting any side, but recognising the legitimacy of the government in power and their decisions. Your use of ad hominem is not helping your case at all, either. AdamBynum (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait till it's official per Interior Secretary. Then the whole sentence can be changed around. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2025 (

Mount McKinley as the US government authorized name should take priority over a colloquial name

[edit]

Mount McKinley is the legal name and was already the most commonly known name among most Americans before anyway. Even if that may not be the case in Alaska, of course Denali should be recognized, but the Wikipage should be called Mount McKinley perhaps with Denali in brackets. Alfred Carbo (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my answer from before – the official name currently is Denali, which will not change until the Secretary of the Interior formally changes the name, not when the President signs an executive order directing him to do so. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-names-that-honor-american-greatness/ Snspigs (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The president is above the secretary of the interior. 2600:100F:B1BF:320A:0:1C:B16E:9C01 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing that fact but unfortunately it doesn't bear on whether or not Mt McKinley is the official name yet. The President didn't sign a document which changed the name, he signed a document which ordered someone else to change the name, therefore the name hasn't been changed until the person he ordered (the Secretary of the Interior) has executed his order. Snspigs (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - so we should change the name to Mt. McKinkey at such time as the Department of the Interior gets around to implementing the Executive Order, then. Jbt89 (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the EO was a direction to the Secretary of the Interior, not the official name change. If and when the name is officially changed - which is exceedingly likely - this should be renamed. Until then, the EO can be modified, canceled, or blocked and there should be no rush to rename the article any more than there should be resistence to the change. This is not a political debate. The mountain's name was changed from Mount McKinley to Denali and the article title was changed to reflect. The mountain's name has now been ordered to be renamed and, when complete, the page needs to match as it will be the COMMONNAME. Aaronmos (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The common name and offical name is Mt.Mckinley.Stop spreading misinformation. 2600:100F:A110:905C:4C49:EFE7:92DA:AB0B (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The common name most certainly is not that. — Czello (music) 00:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly even if Mount McKinley does become the legal name again (it hasn't) that dosen't mean we should rename the wikipedia page, there are plenty of wikipedia pages about geographical features whos name on here is different from the official name, just have a redirect from the official name & you're good. GodoftheTranses (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree. Leave the article as Denali. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was only denali for a short time. Its real name is McKinley
. 2600:100F:A110:905C:4C49:EFE7:92DA:AB0B (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Denali itself was a legal name change, and the article was changed to reflect that decision. Should the same not be done in this instance? Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no article names are changed in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME- likely we would wait a year or more to see if reliable secondary non-official sources use the new name to judge if the new name is commonly used. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is absolute baloney on Wikipedia. It was changed to Denali over the common name... and done instantly. It would actually be hypocritical to not change it back or to at least see where consensus lays. As before common name should have no bearing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mt. McKinley is already the more commonly used name. Its usage never really diminished after either of the renamings. anikom15 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolute and total nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind sharing your evidence for this claim? "Total nonsense" is a strong statement. Jbt89 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a strong case for renaming the article now if you have evidence to support it. Do you? Aaronmos (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In August 2015, this article was immediately moved to the Denali name. If the name change is confirmed, why shouldn't we move it then? Ravensfire (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 2015, we should follow the standards of name changes we use as a community today. I can't say I would know the details of why, how or if the article was moved immediately 9 years ago. As for if it is still commonly used- @Anikom15 or other editors are welcome to provide evidence of it (e.g. NOW corpus, ngrams, year-by-year searches), etc. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, there's an odd disconnect in a few policies, with this being one of them. I actually fully expect that on the next Democratic president we'll go through all of this again. Interestingly, most Alaska politicians are against the name change. I was in Denali and Talkeetna this summer, and just about everything you saw was Denali outside of a few older signs for McKinley. Ravensfire (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion as an absolutely enraged Alaskan may be taken with a grain of salt here, but calling this a "colloquial" name is outrageous. This was the mountain's name for thousands of years before some yahoo randomly decided it was Mt. McKinley. Denali has been the common name amongst those of us who actually live in the state for a very long time. If you called it "McKinley" you were calling yourself out as a tourist. That was the case at least thirty years ago. Although I'm aware that the president really enjoys showing his disdain for people who are not white, it isn't just Alaska Natives that call it Denali, it is everybody in this state regardless of political persuasion. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 03:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my short impression, 100% agree. I mean, use a name that's connected to the history and culture of the land and the original people, or use the name of a President from Ohio. I know that the official US docs will change the name, will be interesting to see about the national park (as that's not going to be cheap to update all of the signage). National media will probably change to something like Mount McKinley, formerly Denali, local media is probably a toss-up (at best). International will be somewhat based on suckup I think. Bah, rather pissed this is happening at all. Ravensfire (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Executive order is not renaming the national park, just the mountain. But yeah it's gonna depend on what sources are used not official names EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the national park was changed decades before the mountain. It seriously doubt it will be going back. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 04:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The park was named legislatively, and can’t be changed by executive action. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A little more: the EO concerning the mountain explicitly says the park's name will remain Denali [2]. IThe article also gives some insight into the motivation, which concerns Trump's interest in tariffs, which McKinley championed. This has as much to do with the administration's economic agenda as it does with the culture-war renaming interest. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a handful of people calling something by one name does not negate the fact that hundreds of millions called it mt mckinley. a handful of people being outraged at it being called mt mckinley does not change the fact that hundreds of millions were outraged at the change to denali. it was changed instantly on wikipedia, so it should be changed to mt mckinley promptly, too Flynnwasframed (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We call it Denali in continental America. The article should be titled Denali. It's the real name anyway. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is no longer the real name. By Presidential executive order, the name has been changed back to what most Americans have been calling it for most of history. BeejaiRich (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Within thirty days, "Mt. McKinley" will be its official name and its the name that most Americans have called it throughout history. Both names are thrown around nowadays, but priority should be given to the official name imo. That's also what was done when it was renamed in 2015. Derpytoucan (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is called Denali. That's what the people who live there call it, and they have called Denali that for all the recorded history I can find. It doesn't need to flip flop every time the government calls it something. There are many Wikipedia articles that don't use the government name. Why should this article specifically use the government name when it's not truly called that by people who live there? Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's not true either. It's called many different names by the people living there. I don't even know if any of the native peoples living there actually call it Denali... the article itself calls it that. It's sort of an Americanized amalgam of all the names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because policy may have not been followed nine years ago doesn’t mean we should intentionally break it this time to “be fair”.  novov talk edits 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we rename the article for Istanbul back to Constantinople, because that's what the Greeks called it before it was conquered? It really doesn't matter what tribes called it 1000 years ago. It became ours and we chose to call it Mt. McKinley. "Denali" was indeed a 'colloquial' (by every definition of the word) name until a decade ago.
If it's going to be the official name again, and it's a name that many people do still use, it should at the very least be referred to as Mt. McKinley in the header and in the infobox.
I also want to point out the irony in claiming Trump only wants to change the name back because he has "disdain for people who are not white" when most people here are clearly against renaming the article back to Mt. McKinley simply because "orange man bad" and not out of principle.
Derpytoucan (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're against naming it back to Mount McKinley because right now that is neither the official nor the most commonly used name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) if you really think that. Derpytoucan (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to review reliable sources published in the last, say, two decades and determine what percentage of them use Denali preferentially to McKinley. I think you will discover that you are wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source / method for this that systematically excludes the colloquial use of "Denali" to refer to Denali National Park? Ngrams isn't going to cut it here. Jbt89 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s not throw around personal attacks and instead talk about the content of the article. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the official name, or at least will be soon, if we are defining the Secretaty of the Interior rather than the President as the voice of the US government on the subject.
Perhaps the results of this discussion shouldn't be acted upon until the Secretary takes action, but some change is going to have to be made to this article. Jbt89 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources for the usage of the name "Denali" for this mountain dating back thousands of years, especially in English-language sources? Jbt89 (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be your opinion of what the official name ought to be. That is not the purpose of this discussion, this Wikipedia article, or even the Wikipedia site. The discussion is what the name of the article ought to be given the entirety of the dispute and the current state of both the common name and the official name. I understand what you would prefer the common and official names to be and that you purport (likely correctly) that many others like you exist. I have no objection to stipulating that but ask you to acknowledge that this is irrelevant to the discussion (what you and some others desire the name to be).
The question at hand is what name for the article best serves the Wikipedia community. The answer is "COMMONNAME". The question then becomes what is the common name? (Not to Alaskans, but to English-speaking people.)
The US government has the legal right to rename the mountain as demonstrated by Obama in 2015 and Trump in 2025. That will have a drastic impact on the common name people would expect to find on a mountain within the United States of America. Aaronmos (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are such a Democrat shill 2A01:5A8:30F:1C95:CE4A:97EA:364:B46A (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Epic own. Gangnam style Snspigs (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were already lots and lots of secondary sources using the name Mt. McKinley even before the 2025 name change. There are also lots of sources using Denali. You're not going to get a clear consensus either way from that criterion.
Absent that consensus, deferring to the one of the two contenders in official use by the US government is reasonable. Jbt89 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Common name is irrelevant 2600:100F:A110:905C:4C49:EFE7:92DA:AB0B (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong.Czello (music) 00:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They do not want to hear that. That just proves it never should have been changed to Dinali or whatever to horrible name they changed it to is. 76.188.229.197 (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The “horrible name” is what the Native Alaskans called it for thousands of years. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Native Alaskans are not a monolith and we don't have any significant documentation of any of their languages prior to the Russians showing up in the 18th century. Jbt89 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its irrelevant. This is an english encyclopedia. You are spelling it wrong. 2600:100F:A110:905C:4C49:EFE7:92DA:AB0B (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a logical reason based on Wikipedia standards for this subjective opinion you have offered? Aaronmos (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the vast majority of Wiki mods are leftists so they'll happily change instantly for one side but drag their feet for the other when the situation is reverded. They'll probably wait at least 4 years hoping the next president is Dem and change it back. 93.39.137.19 (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s have more constructive comments about the article itself and not about any administrators or editors and their political beliefs. I know a majority of right leaning editors, so your point is practically invalid. The talk page isn’t a forum to talk about anyone but to talk about the content of the article per Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. Thanks! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, Denali is not a colloquial name. It is the official name used by the Alaskan government. Even if that was not the case, it makes more sense to use the common name used by the people who actually live there rather than a name which exists primarily as a political game. Harimau777 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible meat/sock puppetry...?

[edit]

I'm not sure what to do about this but they are organizing a push for the article to be renamed to McKinley on 4chan. Source: pol/thread/494901157 (The link is blacklisted, so I can't post the whole thing.) It is against Wikipedia rules to ask people to argue about edits for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry "Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)"

Well, that might explain the flood of ip users and brand new accounts all suddenly showing up and fired up about the name. Or not. - \\'cLf 16:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm increasingly convinced Trump is actually an SPI clerk and has announced these name changes this to shake the tree for Sleeper accounts. So many of them back from the dead! Golikom (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to end anonymous editing on Wikipedia? Roy Bateman (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AP Decision

[edit]

While Wikipedia is not beholden to other media outlets like the AP or the United States government, User:anikom15 brought up a good point. The Associated Press, a respected and trusted media outlet, is recognizing Trump's name change, citing that since the mountain lies entirely within American territory (unlike the Gulf of Mexico), Trump, as POTUS, has the authority to change federal geographic names within the country.

Thoughts on this? I do agree that the current lede of the article is outdated. Though we may have to wait to make any changes until Walter Cruickshank, the Secretary of the Interior, actually enacts the change ordered by the president. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't matter for our purposes until either term is in wide, common usage (WP:COMMONNAME).The Associated Press doesn't follow such guidelines. RachelTensions (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the DOI has changed it. I think we just need an RM to resolve this. StAnselm (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just put in requested move. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has also updated on Apple Maps and we should watch out as other sources are likely to update. Will be interesting if an outlet comes out with a statement in opposite of the AP. anikom15 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at Apple Maps right now in Sequoia 15.2 build 24C101, and the mountain is still labeled Denali. Same with Apple Maps on iOS 18.2.1. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 January 2025

[edit]

DenaliMount McKinleyDOI has changed the mountain's official federal name from Denali to Mount McKinley. AP also recognizes this change. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. The unambiguous AP switch fulfils the condition stated in that policy: "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." Historically, the two names are fairly balanced in their usage. StAnselm (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that the needs of a journalism organization like the AP are the same as the needs of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Unlike journalism, whose job is to respond to current events, an encyclopedia is intended to preserve knowledge. Therefore, it makes sense for an encyclopedia to have at least some insulation from the whims of politicians. Harimau777 (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per StAnselm’s argument. anikom15 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we don't determine names based on a single source or on what the official name is. We base names on what the widespread usage is in independent reliable sources (which AP is, but it's just one source). It's far, far too soon to determine what name will persist when the dust settles, and we're famously not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Add to that the far greater usage of Denali as per ngrams and in search results, and there's no grounds to move the article yet. Turnagra (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to crystal-balling, WP:NAMECHANGES says "common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English-language sources." StAnselm (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence the rest of my comment that it's ludicrous to base a name change solely off the AP. Applying common sense here would be to wait for the dust to settle rather than trying to ram something through as soon as humanly possible. Other sources have continued to use the name Denali, and even supporters of the move acknowledge that it won't stick - "The international community's always going to know the entire park and the mountain as Denali, and we don't dispute that," McKinley said. Moving it now is unambiguously too soon and lacks anywhere near enough evidence. Turnagra (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it’s fair to say that it is solely the AP. I think this was meant as an example of a reliable source. And this is the AP’s style guide, not just the AP itself, so other users of the style guide will be aligning with it.
    As I’ve pointed out before, Apple Maps lists Mount McKinley. I am not sure if this is considered a reliable source for geographic names by Wikipedia’s standards. anikom15 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, usage will be all over the place and moving it so soon is irresponsible. We need to wait until a clear usage pattern is visible. Turnagra (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I don’t see any reason to ‘wait until a clear usage pattern’ as common sense per NAMECHANGES applies here: the name change has occurred, and reliable sources show that. anikom15 (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all reliable sources. We can't pick and choose just to fit whichever name we want. Turnagra (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The change is in an executive order and is required to be changed. If the name changes again then the title can reflect that, but the US government has changed the name so it must be changed here. 47.205.110.42 (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Ngrams, it is impossible to separate usage of "Denali" as the name of this mountain from use of "Denali" as a short form of the name of Denali National Park (or the name of an SUV made by GMC), and the names of national parks generally appear in the English language corpus at a much higher frequency than the names of mountains. There are some comments (by myself and others) elsewhere on this talk page addressing this subject in detail. Jbt89 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I concur that we should let the dust settle. The official Alaska state website shows no sign of the name change, and following a link I got this: [3]. PatGallacher (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: premature to declare a change in the common name so early on when it's bound to be disputed (even by members of Trump's own party). Sceptre (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is the official name of the mountain. Unofficial and old names can also be included in the article but we should use the official name. BrendonJH (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as premature. WP:NAMECHANGES says If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above at § Use commonly recognizable names. From my search of current news stories, they primarily call it "Denali", e.g. [4][5] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Now the official name in the US, and this is a US state. The last move from McKinley to Denali in 2015 (by an administrator) was within a day of the official 2015 name change and a large RM ensued. It was closed (again by an administrator) as "consensus is very clearly in support of keeping the article at its new name in spite of the procedural concerns." We can't be hypocritical with the procedure now that the government of the US has moved it back to McKinley. What kind of trust with the system would that give our Wikipedia editors? I'll tell you, they'll think administration can fudge the rules to whatever they like. Well, I think overall our administrators are very fair and work hard to keep things on the straight and narrow. They almost always get a thumbs up from me, which is why I didn't complain last name change. In fact I worked with others to get the lead sentence as best we could. Mapping programs seem to be changing the name back to McKinley as we speak here. News organizations such as AP seem to be doing the same. The lead should also be changed to "Mount McKinley (also known as Denali, its former official name)" to keep it in line with what we have had for 9+ years. That had worked well. This isn't like the Burma/Myanmar edit conflict where the US still calls it Burma. This is a name change by the United States for something in the United States. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The state in which the mountain is located still officially uses “Denali,” as it has for 50 years. Only the federal government has changed its references. 2605:A601:AC6E:7000:193:8878:BB43:552D (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The state in which the mountain is located still officially uses “Denali,” as it has for 50 years. Only the federal government has changed its references. Bishop2 (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's the official name now. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; Wikipedia policy is to use the WP:COMMONNAME not the official name. There is no indication that the new official name has become the most commonly used one all of a sudden (one AP article is far from conclusive), and in any case it is way too soon to tell.  novov talk edits 02:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That argument was thrown out last time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the best course of action, like in the Mount Everest article, would be something like: "Mount McKinley (also commonly referred to as Denali, its official name from 2015-2025) is the highest mountain peak in North America." The wording of the lede gets very confusing as the official name went from McKinley (1917 to 2015), to Denali (2015 to 2025), and now back to McKinley (2025). I guess it all goes back to which name is more iconic; Denali or Mount McKinley? If Mount Everest's official name was changed to Sagarmatha, I'd strongly oppose that name change on Wikipedia as Mount Everest is perhaps the most iconic mountain name in the world. Denali vs McKinley is a fuzzier debate as both names of this major mountain are used roughly equally, but in my opinion McKinley being the federal name tips the scales slightly in favor of McKinley as sources will begin to adopt the federal government's decision. Whereas if this was Everest, no matter how much the Nepalese government pushed the world to call the mountain Sagarmatha, the effort would be futile as the name "Mount Everest" is so ingrained in popular culture. The tricky thing with Denali vs McKinley is that although the names are roughly equally used, many politicians and citizens are opposed to the name change, while others support it. So does the federal government hold more weight, or does the opinion of the people/sources hold more weight? I guess we'll have to wait and see what multiple sources say over the coming weeks. I'm still leaning with Mount McKinley over Denali though as both names are well-known. It's not like Mount McKinley is some obscure name like Mount Godwin-Austen, a name barely used, is for K2. Prior to 2015 the mountain was widely referred to as Mount McKinley, but then after 2015 Denali became used more commonly. Now that Mt. McKinley is the official name people will begin to use it again more frequently. I will say that the Clingmans Dome article was quickly changed to Kuwohi after the official name change, so what makes Denali any different? More well-known, yes, but the federal government holds a lot of power in influencing the common name. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth mentioning that the Wikipedia article used to be called Mount McKinley before 2015. We changed it to Denali in 2015 after the federal government renamed the mountain. It would seem inconsistent that we change the name then, but not now. Mount McKinley therefore used to be the common name and in theory will become the common name again. I will point back to that Clingmans Dome example as well. This second name change is no different than the first one or the Clingmans name change to Kuwohi. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    in theory will become the common name again then we wait until it has, we don't gaze into our WP:CRYSTALBALL. I haven't looked into the previous move enough to know whether it was proper process, but that has no bearing on the current situation and doesn't mean we should ignore our PAG now. Turnagra (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: "Mount McKinley" is a 'common name' by every definition of the word, as per the above discussions, and if its going to be the official name of the mountain, it should be given precedence as the article's title. The article was named Mount McKinley before 2015 for that reason. Also, so far, the Associated Press and the Oklahoma Department of Education have both announced that they will be using "Mount McKinley". Derpytoucan (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Offensive as it is, we are required to maintain WP:NPOV and "Mount McKinley" has been designated as the official name of the mountain and the Associated Press decision to use it is strongly indicative of WP:COMMONNAME. Elixiri (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absolutely not. The common name is Denali. The article can have a paragraph about how one country has decided to change the name. It's the English language Wikipedia, not the American Government Wikipedia. Andrew Englehart (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The common name is Denali" is untrue, this has been discussed at length in the above sections. Derpytoucan (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is the assertion that McKinley is the common name been proven. Theofunny (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been made pretty clear that both are common names. If "McKinley" is the name that the government and Associated Press are going to use, it should be given precedence as the title. Derpytoucan (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this mountain resides solely in the United States. Other English speaking countries probably change the name on their maps when the United States does. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The state in which the mountain is located still officially uses “Denali,” as it has for 50 years. Only the federal government has changed its reference. In truth, the article should not be dependent upon federal government nomenclature instead of the name used in-state by actual residents and vistors; ergo, it should never have been called “Mount McKinley” on Wikpedia. Using “Denali” exclusively in-state has been the policy since before Wikipedia was founded. Bishop2 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Can you image if the Federal Government went around changing the names of mountains, lakes, rivers, etc. at a whim? The names of these resources were decided long ago and by the local residents / governments. The Federal Government is completely out a line, the name Denali shoould be retained with perhaps an explanation as to the Federal effort to change the, hopefully with the rational behind such an effort included. 2601:C9:4000:5630:F49C:F118:3C79:1B64 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The criteria we had for it when it was officially classified as Denali by the U.S. Federal government is the same criteria we should use to name it back to Mount McKinley. If it is eventually renamed back to Denali by the Federal government I will also support the name change again. Historyguy1138 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is just another ploy by the Trump administration to create more division and hate in this country. Keeping the article as is is a form of rebellion and standing our ground. Just because Trump is running the show now doesn't mean we have to tolerate his new policies. This IS still a democracy after all. Keep it as Denali. FrozenIcicle (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, your political opinion is not a reason to oppose the name change. While we all have political biases on both sides (for vs against the name change), we should do our best to remain politically neutral and do what's best for the encyclopedia and our readers. Our policies and guidelines are what govern this site, not political views (be it a liberal or conservative standpoint). We are an encyclopedia. While you can probably tell what my stance is on the matter from my responses, we should all do our best to keep politics out of this argument. Again, I think the best compromise to appease all sides is to keep article name Denali and change infobox to Mt. McKinley. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It seems too soon to rename to Mt. MicKinley, as well as WP:COMMONNAME possibly. Mainly reasons stated above (@3OpenEyes's IP) 74.104.160.163 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC) Support It's clear cut that to follow WP:NAMECHANGES: Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match, the article needs to be renamed as Mount McKinley.[reply]

You can hardly get a better sense of what is more routine across "independent, reliable, English-language sources" than the AP stylebook, which hundreds, if not thousands of English-language RS follow, including the majority of newsrooms in the United States. The Associated Press will use the official name change to Mount McKinley... The AP Stylebook will be updated to reflect both decisions. (AP) KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose , Common people of Alaska including Democrats and most Republicans continue to call it Denali and used the word Denali even before Obama renamed it according to the source. Denali: Why is Donald Trump renaming cherished Alaska peak ‘Mount McKinley’? Theofunny (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/climate/denali-mckinley-alaska-trump.html Theofunny (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn’t cater to a specific region or populace. Regardless, the mountain is on Federal land, so Alaskans don’t have any claim to name it anyway. anikom15 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Federal vs. state land is completely irrelevant to this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support :Reason: Multiple Reliable sources (including AP) already are already referring it as McKinley. The name was changed immediately in 2015 despite the name being rather niche at that time. The name McKinley is far from new name too. The only arguments in opposition to changing the article name are based on sentiment on how they think it should be named. Not how it is named on various credible and legal sources Otterstone (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose For the reasons set out by Turnagra. Too soon. Rafts of Calm (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This page was moved to Denali almost instantaneously once Obama declared that to be the name. I see no reason not to follow that precedent now. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WereWolf (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Denali is what many people still recognize as the name of the mountain. The title should stay as Denali Gstaveeiffel314 (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The content of Wikipedia shouldn't reflect political stunts. If content can change at the whim of a politician then that seriously undermines readers' ability to trust Wikipedia. Harimau777 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRYSTAL. This move request is premature and entirely based on a political maneuver that likely is not going to affect the common nomenclature of the mountain. Its status among governmental figures is not relevant to the article's name. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the above discussions, it's been made clear that both are common names. If "McKinley" is the name that the government and Associated Press are going to use, it should be given precedence as the title. Derpytoucan (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the majority of reliable sources going to follow the federal government and the Associated Press? Is every publication that adopts the AP stylebook going to discard Denali completely? It's too soon to tell, and we shouldn't react on the spur of the moment. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times is the goalpost of "well not ALL RS call it McKinley" going to be moved over the next four years? There's already a precedent that's been set when the article was renamed in 2015. If McKinley is a common name, and its the name that the federal government and Associated Press are going to be using, it should be the article's title.
    I'm fine with waiting until the Secretary of the Interior has actually made the name change official, and perhaps seeing how other RS call the mountain when reporting on that event, but implying that we need to wait any longer to rename the article is absurd, especially given the aforementioned instant renaming in 2015.Derpytoucan (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see this as bludgeoning. @Derpytoucan makes a good point. anikom15 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We do not change titles because of political whims. Sources call the mountain Denali. It took us 29 years for source usage to change enough for us to change change Kiev to Kyiv – so no need to rush here. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 15:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Fyunck(click)'s argument - we're not choosing the name of the mountain. Qoiuoiuoiu (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRYSTAL - there's solid evidence that by far the most commonly used name for at least the last 50 years is Denali, and we can afford to wait some time to see if that actually changes, or if it's a flash-in-the-pan political stunt. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "There's solid evidence that by far the most commonly used name for at least the last 50 years is Denali," is an untrue statement that has been proven wrong several times in the above discussions; I'm not sure why you keep repeating it and then running away from the thread every time someone debunks it.
    Both are common names (as per above), and McKinley should be given precedence as the article's title if it's going to be the mountain's official name. Derpytoucan (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have presented no evidence that "McKinley" is at all the common name in 2025, and while the Ngram evidence is imperfect, it is at least some sort of systematic evidence that it is not. We are not going to agree on this matter, so there's no sense in you rehashing this argument on every single !vote. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Ngram evidence itself provides unambiguous evidence that "Mt. McKinley" is in common use. As we discussed earlier, Pikes Peak, Mt. Whitney, Mt. Elbrus, Aconcagua, etc., the undisputed common names for mountains comparable in many respects to this one, appear even in sources from the last decade at approximately the same frequency as "Mt. McKinley" does.
    Further, it is impossible on the basis of Ngram results to assign either Denali or Mt. McKinley as the single, definitive common name of this mountain. While it is true that Ngram searches uncover many more hits for "Denali" than "Mt. McKinley," but it is impossible to say how many of the extra hits for "Denali" are in reference to the national park or the GMC Denali. Interested readers: ctrl+f for Ngrams, you'll find extensive discussion on this topic earlier on this page. Jbt89 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is evidence through the Google Books Ngram Viewer that "Denali" has been used more commonly since at least the 1970s. [6]. While the results are not perfect, all of the ones I have done show that the usage of "Mount McKinley" has declined in recent decades. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See above discussions, the Ngram viewer data isn't rigorous enough evidence that "Denali" is the most commonly used name. Derpytoucan (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still better than nothing. I don't see any attempts above to prove that McKinley is the common name. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the above discussions, there's evidence that McKinley is a common name. Both are, it's not an either-or. If McKinley is going to be the official name, and the one used by reliable sources such as the Associated Press, it should be given precedence as the article's title. The article's title was changed instantly in 2015 for that very reason. Derpytoucan (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This point has been addressed by myself and others elsewhere on this talk page; ctrl+f for Ngrams and you'll find the discussion. In brief: the name "Mt. McKinley" appears in sources written in the last decade at a comparable frequency to that of comparable mountains: Pikes Peak, Elbrus, Mt. Whitney, Aconcagua, etc. Denali appears at a much higher frequency, but it is not possible to determine what fraction of the hits for Denali are references to the mountain and what fraction refer to Denali National Park, the GMC Denali, or other uses, while "Mt. McKinley" is relatively unambiguous. Jbt89 (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose per Theofunny EricXXue (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME specifically WP:OFFICIALblindlynx 17:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Surely no individual has the authority to change the name of a mountain by decree on a whim. To the best of my knowledge, there is consensus among geographers that favours native names. Viewfinder (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose can we just... give it a beat and wait for the name to propagate among reliable sources before we jump? Mount McKinley redirects here, no big deal to leave it for a little while to see if the new name will stick in common usage. (WP:COMMONNAME) RachelTensions (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Associated Press, which is about as reliable as you can get, has already announced they're using McKinley. It's worth noting that a lot of student newspapers and such follow AP Style. Derpytoucan (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And a lot of student newspapers aren't what one would call reliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Student newspapers, especially college newspapers, are frequently cited on Wikipedia, perhaps not on topics like this one, but they are nonetheless. It would count as a common use of McKinley. Derpytoucan (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We don't follow the recommendation of any one style guide. The invocation of WP:NAMECHANGES misses the point: it is simply too soon to have a representative sample of "reliable sources written after the change" in order to tell whether they "routinely use the new name" (emphasis added). A few days do not a routine make. Moreover, Harrimau777 is correct. XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't call the United States Declaration of Independence "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"; we aren't moving Washington, D.C. to "District of Columbia". Likewise, we're not about to rename the article Virginia to "Commonwealth of Virginia". XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Regardless of our feelings about the name change or the man behind it, it's our solemn (sometimes tedious) duty to report the facts of reality, and this is the official name. Ignoring that would lead to a problem where everyone could rename stuff on Wikipedia.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
    This presumes that the "official name" used by one entity should be the article title. That ignores the basic point of the WP:COMMONNAME policy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's a name so common they had to officially change to top-down force the issue! I remember being told about Mt. McKinley for years in school before the change was made. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I remember hearing it called Denali for years before the official change, including by Alaskans. So what? XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just pointing out that Mt. McKinley was always a common name. If we have two common names, and one's official, let's use the official one. That's a good tie breaker on this issue! Unless we just want to say "Wikipedia ignores realities we don't like!" MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A "tie breaker" that flip-flops politically is not a good "tie breaker" for an encyclopedia. We could equally well break the "tie" by saying that the name with a longer historical pedigree should take precedence, which would favor Denali. We could also break the "tie" by going with the preference of the local population, which by all indications would also favor Denali. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, let's rename the USA "Turtle Island." It's an old Native name! In fact, any name in North or South America with English or Spanish origins should be immediately replace with Indigenous names! But you would never do that because that would this site unusable! MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no "tie" to be broken when it comes to naming the United States. My point was that many possible "tie breakers" exist, and even granting the premise that a "tie" really does exist here, different "tie breakers" will give different answers. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    America is certainly a more common name for the United States, but we use the United States instead. Sometimes there do have to be practical concessions beyond using the direct common name. anikom15 (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you implying by "tie-breaker that flip-flops politically"? Can I ask why assuming that reliable sources will start calling it McKinley is violating WP:CRYSTAL, but assuming that a hypothetical future President is going to change it back to "Denali" isn't? Seems like a ridiculous double standard. Derpytoucan (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We've got clear evidence through the ngrams and other historical use that Denali is far and away a more common name, and no evidence to the contrary has thus far been presented. Turnagra (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of evidence has been presented to debunk the claim that "Denali" is "far and away a more common name," please see the above discussions. Derpytoucan (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read this entire talk page and I don't see anything remotely convincing enough to do what you're suggesting. Turnagra (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Mount McKinley/Mt. McKinley" occurs at about the same frequency as the names of other mountains. "Denali" is only higher because its used as a shorthand for the national park, not to mention all the links to sources that call the mountain McKinley (of which there are far more that weren't linked).
    At best, the claim that "Denali" is "far and away a more common name," doesn't have rigorous enough evidence to support it, and at worst, the claim is purely wrong. The most likely conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is that both are common names. We should therefore give precedence to the official name, just like what was done in 2015. Derpytoucan (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ctrl+f this talk page for "Ngrams" and you'll find extensive discussion by myself and others on this topic. Long story short Mt. McKinley appears at a comparable frequency to comparable mountains in the English language corpus. Denali appears at a much higher frequency, but the names of national parks generally appear at a much higher frequency than the names of mountains, and it is not possible to the use of Denali as a reference to the national park (or the GMC Denali) from use of Denali as the name of a mountain using only simple search strings. Jbt89 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as premature. We go by what the majority of reliable sources use as a commin name, and it is simply too soon to make the call that this has happened. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 20:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree it's premature. Does anyone know what sort of moratorium is typical? 3 months? 6 months? There's going to be plenty of articles published about this and after that point it'll be easy to pick out which one shows up more than 50.1% of the time. Wizmut (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should wait until the Secretary of the Interior makes the name change official and see how WP:RS refer to the mountain when reporting on that story, which should happen within a month as per the President's executive order. Waiting any longer would be pointless. Derpytoucan (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The SOI already made the change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually we don't, and the proof is in what we did when it changed to Denali. It was moved ONLY because Obama changed the name.... against the common name. What this does show is the average politics of the Wikipedia editor since we have the exact same set of circumstance as in 2015. President Obama changes the name from McKinley to Denali... instant change by consensus to Denali at Wikipedia (against the common name). President Trump changes the name from Denali to McKinley... consensus to keep at Denali and to wait perhaps years for the common name to change. It couldn't be plainer than the nose on my face. This is the type of hypocrisy that is so unfair with Wikipedia. It's the type of thing that stops teachers from allowing students the usage of Wikipedia articles; that the whole input of an article is based on variable, day-to-day, politically-influenced rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It's not even just political (although that is by far the biggest problem). We used to have an article on "Among Us chicken nugget," and it took me a surprising amount of effort to get it removed as un-encyclopedic because several people wanted to keep it (...because they thought it was funny). Just a blatant violation of what are supposed to be guidelines.
    Watch out though, I've been editing Wikipedia for far less time than you have and yet I've had Big Brother leave warnings on my talk page multiple times for pointing out this obvious reality. Derpytoucan (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't often get an exact copy as a do-over 10 years later. This item really shows what is wrong here and what influences decisions. I can live with whatever the choice is, but there is no doubt why the outcomes are so hypocritical. It's very disappointing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Other that the obvious issue of how nobody wanted to wait in 2015, I've noticed how many who oppose the move just seem to be repeating talking points that have already been proven wrong (or otherwise not rigorous enough to be stated as facts). They are either not reading the discussions, or just don't care and are purposefully stating things they know to be untrue. Shows a tremendous lack of integrity coming from that side of the debate. Derpytoucan (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe I have to explain this, but "we did it wrong last time" is not a compelling argument to do the same thing again. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You personally may say that, but I don't think anyone else agrees with you. They had 10 years to fix it and they didn't. As far as Wikipedia cares, they got it right last time. As far as people looking over the record, they will forever see how the two moves are hypocritical. And not just how it was closed...how editors here are opposing or supporting these two pretty much identical RMs. It's horrible and makes Wikipedia look small, but not really surprising. We have at least two administrators arguing right now not to change it because it's too soon who were instrumental in changing it from McKinley to Denali last time in 24 hours. I have no doubt that if in one year most sources change to MvKinley those administrators may still argue not to change it. And even if it does, if in four years the next administration changes it back I also have no doubt that another RM will result in it's moving instantly to Denali. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignored the rest of my comment award. Derpytoucan (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more of a response to the entire subthread. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's the official name, and last time the US administration decided to change the name, we changed it too. The.valiant.paladin (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. It's simply too soon to see if majority usage will shift to the McKinley name per WP:NAMECHANGES and there appears to be evidence that Denali is the more common name these days as others have pointed out. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence that Denali is the "more common name" is not rigorous enough, and there is also sufficient evidence that McKinley is a common name as well, as per the above discussions. Derpytoucan (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should do whatever will avoid situations like Talk:Kyiv/naming Wizmut (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as overdue, one could even say - It was changed to Mount Denali on 21:50 UTC on the 30th of August 2015, the same day that the Obama administration announced the name change. Right now, it's been entire five days since Trump's executive order and two since the DOI officially changed it. Maybe there aren't many sources using the new/old (?) name as of now, but I have no doubt that it's just a matter of time. Halny Hetman (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now My understanding is name changes take some time to go into effect. I could be wrong. Also, we don’t even have a Interior Secretary yet. Additionally, I don’t yet see any news articles yet talking about Mt McKinley or Denali outside of the name changes - though Associated Press statement is very notable. All this being said - no reason to edit the article to willfully mislead that this name change is not official. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is reasonable. Generally speaking I approve the name change if the Federal government renames it as that was what happened during the last name changed. But yes we can do it, but delay to confirm everything and make sure all our sources are airtight. Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d prefer if we all just troll the orange man so Denali for me 2601:43:200:7680:C009:F59:B401:F169 (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Friend every single editor is supposed to be unbiased in his/her editing, and do our best to make sure no one knows our political, religious, or idealogical beliefs. The readers should be allowed to get the sources they think and see for themselves.
    Just for an example in this case. If the Federal government votes to rename Denali back to Denali or McKinley back to McKinley after that. I would support it becoming it no matter which way the tide turns.
    It's not about any Politican such as the "orange man" we are supposed to help our readers. And we should not troll anyone regardless if said person deserves it or not, because we need to be professional for our readers. Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure what you mean. The DOI already confirmed implementing the change. The new SOI does not need to be confirmed for the department to implement executive orders. anikom15 (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sorry, but WP:COMMONNAME, official or not. EF5 01:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Mount McKinley" is a WP:COMMONNAME as per the above discussions. Derpytoucan (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What "above discussion"? Either way, an informal discussion on the matter isn't changing my mind. EF5 01:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that plenty of RS have referred to the mountain as McKinley in the near-past, the fact that so far, the Associated Press and Oklahoma Department of Education will refer to the mountain as McKinley, and the fact that the Ngram data shows "Mount McKinley/Mt. McKinley" appears at the same frequency as other mountains such as "Mount Whitney" or "Mount Hood," all prove that that McKinley is a common name.
Whether you change your mind or not doesn't matter, but since Mount McKinley is a "common name" by every definition of the term, your reasoning for not changing the title is effectively null. Derpytoucan (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPS still calls it Denali, so my reasoning is not "effectively null". EF5 01:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a clearly webpage that clearly hasn't been updated doesn't prove your point at all. I suspect that page will be updated or taken down in the near future. Derpytoucan (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. You're just speculating that they haven't updated it yet. I also suggest you stop WP:BADGERING oppose votes with a COMMONNAME rationale. EF5 01:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions the 2015 renaming but not the 2025 one. If you're capable of reasoning, it should be obvious that it hasn't been updated.
Also, if you want to participate in a discussion, your reasoning should be based on facts and evidence. If your reasoning is not based on fact and evidence (ex: "Denali is the WP:COMMONNAME"), I have every right to call that out. Maybe your side should come up with better arguments. Derpytoucan (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no longer engaging here, as I've learned time and time again on these issues that some things aren't worth arguing endlessly over. Seriously though, quit the badgering. Rationales you disagree with give you zero right to badger, hopefully you know that. EF5 02:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. If you say something categorically untrue, I have a right to "badger" and call you out. Derpytoucan (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You absolutely do not, I can bet a week-long self-block on it. I'll continue at the ANI thread, so avoid cluttering this. EF5 02:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABSOLUTE, CATEGORICAL OPPOSE: WP:COMMONNAME is Denali, not Mount McKinley. We don't give a flying f*** what the Department of the Interior calls it, respectfully. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. See above. Mount McKinley is a WP:COMMONNAME. Derpytoucan (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As is Denali. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this thread. You've had your say. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then block me from the talk page. I'm not going to stop standing up for the truth. Derpytoucan (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to read WP:RGW. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Derpytoucan: you really need to calm down and stop the bludgeoning. Daring admins to block you is rarely, if ever, a winning strategy. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 05:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in 'winning', I'm interested in the facts. At the end of the day, the mountain will be called McKinley regardless of what it says on here.
    This case is even more obvious than that of Kevin McCarthy. It took like three discussions over the course of nearly a year before his article was finally moved from "Kevin McCarthy (California politician)" to just "Kevin McCarthy" because Wikipedians didn't think he deserved to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because, of course, he was a Republican and a Trump ally. In this case, "Mount McKinley" is literally the mountain's name and it isn't a matter of opinion. Derpytoucan (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. Keep it as Denali. FrozenIcicle (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per many comments above. Premature at best, WP:COMMONNAME, etc. Additionally, by convention, Wikipedia gives added weight to endonyms over exonyms. Grayfell (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - • SbmeirowTalk02:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait or Weak Support - If this is closed as no consensus (which it probably will be), the closer should indicate little prejudice against reconsideration later on. There are good arguments for both sides. For the change side they got: Mount McKinley is the official name, the AP recognizes the change, and there is precedent to have it as the official name (as it was changed in 2015 to Denali). On the keep side they got a WP:COMMONNAME argument, which is a valid one since little sourcing is available yet to see what reliable independent sources are calling it, but this is weakened by the AP recognition of Mount McKinley. If sources keeping calling it Denali then it should be Denali because there is no mandate per se to have the title as the official, government name. Right now, I think there is probably better evidence/arguments to change it, but it will be more clear in the coming months once more sources are out. R. G. Checkers talk 03:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would be useful to keep track of RS’s that use Denali or McKinley after AP statement. Also perhaps mapping applications. So far Apple has McKinley while Bing shows Denali. anikom15 (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anikom15: as noted above, what you find on Apple Maps doesn't seem to be what others have found. For me, if I search for Mount McKinley it shows as Mount McKinley. If I search for Denali it shows Denali. But the default seems to be Denali [7]. Perhaps if you keep searching for Mount McKinley it eventually defaults to that or it does it in Oklahoma or Ohio or something, I don't know. Note I tried to link to my search results, but they don't work properly, it loses the Mount McKinley search. In fact it changes the search term from Mount McKinley to Denali including in the URI which is a little weird but shows it definitely doesn't prefer Mount McKinley for me. Note it's the same in a private browser window suggest it's not a cookie thing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Who are we, to argue with the US Interior Department. GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, we argue when Trump and his minions are the ones signing these orders and taking this nation back 50+ years. FrozenIcicle (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you like Trump or not, Mt. McKinley is the official name at the federal level. Wikipedia does nor should not "argue" for or against anything. We are an encyclopedia and our ultimate goal is, through using reliable, independent sources, making the article as understandable as possible for the readers with reliable sources that are out there. While I lean more towards changing the article's title to Mt. McKinley, I think the best course of action to appease all sides is to keep the article name Denali (common name) but change the infobox to Mt. McKinley (official name, also commonly used by many Americans especially now that it is the name at the federal level). KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah? Then by that logic, why is the article for Turkey not Türkiye yet? Same with Czechia being Czech Republic? (though in the latter case I'm actually pleased because I hate saying "Czechia") FrozenIcicle (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a single name for Turkey in common usage in English, namely Turkey. Absolutely nobody outside of select official contexts uses "Türkiye." Heck, the English alphabet doesn't even contain all the letters needed to write "Türkiye."
    Mt. McKinley, on the other hand, is and for over a century has been in common use, just like Denali. Much harder to definitely assign a single WP:COMMONNAME here. Jbt89 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per others, Common Name, etc... X is still Twitter, after all. Zaathras (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is too soon to determine what the common name will be in the future. Patience is a virtue. Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Indigenous Alaskans and local politicians reportedly haven't embraced the name change, and I think considering the controversy around the names we should stick with the status quo for now. We can always reconsider if that changes in the future. FallingGravity 05:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's the official name, reliable sources are beginning to line up with the name change. This is a clear cut case. I suspect the majority of the opposes are for personal political reasons which is against WP:NPOV. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Articles do not have to be changed to go by the government name. They are allowed to go by the common name and the cultural name, which is Denali. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, many articles in Wikipedia do not follow WP:OFFICIALNAME (e.g. Turkey and Twitter). Also, renaming Denali to Mount McKinley violates WP:CONCISE Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 06:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While AP will recommend its writers use Mount McKinley, other sources state they will keep using Denali (click). That there is an offical rename in the US is important, but the other name with widespread use is also important because it is the recognized local Athabaskan name too. Both names have historical, cultural, and political significance. I don't see the case for moving it from one to the other.Iesbian (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for being the first person in a while to actually bring something new to the discussion instead of just repeating the same lie over and over. Regardless, yes, the mountaineering community has called it "Denali" for a while now, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the name that the majority of people use. Derpytoucan (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing people of lying is a fairly serious personal attack. I suggest you don't repeat it without some serious evidence. Kahastok talk 11:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support - official name change was considered when they changed it to Denali. Just because you don't like Trump and are left leaning doesn't mean you can ignore the name change. Geographical locations change names a lot. The Chunnel is known as English Channel and La Manche, right? Nobody is crying over that. McKinley is in USA and their president and their department decided to change the name as is their right. You shall keep the information that Denali was a name for several years and that it's the name in the local language Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Chunnel is known as English Channel and La Manche, right? Wrong. The Channel Tunnel is never called either the English Channel or La Manche. Kahastok talk 11:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think a mistake was made in 2015 by moving it so fast. It's possible that it was already the common name and the official name change was what made people finally realise this. However from my look at the old discussion, it doesn't seem that this was established at the time of the move. But nearly 10 years later, it's too late to try and fix that. I'm not seeing that much good evidence Mount McKinley is the common name. While the evidence for Denali isn't as strong as I'd like, it's stronger than for Mount McKinley. The AP thing is interesting but while the AP Style Guideline is influential, it remains to be seen how this will affect other publication. It's reasonable to re-assess in 1-2 years when things have settled down. As for the claim if there are two "common names" we go with the official one, there's no policy or guideline to support this. I'd actually like there to be and I've said something similar in the past. But while our policy and guideline pages are supposed to describe common practice rather than dictate it, the reality is if you want to make something like that common practice you need to start by proposing a change somewhere to our policy and guidelines rather than start in this one case. If you do that, I'd likely support it although you would need to consider how we deal with stuff like governments with limited recognition (e.g. Afghanistan) as well as disputes between various levels of government. Doing it here in this one instance isn't likely to achieve anything other than make it happen in this one instance. In fact those pointing to 2015 are sort of proving the point. Despite that being so long ago, there's still nothing in our policies or guidelines to support it. While I don't participate in that many of these discussions any more, I've participated in some and read more; and anyone suggesting anything like this in Myanmar, Timor-Leste, Côte d'Ivoire, Türkiye, Kyiv; as well as the numerous place and geographical names in New Zealand and Australia generally get short shrift. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting any of those are common names. But rather even if someone argues they are and therefore we should go by the official name, their argument is rejected not simply because people reject that the name is a common name, but because people reject any preference for official names.) As with a lot of things on wikipedia, the tie-breaker when there is no agreement on which is the common name (not a common name) is ultimately generally the status quo ante. Which means either the first contributor's preference or the last title to get consensus. (Sometimes it can mean a title change without discussion that no one really noticed that lasted long enough that it's too late to correct which I always feel is unfortunate but for various reasons tends to be still the least disruptive outcome.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I do not view the process from 2015 as necessarily correct in terms of policy (unless Denali was already the common name by that stage) and I note that that RM was poorly attended and at points openly political. There is no preference given to official names, so the argument that they are both common but we should switch to the official one is not correct. The two key points for me are (1) that Denali is clearly preferred in Alaska, and that in case of difference WP:ENGVAR might reasonably be held to suggest we should prefer Alaska English over generic US English, and (2) that in the absence of a good policy reason to move we shouldn't push through the disruption of a move (noting that, whatever concerns we might have about the RM move to Denali, it has been stable for nearly ten years). If in a few months, when the dust has settled, the sources are all using Mount McKinley, we are allowed to reconsider. Kahastok talk 11:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ENGVAR refers specifically to national varieties of English, not local varieties. While local names are sometimes the only names around so they wind up also being the nationally-prevalent name by default, that's not the case here. Jbt89 (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too soon to determine whether the official name change will become the common name. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeWP:RECENTISM, overall the common name has been and continues to be Denali. We don't abide (nor have we ever) by the style guidelines of an external publication. It's the WP:COMMONNAME in mountaineering, it's the common name in Alaska, it's basically neck-and-neck in the broader US, and it's Denali to the rest of the world. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe we could change the infobox to Mount McKinley. If you look at the Twitter article, Twitter is still the article name but X is the infobox's name.KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed this above. Of course, we can't do that either because Orange Man Bad or something. Derpytoucan (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can. If we did it for X / Twitter, we can do it for Denali / Mount McKinley. If the consensus is to keep Denali as the article title, I respect that, but geographical infoboxes should represent the official name of the mountain at the federal level. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then Denali could be mentioned as an alternative name right below Mount McKinley in the infobox. Just reverse what the article currently is. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The United States officially renamed Denali to Mount McKinley. It should just be switched as per above. WereWolf (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody made an edit request for this and it was closed due to lacking RSs. The edit request should be reopened. anikom15 (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. You want major newspaper articles clearly stating in the headline that Denali really is the common name? Ok, here's one from today: Thiessen, Mark (January 26, 2025). "Alaskans say Trump can change Denali's name but can't make people call it Mt. McKinley". Los Angeles Times.David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this actually is not a political issue up here. Alaskans of all political persuasions call it Denali, and have for quite some time, well before the last "official" renaming. If there is one thing Alaskans truly despise, it is outsiders telling us what to do in our state. Doesn't matter who they are. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The argument is WP:OFFICIALNAME, with no evidence of WP:NAMECHANGES, the AP is just one source. While Ngrams used above is for Denali. Wait until other sources follow. While the original discussion was imperfect, doesn't mean we should repeat it. But expect another discussion in a few months time. DankJae 21:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ngrams cannot separate the use of "Denali" to refer to the mountain from the use of Denali to refer to other things (notably the national park and the GMC Denali) named "Denali." Further, Mt. McKinley appears at a similar frequency to Pikes Peak, Aconcagua, Mt. Whitney, etc. on Ngrams. Ctrl+f Ngrams and you'll find important discussion by myself and others of this topic elsewhere on this talk page; the Ngrams evidence is much more ambiguous than it first appears. Jbt89 (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL. Give it some six months and if by then the common name becomes McKinley then change it. Article titles on wikipedia are not based solely on the official name of toponyms, especially in this case since there seems to be bipartisan consensus in Alaska for the name Denali. Regardless of the EO, the name should stay at least until WP:RS start calling it McKinley. SigillumVert (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. --Tataral (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pause per @Patar knight and @TruthByAnonymousConsensus and the fact that @Beeblebrox and @Derpytoucan still have to prove their points. Also Pause per @DankJae. We should also try to incorporate these 5 goals in WP:COMMONNAME below.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
    • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
    • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
    • Concision – The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
    • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It seems the issue here is the 1st one, from what I see. But the question is:
    What do you see? 2601:483:400:1CD0:4F19:2F59:ED54:E088 (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there are two names in common usage for this mountain, Denali and Mt. McKinley. This was the case for more than a century prior to the US government's (and Wikipedia's) choice to change its preferred name from Mt. McKinley to Denali in 2015, it has been the case from 2015 to the present, and every indication is that it will continue to be the case for many years to come. In the absence of a clear signal either way from colloquial usage, it makes sense to follow the naming convention used in official sources, just as the AP has chosen to do. Jbt89 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is too soon. The common name is "Denali", similar to Twitter's official name being "X" or the Gulf of Mexico being recently renamed the "Gulf of America" - by Trump, apparently. Let the dust settle and perhaps we may revisit this in a year. BOTTO (TC) 02:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support – Unlike my numerous comments over on Gulf of Mexico/America, I’m going to support this move request because unlike the Gulf which sits on international waters; Trump does have the authority to rename Denali since it is solely under US jurisdiction. The AP also said that it would use the McKinley name. Now the reason why this is only a weak support is because while the McKinley name will probably get a lot of traction internationally; I don’t think it will get a lot of local use. The move that Trump made about the rename appears to have made a lot of Alaskans mad, at least according to news sources. And I imagine that most locals will probably refer to it using the old name. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding suggestive name change

[edit]
incorrect premise, no need to keep this section open. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, each state determines the names of landmarks or other geographical features within their boundaries. Thus, Trump has no authority to rename Denali, only the Alaskan state government can do so. 76.170.147.28 (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you guys lie? Derpytoucan (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article: United_States_Board_on_Geographic_Names. It is clear that, in the USA, they are the controlling authority. Gam3 (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"officially known"?

[edit]

The lead says "officially known as Mount McKinley", implying that Denali is not official, but then mentions that the United States Department of the Interior name change happened "40 years after Alaska had done so." The "Naming" section explains that its official name under Alaska law is actually Denali and has been since 1975.

It therefore appears to be incorrect and inappropriate to present the Department of the Interior name as its only "official name" when the official name in Alaska, where it is located, is still Denali under Alaska state law. At best, we can say its official name is disputed or clarify that Denali is the Alaska official name. --Tataral (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have always gone by the United States govt "official" name, not a US state. It is not disputed. Just as for ten years we had "Denali, also known as Mount McKinley, its former official name." Why would we change what has worked for a decade? It took a lot of effort to agree on that wording 10 years ago and we should stick with something similar if it doesn't change back to Mount McKinley. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute is pretty clear about the name being disputed. The lead should reflect the disputed nature of the name, not imply that "Mount McKinley" is its only or undisputed official name. --Tataral (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what the heck, lets simply get rid of all traces of Mount McKinley and move on. This is really getting silly with this double-standard. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think most content about the never-ending dispute probably ought to be at Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The Denali/McKinley article should be on the mountain, not the naming dispute. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we should still briefly touch on the naming dispute in the mountain article, but shorten the naming section and move a lot of that content over to the naming dispute article. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's officially Mount McKinley at the federal level and Denali at the state level. So calling it "previously known" as Mount McKinley is inaccurate. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]