Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climbing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climbing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ClimbingWikipedia:WikiProject ClimbingTemplate:WikiProject ClimbingClimbing
This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
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]
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]
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 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 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.
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]
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]
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]
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. Snspigs (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy which states that? My understanding is that it's usually the common name that goes there, but the official name can also be listed as a secondary name if that is different. Turnagra (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't point to a specific policy, I just know that's the way it is.
No one calls Lake Calhoun by it's official name, Bde Maka Ska.
Mount McKinley isn't the official name yet, fine. But when it is the official name, it should be listed in the infobox for consistency. There's no point in making an exception for this article just because "Donald Trump bad" and "native name good" under the facade of WP:COMMONNAME. That is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.
The name in the infobox matches the article title, as evidenced by the example you gave in Bde Maka Ska. Wikipedia's article titling policies generally don't care what an official name is, it's what the common name is. RachelTensions (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do this for countries. Do we do this for mountains? In any case I question whether this is urgent enough to discuss now. Why not just wait until it happens then discuss? Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mount McKinley as the US government authorized name should take priority over a colloquial name
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]
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]
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]
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]
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. BeeblebroxBeebletalks03:50, 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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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]
A quick Google Scholar check suggests the current name is about 10x more popular. NGRAMS shows that Denali has been more popular in that corpus since 1967. (t · c) buidhe05:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is complicated by the fact that there is a Denali National Park and a mountain named Denali which are two separate things, but there is only one Mount McKinley. There is also the factor of official name vs. common name. That is, published sources are more likely to use an official name but that does not necessarily reflect vernacular usage in day-to-day speech. anikom15 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody calls it "Mount McKinley" in day-to-day speech — particularly in Alaska, where the mountain is most talked about, and where it has been preferentially called "Denali" for decades. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a global website and should reflect the name used by English speakers worldwide, not just within a particular state.
Easily confused with Denali National Park. Nobody thinks the primary name for Wheeler Peak is "Great Basin," though I suspect you'd sed that used far more on Ngrams. Jbt89 (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of people call it Mt. McKinley. It might be more people than call it Denali, it might not - but saying nobody uses that name is utterly ridiculous and easily disproven. Jbt89 (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have any evidence that the McKinley name is in common use whatsoever. You're welcome to provide recent reliable sources (particularly scholarly ones) which demonstrate that anyone has cared about this issue in the near-decade that has passed since the last time Trump backed down from this nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Published sources will use the official name as I already pointed out earlier. My pre-2015 copy of a National Geographic atlas has Mt. McKinley in it. I imagine the latest edition says Denali, perhaps with Mt. McKinley in brackets. We are going in circles here because, as I pointed out, the common name is not necessarily presented by published sources which have a bias to use official names. anikom15 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 6 published sources of various ages and formats using the term Mt. McKinley. I don't pretend that 6 sources of varying reliability is sufficient by itself to establish that this is the consensus name, but it's more than sufficient to refute the downright comical claim that "nobody calls it Mt. McKinley"
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]
Possible meat/sock puppetry...?
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. - \\'cLf16:17, 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]
Discussion of Article Naming Convention (Jan. 20. 2025 Executive order)
a couple notes for all interested in discussion regarding the procedure for naming this article, following recent events:
1. please only utilize this thread to discuss the name of the article. there are already 6 different topics all talking about the same thing, and I understand I've just created a 7th, but this one is hopefully a little better organized to fit into the talk page, so that hopefully they can be consolidated into one, because this is a mess right now.
2. please be respectful. all of the discourse I have seen so far has been relatively respectful, but a gentle reminder that this is a sensitive topic for some and we should be chill because this is wikipedia thats what we do we're a chill website.
3. as of today, 1-20-2025, the mountain is still federally referred to as "Denali" because the Secretary of the Interior has yet to officially rename it following today's executive order. that is to say, we are NOT renaming the article under any circumstances until after that happens, and all discussion is of what future action should be taken, not what current action should be taken.
the state of Alaska has been legally referring to the mountain as "Denali" for nearly 50 yearsside note, and colloquially so for significantly longer, which could help to explain why "Denali" has been the most commonly mentioned name by people referencing the mountain, since most of them are Alaskans. it does seem, at least to me, that we should go with the more common colloquial name. plus the page is also protected, and maybe it should just stay as is. but my personal opinion aside, and of course I'm open to hearing anyone out, we should probably create some joint name for the article. i understand prior to the federal recognition of "Denali" in 2015 the article was titled "Mount McKinley" but honestly I think that was a mistake. we are probably, both in terms of maintaining the page's political neutrality (because this is apparently a political topic based on a lot of the rhetoric i see yall using) and especially in terms of accuracy and precision, best off using a joint name.
side notethe Alaska Board of Geographic Names and the Alaska State Legislature adopted the name "Denali" in 1975. as a state, they have actually spent longer using the name "Denali" than they ever spent with "McKinley". BioNerd13 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the official name is nigh-on irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia naming conventions. The bigger question is which name do reliable, independent sources use - and that currently remains Denali. Until that changes, the title should remain as-is. Turnagra (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We quickly renamed the article on Piestewa Peak, a name which had never previously been used for the mountain historically known as Squaw Peak, after an official action to change the name. Can't find much discussion on it at the moment but that precedent may be relevant here. Jbt89 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a precedent, but rather "presumed consensus" in action:
Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time.Pyrocatch (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks like the reason I could find no record of the debate over whether Wikipedia should follow the government's lead on that change is that there was none :/
I would disagree. You say the "state" changed it to Denali.... I'm fine with that statement. The people living there not so much. There must be 10 different names for the mountain by the natives living there alone. And the Federal name would outweigh the state name. The Interior signing off is just a formality of a couple days... just like last time in 2015, so we can certainly discuss. The most common name in the US in 2015 was Mt McKinley but that didn't stop the last move at all, so it shouldn't stop this either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that there are more than ten different names for the mountain in Alaska Native languages. But those names are in Alaska Natives' Indigenous languages, not in English. Alaska Natives also speak English (many don't even speak their Indigenous languages at all), and in English, they, too, call it Denali, like everyone else in Alaska.
Since this is English Wikipedia, the argument that there are other names in *other languages* is specious at best, since the present question is about English-language names. Pyrocatch (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with these points. Anecdotally, I grew up in the US Northwest (not Alaska) and even 20 years ago the names Denali and Mount McKinley were used interchangeably in school instruction. In my experience, Denali was at least on par with if not used more often than McKinley in this region. McKinley has been almost absent since 2015 and I suspect once the news dies down this will resume being the case. Something also to be said about recentism.
Other formal name changes have brought quicker title changes on Wikipedia but the vast majority of these were either minor geographic features (small towns, hills, etc.) or common use of the name also changed rapidly (such as with the recent renaming of some U.S. military bases). I think it is more appropriate to compare this scenario to that of Turkey which changed the official English spelling of their name to Türkiye but consensus pointed to keeping the old spelling for now because of WP:COMMONNAME.
It is my opinion that Denali should be kept until significant evidence from reliable sources show that the common name of the mountain has a lasting (non WP:RECENTISM) change with emphasis on how Alaskans and residents of nearby regions refer to it. DJ Cane(he/him) (Talk) 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey is a poor comparison: there was zero use of the name Türkiye in English before Erdogan asked them to, and even now it is essentially never used outside of official contexts. Heck, we don't even have the letter ü in English.
The name Mt. McKinley has, as you note, been widely used in English since the late 19th century and continues to enjoy widespread recognition, just like the name Denali. Jbt89 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The common names is Denali. A political dictate should have zero effect on this. The article already mentions in the lede that some people refer to Denali as “Mount McKinley”. There is zero reason why this article should be renamed. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well looking at the 2015 article and by your reasoning.... A political dictate should have had zero effect on that. The article already mentioned in the lead that some people refer to “Mount McKinley” as Denali. There was zero reason why this article should have been renamed. But it was just as it could be today. Wikipedia is funny that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The common response you'll get is "okay we were wrong but two wrongs don't make a right!!!!" or something like that. I argue that changing the name back is simply fixing decade-old mistake, now that the mountain is having its original name restored. Derpytoucan (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Denali is the original name. That name has been used for at least a few centuries and possibly much longer, whereas the name McKinley is only a bit more than one century old. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to name the article Denali, but the onus is on the new name--McKinley--to show that it has become more prevalent. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Denali did not see significant use in English-language sources prior to the 1860s, and even from then until the intrduction of the name Mt. McKinley a half-century later it was one of many competing names: Densmore's Mountain, etc. It is far from clear that there has ever, at any point in time, been a consensus in English-language sources (per WP:COMMONNAME, English usage overrides usage in other languages) to refer to this mountain as Denali rather than Mt. McKinley, Densmore's Mountain, Bolshaya Gora, etc.
When an official name and an unofficial name are both in widespread colloquial usage, it makes sense to stick with one which is also used officially. Jbt89 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that two wrongs don't make a right, it's that Wikipedia policy presumes consensus in the absence of dispute:
Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.
The appropriate time to dispute the 2015 change was in 2015, and evidently nobody did; consensus is presumed. Today, we have a *different change* to be discussed on it's own merits in the context of 2025. Pyrocatch (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to find a couple articles saying that the common name in Alaska is Denali but remain unconvinced that is the case in the rest of the United States (or other English-speaking countries, though their relevance is questionable). Usage among the ~700,000 people who live in Alaska shouldn't be the sole determinant of the name of of the highest mountain in all of North America. Jbt89 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Declaring that the owner of a thing renaming that thing should have zero impact on a Wikipedia article about that thing indicate that you do not understand the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. Aaronmos (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the mountain is located within the United States and managed by a United States Federal Agency, shouldn't the official name designated by the United States be used and any common non-official names just be the ones also mentioned? Don't countries have the right to name landmarks in their own geographic borders? If an encyclopedia isn't using the official legal names for things I'm not sure what good it is. Zaqwert (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be the sole determining factor (the official name of just about every city is City of X, and nobody thinks we need to put that in the names of those articles), but where the official name (Mt. McKinley) is also in common use, it should definitely be shown some deference. Jbt89 (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with waiting for the Secretary to act before we make any changes here if that helps us get consensus. Not convinced the Secretary of the Interior is who we should be listening to on this when his boss, the President, has made a decision that is clearly within his power to make, but it doesn't meaningfully hurt accuracy to wait a few weeks. Jbt89 (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's still moot, since I doubt we would have overwhelming number of non-official reliable sources that get issued/published immediately for it to meet WP:COMMONNAME even with new name clauses. We'd still likely wait for several months or years to see if non-official reliable sources switch to the new name. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both McKinkey and Denali are in common use; there is not currently an overwhelming consensus in favor of either and I agree that such a consensus is unlikely to emerge in the coming years.
Absent a compelling reason to choose one or the other as the common name, deferring to the common name which is used by the US government seems reasonable for a notable geographic feature in in the USA. Jbt89 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] as the available evidence demonstrates that "Mount McKinley" is not in common use in English-language sources, and has not been in common use for decades. In fact, it has been less used than Denali since 1975 - that is fully half a century. You have made nothing but bald assertions to the contrary. What is your evidence that "McKinley is in common use"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've been claiming that "Denali" is the most commonly used name whilst omitting the fact most references to "Denali" refer to the national park and not the mountain. Both names are used interchangeably, and "Denali" has only been used more often by news outlets since the 2015 renaming. Precedence should be given to the presumptive official name. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. This Ngram (which is designed to filter out mentions of the park) indicates clearly that use of Denali overwhelmingly surpasses Mount McKinley, to the point where the latter is almost completely absent in modern sources. The available evidence suggests that not only is Mount McKinley clearly not the WP:COMMONNAME, but that use of Mount McKinley has almost entirely vanished from the English vocabulary. You have presented literally zero evidence to the contrary and your refusal to present any evidence is an admission that you have none. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People have already pointed out that fallacy; people say "Denali" to refer to the park, just like "Yosemite" or "Banff". The Ngram is not enough proof that Denali is "overwhelmingly" the most commonly used name for the mountain. Not to mention the fact that many just call it "McKinley" as opposed to "Mount McKinley". Derpytoucan (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jbt89 has already graciously pointed out how your logic is erroneous, but for some more anecdotal evidence here you go:
"Mount McKinley" is acommon name no matter which way you spin it. Your claim that "No one has called it Mount McKinley for decades" has been refuted NUMEROUS TIMES at this point, and it would help move the discussion along if you stopped constantly claiming it to be a fact.
As I and other editors have repeatedly pointed out, simply searching for "Denali" will inevitably include uses of the term as a short form of "Denali National Park," the name of a sport-utility vehicle built by GMC, etc.
Per the Ngram search you linked, Mt. McKinley / Mount McKinley appears at a frequency of 5e-6%. This is in line with the frequency at which the names of other notable American mountains appear in the same corpus: Mount Whitney / Mt Whitney at 4e-6%, Pikes Peak at 7e-6%, Mount Hood / Mt Hood at 8e-6%. There is no serious dispute that Mt. Hood, Pikes Peak, etc. are all names in common usage, so at least if we're taking frequency on Ngrams as authoritative on this question, "Mt. McKinley" must also be in common usage.
Why, then, does "Denali" appear at 5x the frequency that is typical for famous American mountains? There's no way to tell from this data, but one possibility is that higher frequencies are typical for the names of national parks: Yosemite 1e-4%, Big Bend 3e-5%, etc. Jbt89 (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the name change, but the reason to wait is that it isn't about "his boss". There is an official process including official checks and balances. The EO can be changed or canceled and a court could grant petitioners an injunction. If and when the name is officially changed, that helps make a strong for the rename. Aaronmos (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok checking back and gonna let yall know that this exact dispute has been for over 5 years the primary example of a Dual naming dispute in the US. plenty of places around the world (most notably Australia) use it to incorporate an intended official name (that is, a name which the government would like to implement but for a much more common name) with a colloquial name even in signage and law. personally I say if it's good enough for the Australian government, it's probably good enough for the English Wikipedia, and it's also becoming increasingly clear that neither side of this argument is backing down, as the discussion has grown increasingly political. a dual name, maybe even just delineated with a forward slash, could resolve the dispute and incorporate both names. it's certainly the most accurate by basically any metric; it incorporates multiple government bodies' names for the mountain, it includes the colloquial names from the entirety of the nation (some parts of the contiguous US more frequently call it "McKinley", where others as well as Alaska tend to use "Denali") and it would probably make redirects more intuitive than either absolute for the average North American reader. (I'm not European so i go no clue what the brits gon think) BioNerd13 (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the name is officially changed in the 30 days, doesn't necessarily mean this article must change names as well. Anyone not sure why this might be, should take a look at the wp:commonname section of WP's article title policy. (fyi) - \\'cLf15:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who says the old name will be its future name? It is unknown whether the initiative of that man will even go through. --Maxl (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the common name ever really changed from Mt. McKinley. To be honest, I never heard of Denali until yesterday. But I've heard of Mt. McKinley many times growing up. Databased (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that even the most hard-boiled MAGA supporter would have at least heard of the GMC Denali, maybe even owned one that they festooned with Trump flags. I suppose it is possible they never bothered to wonder if that word actually meant anything. BeeblebroxBeebletalks22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are owners of Chevy Silverados supposed to be familiar with Lawrence Kasdan’s film? Let’s not diverge into silly arguments about what people should know. The encyclopedia’s purpose is to inform people, after all. anikom15 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A couple editors indicated they think we should wait for the Secretary of the Interior to implement the executive order before saying the name has officially been changed by the US government. I'll open one at that time if someone else doesn't before then; no point in bogging down what is already going to be a contentious discussion with trivia about whether the Federal Register or the text of executive orders hosted at whitehouse.gov is the authoritative position of the US government. Jbt89 (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I would wait for. As for it not happening because it's a "knee-jerk" reaction, that usually doesn't stop editors from calling for a move request. It didn't in 2015 when Wikipedia consensus changed it to Denali over commonname. But I think "Jbt89 has it correct. If you can avoid protocol snafu then wait a week till it is signed off on by the Interior. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of an odd example, but the city council of Hamilton, Ohio got a little too excited back in the seventies after seeing a production of Oklahoma! and legally changed the name of the city to Hamilton!. Seriously. As far as anyone can tell, this was never officially changed back, but it was and is broadly ignored by pretty much everyone as silly grandstanding to try and get people excited about a rather mundane town in rural Ohio. As you can see from the above link, the Wikipedia articles title also does not include the exclamation point despite it still being the apparent official name of the city. BeeblebroxBeebletalks21:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the interesting bit of trivia, but (and sorry to be a killjoy) I don't really see how it's relevant here. The name Hamilton! never caught on, where both Denali and Mt. McKinley have been widely and continuously used in English since the 19th century. Jbt89 (talk) Jbt89 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For thousands of years before Europeans came, it was known as Denali or other close variations
1839: a guy working for the Russian-american company names it "Tenada"
Russian American period: common name for the mountain was "Bolshaya Gora"
1889:Some English speakers start calling it "Densmore's Peak"
1896: William Dickey, who never even touched the mountain, decided it was named "Mt McKinley" on his own authority, which was non-existent, to thumb his nose at people who didn't agree with his politics
1917: Sixteen years after the assassination of McKinley, the feds decide to keep the McKinley name, basically because he got murdered.
1975: The State of Alaska, at the direction of its governor, a Republican, asks Congress to please change it back to the name it had for thousands of years.
1975-2015: One or two congresspersons from Ohio use obstructionist tactics to keep the rename from ever coming to a vote.
2015-Citing a law that allows the Department of the Interior to act when Congress seems unable to decide, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell announces the name will be changed back to Denali.
2016-Trump suggests changing it back. Alaska's congressional delegation, all Republicans, ask him to just leave well enough alone.
Yesterday-Trump signs an executive order ordering it to be changed back to McKinley.
True, but a couple things. We don't know what it was called for thousands of years. For the recent hundred+ years it has been called: Diinaalii, Diinaadhiit, Diinaadhi, Diinaazii, Dengadh, Dghelaay Ke'e, Dghelay Ka'a, Dghili Ka'a. Just because they start with a "D" doesn't make them the same. Otherwise Dung and Dump would be similar. And for all we know many of those names derived from people who also never touched the mountain. That whole sentence also sounds snotty like someone is thumbing their nose over politics. You then write that Sally Jewell changed the name and that Trump ordered it back. That also smacks of politics. You could have turned it around and said Obama ordered the change to Denali and interior secretary Doug Burgum changed it back (when he does it). The whole tone of your post is not exactly neutral. One thing we agree on is that the mountain has had many names through the years. It has had two official names per the United States: Mt. McKinley from 1917–2015, and Denali from 2015-2025. And many names of our States had names the original tribes called them.... they aren't used. Many are Spanish origins.
Interesting choice of example words. The fact that "Dung" and "Dump" both share the phoneme "du" indicates that they very well might be similar. The examples of alternate spellings of Denali largely stem from dialects of Athabascan: Gwich'in, Koyukon, and Dena'ina, to name just three. The Western Romance language group (to which French, Spanish, and Portuguese belong) share the same groupings of cognates that all stem back to root words in an earlier branch up the linguistic family tree. So the fact that "Father" can be père (French), padre (Spanish), or pai (Portugese) and "all start with P" indicates precisely that they share the same root, namely pater (Latin). Greg.Hartley (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarity. Perhaps the mountain will get renamed, but it hasn't happened yet, and it's not Trump who will do it. The executive order explicitly calls on the Secretary of the Interior to rename the mountain within 30 days. (Just read the order, people.) Neither did Obama rename the mountain in 2015; Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell did. So it's clear: no name change for at least a month. (But a lot can happen in a month! The Alaska congressional delegation has strong opinions here, and they have yet to fully weigh in.) I, for one, would like to hear the rational of why Ohio gets such an outsized say in what Alaskan things should be called. I expect Begich, Murkowski, and Sullivan will be asking similar questions. I can find no record of an Alaskan bemoaning that nothing in Ohio is named after an Alaskan politician. Greg.Hartley (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we had written records documenting the languages that were spoken in Alaska going back thousands of years (we don't), it's a bit of a stretch to call "Dghili Ka'a" a variant of "Denali."
Plus, even if that were provably true, non-English Language naming schemes are of distinctly secondary importantance to determining the English name of a place extensively documented in English-language sources. Jbt89 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The available evidence indicates that a significant majority of modern English-language sources call the mountain "Denali," and that virtually no modern sources call the mountain "Mount McKinley." While you have made an argument that the evidence is imperfect, you have presented no evidence to suggest that it is outright wrong. You are correct that the mountain is extensively documented in English-language sources, and your problem is that you don't like the fact that the sources use "Denali." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to have a global perspective. Calling the article "Denali" because that's what Alaska wants to call it makes about as much sense as renaming the article for the Gulf of Mexico to "Gulf of America" because that is what we want to call it. It's also extremely hypocritical for you to accuse others of red herrings, when you've stated on this page multiple times that people who want to call it McKinley are somehow racist. Not to mention that "Denali is its native name" is also quite the red herring since there are like a dozen native names for the mountain and "Denali" is basically just an English bastardization of one of said names. Derpytoucan (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. This is excellently worded. It's silly to keep changing the article every time a president wants to call it something. Are we going to just flip it again when a new president comes and changes it back? The Wiki article does not have to be exactly the same as the government name. We are allowed to have stability and keep the article as the regular name. Denali is the common name, the widely used name, the global name, the name it has been for most of its history, and honestly it's the "official" name in all cases except whenever the president randomly wants to change it to push an agenda. Worst case scenario, we can compromise with the title being "Denali (Mount McKinley)" or "Mount McKinley (Denali)" but I think that's unnecessary and a bit goofy, making the title look like a battle. I advocate for keeping it as Denali. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where were you in 2015? The common name was Mt. McKinley yet the title changed instantly because the president wanted it to and Wikipedians agreed. But now it's ok not to change it? And it has never been "Denali" for most of it's history. It's been a heap of names and continues to be a heap of names. For most of it's official naming history it has been McKinley. It may wind up staying at Denali by consensus but not for any of your reasoning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In practical usage over the last century or so, it's been Mt Mckinley according to US government; Denali according to Alaska government, most Alaskans, and a large segment of the mountaineering community; and various other names either in other languages, or in English according to various people, none of which are especially notable with regard to English naming.
Officially,* in Alaska, it's Denali, in contention with the US government (except 2015-2025 or so).
The name changed "instantly" according to the US government, but that doesn't actually matter according to Wikipedia policy, which specifies common name. It changed instantly on Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia consensus policy, specifically "presumed consensus." The appropriate time to challenge that was in 2015 and apparently nobody did, so it was presumptive consensus, and it's not relevant to this *new* name change, which should be considered on its own merit in the present context of 2025. This time, presumptive consensus doesn't apply because it's been disputed (obviously), so a new, good-faith discussion is required to arrive at a current consensus. Pyrocatch (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney. Many complained about the change in 2015... but consensus was too strong for Denali an the instant change won out. Consensus rules every time at Wikipedia, and I've seen it for 19 years. All it takes is for someone to open an RfC/RM after the interior signs it and whatever consensus decides will win out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a way it is similar to how recreational cannabis use is legal in Alaska, and numerous other states, despite being federally illegal. Alaska is not going to stop calling it Denali, and neither are Alaskans. That's a manifest fact. We're kind of stubborn like that when outsiders try to tell us what to do or how to think. What reliable sources will do is another matter, yet to be seen. BeeblebroxBeebletalks22:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ngram result
Just out of curiousity I did an ngram search and these results came up...
"Denali" likely refers to Denali National Park as a whole instead of the mountain specifically for a lot of those hits. I doubt Ngram has sufficiently complex textual analysis tools to disaggregate those two. Not sure what would :(
I don't know that this is rigorous enough to necessarily have any bearing on how WP:COMMONNAME is implemented here, but Ngram does allow you to subtract out other phrases (here "Denali National," "Denali Park," and "Denali Wilderness"; I've also summed together Mt. and Mount McKinley so that we're ignoring irrelevant "McKinley" mentions). If you do that, you can notice the rise in Denali, and the decline in McKinley, soon after Alaska changed the official name in '75, and a clear dominance of Denali since. But I don't pretend to know the history or wiki policies well enough to know if that correlates at all with a change in actual usage, or the name of this article. Ben-net-duck (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's closer but you still can't exclude the colloquial usage of "Denali" to refer to the park in the way people say "Yosemite" to refer to Yosemite National Park using only simple search strings. Jbt89 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but it is probably useful to also consider that when people say "we're going to Denali," even if they're meaning the park, they're going to the park to see the mountain, which is the park's namesake, centerpiece, and reason for existing as a park and with the name the park has.
There's no comparable feature in Yosemite., which is derived from an exonym for the people indigenous to the area, rather than a specific geographic feature, so it's not really an even comparison of colloquialisms. Pyrocatch (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the above Ngram evidence pretty compelling; Denali has been more used in catalogued sources for half a century at this point, and contrary to claims made here that they are both common names, use of "Mount McKinley" has fallen to essentially zero in recent years. I would ask those who claim that "Mount McKinley" is the mountain's common name to provide something more substantive than "I said so" as support. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting my earlier reply to you on this subject here, forgot we have a dedicated thread on Ngrams data.
Per the Ngram search you linked, Mt. McKinley / Mount McKinley appears at a frequency of 5e-6%. This is in line with the frequency at which the names of other notable American mountains appear in the same corpus: Mount Whitney / Mt Whitney at 4e-6%, Pikes Peak at 7e-6%, Mount Hood / Mt Hood at 8e-6%. There is no serious dispute that Mt. Hood, Pikes Peak, etc. are all names in common usage, so at least if we're taking frequency on Ngrams as authoritative on this question, "Mt. McKinley" must also be in common usage.
Why, then, does "Denali" appear at 5x the frequency that is typical for famous American mountains? There's no way to tell from this data, but one possibility is that higher frequencies are typical for the names of national parks: Yosemite 1e-4%, Big Bend 3e-5%, etc. Jbt89 (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the conclusion we can definitely make is that there are populations that make use of both terms today and I think that’s relevant and similar to what we have in Asia. However, instead of a Japanese name and Chinese name, we have two English names. Since there is only one English Wikipedia, some other factor must be used as the tie breaker other than common name. Cf. orca. anikom15 (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be because it's a more famous mountain, being the highest in North America. I'd be interested to see the results for Everest and other peaks of simpler notability, whether the highest on a continent, in a range, or *notable* outliers like Uluru and St Helens which have endured similar controversies or otherwise been in the news. Pyrocatch (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Mt. McKinley appears at a frequency similar to comparable mountains, once again we can't tell whether Denali is simply on the popular side even for a continental high point or if that statistic comes from ads for cars and references to the national park. Jbt89 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I find this compelling. I don't know if there's an established practice of using ngram data for common names, but it's massively imperfect and open to interpretation for all the reasons you mention. Did "Denali" get more common after '75 because people took Alaska's suggestion to call the mountain that, or because (relatedly or unrelatedly) more people were going to Denali? Is the frequency of "Denali" over and above other mountains a sign that people are using it to talk about something other than the mountain, or a sign that lots of people are talking about precisely the matter we're discussing here.
However the name of the article or in the infobox are ultimately resolved, I don't think ngram data should play anything other than a small, cautiously interpreted part of itBen-net-duck (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
from the state park. Look close, some of what looks like distant clouds is Denali itselfI will say as an Alaskan that if someone says "I'm going to Denali" it is assumed they mean the park, not that they are joining an expedition to climb the mountain. The two are for sure used synonymously, so that is almost certainly affecting those results.
While this is, in general, sound advice, since this action is literally the undoing of a previous action... the previous action's prematurity matters. The page was very rapidly changed to match the official name of the country owning the territory of the mountain and that same governing authority has not "renamed" the mountain but rather "restored" a previous and well-known name. This is different. A "rename" definitely requires consensus via COMMONNAME but a restoration of a name actually justifies a quicker change since it is a revert to what was and remains a COMMONNAME. It should change when the order is signed (at the earliest) or when it is adjusted by the registrar in the next 30 days (at the latest) 2605:59C8:791:FE00:B1EC:2358:C45D:8687 (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME does not ever mention "restored" names, so we can assume that the change from Denali to McKinley is a "rename". Regardless, per COMMONNAME, the most commonly used name is preferred to official names, and unless you provide evidence for "Mount McKinley" being more commonly-used than "Denali", there is no reason why the article name should be changed. Also, the desire to change the article's title as soon as (or even before) it is renamed without regard to common use seems to wholly be politically motivated. Snspigs (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of evidence should be on those wanting to retain a non official name (Denali) as the article name. If you would like to keep the article as is please provide evidence the non official name is used more commonly than the official name. Byates5637 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And even then it would be federally. If it is still officially Denali in Alaska, and if Denali is the most common name, wouldn't we possibly write it as "Denali, officially Mount McKinley, ...."? There might be lots of options here to discuss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best to wait on the Secretary of the Interior to implement it. There's considerable disagreement among edutors on whether the President or the Secretary of the Interior is the authoritative voice of the US government on this matter. Waiting ~30 days for that before we change the name to Mt. McKinley won't meaningfully harm the accuracy of the article and gets us a lot closer to a consensus on this. Jbt89 (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the very least this would require a formal move request, unlikely to be uncontroversial. I suggest we wait to see e.g. the exact wording of Trump's order, the reaction of Alaska state authorities. PatGallacher (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last go around in 2015, when it was officially changed to Denali by president Obama, Wikipedia threw common name out the window in favor of the official US name... within about a day or two. Consensus won out (as it usually does here). It might happen again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On the Timeline section please add an entry that on January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order changing the name back to Mount McKinley within thirty days of the signing. BeejaiRich (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even the right argument, the right argument against the edit would be the fact that the change will be done in the next 30 days and isn't yet in effect. And were you arguing that the government cannot be treated as a reliable source for itself announcing that it will get a mountain renamed? As per my understanding government orders are considered to be reliable sources by default. Tube·of·Light14:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, WP:PRIMARY is often misrepresented as "No primary sources" when it in fact says "Use primary sources appropriately". It's an easy way to try and scuttle any disagreement, that somehow official policy can not be cited as official policy by the official policymaker until someone else says "This is the official policy of the official policymaker." Rather asinine, but as someone noted above, "Donald Trump bad." Surprised that isn't a policy yet. - 70.54.65.107 (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the change is good to go. I don’t think we need to wait for the Department of Interior because it is the order that executes the change and not the DOI. The DOI is simply the vehicle for the change. anikom15 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2025 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done for now: Too soon; wait for President Trump to sign the executive order making the official name change. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. cyberdog958Talk 09:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
