Jump to content

Talk:Denali/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

WP:COMMONNAME

When I heard the name was changed, I expected it to be in bold in the lede - not replacing the indisputably and overwhelmingly more common title. I am now looking forward to hearing the argument for why policy was overturned? And I am REALLY hoping it isn't weaselish nonsense without any real policy backing that's transparently covering for a political motivation, pushing this project further into the maw of blatant political bias, where democratic voting replaces policy and source-based arguments. -- Director (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I am stunned with disbelief... Do any WP:SET and this completely unknown new name is orders of magnitude less common. We've seen voting bend WP:NAME out of shape before for the sake of political correctness, but this has to be the breaking point. I love this project, and hence I really hope there's a reason for this - but I also know this project's policies and can't find a single relevant argument here. -- Director (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@Director: Um, did you read the pages and pages of (moderately contentious) discussion on this very talk page? Why start a new section? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
A clear majority of scholarly sources in recent decades use Denali. It has been the official name designated by the State of Alaska since 1975. Brittanica now uses Denali. The GNIS now uses Denali. Google maps uses Denali. All Alaska politicians favor Denali, most of whom oppose Obama on most other things.
Please point out significant coverage in recent decades favoring McKinley. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Denali is the overwhelming favorite. Perhaps they could rename the State of Ohio as the State of McKinley. Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • #1 Nothing at WP:COMMONNAME about "recent decades". Is that how we evade policy now? We pick a time period wherein our preferred title wins out and claim "THAT'S what we should be looking at"? I very much expected this sort of gag, and the response of course is: "well then you won't have long to wait until it becomes the actual COMMONNAME." When (IF) it does, propose a move. Until then we go by the "most common usage in English-language publications". This is a non-argument, without basis in policy, and nobody should even go there. Its a trap. There is very good reason to take into account all time usage, and that's that very few people actually keep up with recent changes - all time usage allows for the inertia inherent in a change like this. In short: do not mess with policy, its there for a reason.
  • #2 I sincerely doubt that "Denali" would come out on top in any square SET for the the last 30 years. But, again, even if it does - if its not commonname that's not relevant, and nobody should fall into that trap.
  • #3 Could care less about individual sources too, or what's "official": does not relate to policy = is irrelevant. Britannica doesn't go by COMMONNAME and is a tertiary source, as for Obama - I'm from goddamn Eastern Europe, what do I care about American politics? I just want my project to take me to an article without my being uncertain if I'm at the right place. We shouldn't be talking about politics at all, and those who bring them up, frankly give reason to wonder as to their motives here.

Folks, this is about recognisability, and on a world scale. It shouldn't be about Americans constantly looking for ways to "atone" for existing as a nation, and not leaving the continent a kind of "Prime-Directive" Stone Age nature preserve. And this is no argument either, but honestly, "Mount McKinley" is one of the "coolest", most recognizable names in geomorphology. Keep it until it actually ceases to be such, until it stops being the commonname. -- Director (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that Mt McKinley is the overwhelming common name for the mountain. It would be a landslide. But with Alaska officially calling it Denali, with the US officially calling it Denali, and local populations calling some form of Denali, it's easy to see why consensus has decided it should be at Denali. Consensus trumps everything else here at wikipedia. Recent discussion says the lead will be Denali (also known as Mount McKinley) and that should work for most of us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
No. No, it doesn't. Wikipedia is not a democracy. CONSENSUS must be based on policy or else its invalid. If this ever gets to ARBCOM, you'll hear the same thing. Because our policy not only states commonality is the criteria - but also explicitly states, repeatedly, that official names are not what we go by. So no. Its not understandable. Or rather, it is "understandable" that policy was subverted for the sake of politics, but its not tolerable. -- Director (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
If you don't think consensus trumps everything here then you haven't been to the same rm's and RfC's that I have. My experience tells me, if enough editors want to say the sun is blue in an article, then blue it will be. It doesn't matter that it's not blue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Ding. This is a Wikipedian with experience. Listen to his wise words, ye multitudes. -BCSWowbagger, 22:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck. I've been around for 10 years and some 50, 60 thousand edits. I know that's how it usually is - but its not how it should be. And its not how it ends at ARBCOM, which may well need to have a look at all this disruption. -- Director (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

former known as, or also known as

An editor changed it twice from Denali, formerly known as Mount McKinley, to Denali, also known as Mount McKinley. The official name is now Denali, it known as that, not also known as something else. No reliable source is going to refer to it by its old name now. So it should be "formerly" known, not "also" known as. Dream Focus 00:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Reliable sources for "Mount McKinley" or "Mt. McKinley" from 2015 include:
NBC
CNN
Los Angeles Times
The Telegraph
New York Times
--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • All of those articles are from "before" Obama renamed the mountain today. So that's not "still calling it" Mount McKinley, that's calling it by its official name. I doubt any new sources will call it "Mt. McKinley". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Muboshgu's statement. Mentioning what it was called before the official name change doesn't prove your point. And the LA Times link is from February and is about the battle to change its name. Dream Focus 00:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What is the common name? If you query all English speakers globally, how many will recognize "Mt. McKinley" and how many will recognize "Denali"? Is WP supposed to provide a neutral point of view, or take its marching orders from the government? If a random politician wins office and arranges for the mountain to be "officially" renamed "Trumpali", do we then ignore common usage in favor of that? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Formerly" explain things fine. To say "also known as" makes it sound official, which it is not. Anyone searching for the old name get redirected to the new. I don't think they'll be any confusion over what we are talking about here. Dream Focus 01:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And just to be clear, I believe that having this place named after McKinley is a ridiculous historical accident, but I don't think that WP should be straying from "what is" to "what ought to be". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not have a strong opinion on this, but perhaps something along the lines of "Denali (also known as Mount McKinley from 1917 to 2015) is the highest..." might be an acceptable alternative that would be less likely to generate ongoing discussions identical to this one. :-) Thingg⊕⊗ 01:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just use "also," which is succinct, true, and doesn't draw undue attention to the naming nonsense away from the mountain itself. There are two names that have indisputably been used for the mountain; the exacts of official titles and the like can be discussed in the section dedicated to it. Per my edit summary before, look at the likes of Mumbai or Willis Tower - they both use "also known as" in their ledes. Simple and accurate. (I suppose it would be okay to say that it's "officially known as Denali", but that would imply it's NOT casually known as Denali, which would be incorrect. So... just move on. Spend 1 word rather than a sentence.) SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above statement. There are plenty of people who hadn't ever heard of the name Denali and haven't learned that the mountain has been renamed. Dustin (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


  • That has the reverse issue - it implies that it was 'only' officially known as such and not popularly known. "Also" has no implications and no judgments. SnowFire (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Officially known as Mount McKinley from 1917 until 2015" sounds like the best option. "Formerly known as Mount McKinley" sounds a bit off because it's likely to be "known as" Mount McKinley by a lot of people for some time. "Known as Mount McKinley from 1917 until 1915" is also off, as it was "known as" Mount McKinley by at least some folks well before 1917.--Cúchullain t/c 13:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, "officially known as Mt. McKinley from 1917-2015" does seem like a good compromise. Subtly denotes that Denali has been and is the common name, that officially it was McKinley for 98 years, and avoids the also/former dispute nicely. I'd support this as well. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree also, "formerly known makes it sound as if it was always and only called Mount McKinley beforehand, which is not the case, it was called both even while being officially known as Mount McKinley, so officially is the more appropriate wording here. Itanaman (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the earlier arguments in this thread suggest a belief that a "reliable source" is defined as one source which is in lockstep with the next source. Part of the principle behind reflecting multiple reliable sources is that particular sources sometimes get it wrong. As it pertains to this issue, I agree that "Mount McKinley" is not going to disappear from usage overnight, except in certain "official" circles. This resembles more a Wikipedian attempt to nudge things in that direction (see related comments below) than an attempt to properly reflect its name. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Except that evidence seems to suggest that the most common name referring to the mountain was Denali even before the renaming. If anything WP:COMMONNAMES wasn't being followed in favor of continuing to locate the article at Mt. McKinley, and with an official change that disparity in favor of the original Denali name is just going to grow. This official change has just spurred Wikipedia in a direction is should have already gone per its own guidelines. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the end, all of this discussion is moot until the U.S. Congress officially renames Mt. McKinley to Denali. It is legally still Mount McKinley until Congress passes an Act renaming the peak. Thank you, Mr. Obama, for overstepping your Constitutional powers, yet again. Rhino8989 (talk)
  • "formerly known as Mount McKinley" is good enough for the lead... extra detail can be talked about in a lower section. If you start with the "officially known as Mt. McKinley from 1917-2015" then we might as well extend that (to known as Bolshaya Gora till 1867, Densmore's Mountain till mid-1890's, informally Mt Mckinley from 1896–1917, formally Mt. McKinley from 1917–2015). That can all be talked about in the naming section. All we need in the lead is something so that all the readers who know it by its far more common name of Mt McKinley understand that it is now the former name. Details with dates of name changes are best left out of the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Formerly" is incorrect, both grammatically and functionally. It gives the connotation that it is no longer called that, and Mt. McKinley is just not ancient history yet. It implies a level of synthesis on our part; that we are somehow trying to influence the language rather than define subjects. The current phrase is awkward and flows poorly, but at least is accurate and neutral. "Also know as" is almost universally used in cases where multiple names exist, and I have no doubt that's what it'll return to once all the hubbub has settled down. You rarely see "formerly known as," except is cases like capacitors, where only historical references call them condensers. Zaereth (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Formerly is totally incorrect for any portion and you are correct it is very rarely used, and I have not seen it properly used where locations are concerned. You are correct in stating "Also known as" as being acceptable as well, because even though it is no longer Officially named that, following WP:COMMONNAME policy, it is commonly known by many as both names, and probably will be for years to come. Itanaman Dakar (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • To be honest, you make a good point. "Also known as Mt McKinley" is also acceptable. Adding the dating is very awkward for the lead since we should also say in was officially known as Bolshaya Gora during the Russian ownership. It also gives the impression that before 1917 it was known as Denali.... which it was not! It had many names prior to McKinley even by the native Alaskans. And now we have someone who has passed the 3RR rule in defending it against 2 other editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • We both were wrong on this in my opinion. I was defending the fact that if you go up further reading ending in 8/31 of this section, it was last discussed that "Officially" was the decided on manner, or at least was left at that at that time, and had not been discussed further to be changed again. You and another editor before coming to finish the already ongoing discussion changed this on your own, which was a revert of it's own, and I was wrong in allowing myself to get caught up in it. Can we both agree on that? I apologize for my actions in the manner, and hope but don't expect the same in return. Now before any further changes, can we all decide on what it should be? Thank you I vote for either Also known as, proposed by Zaereth Itanaman Dakar (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

As an outsider to this discussion: also known as seems to me to be an excellent solution, as it accurately describes the position as it will remain for many years. The year range (1917-2015) and formerly are misleading, because they imply "no longer", which is clearly not true. Many people will continue to use the old name. There is a store in my town that is still known by the name it had fifteen years ago, although it has changed hands twice since then. Apuldram (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/place/Mount-McKinley
This is a very emotional topic. "Also known as" seems like a decent compromise. "Originally" can be questioned, as there were apparently many names for the mountain. What we need is a solution, not an argument. I don't think that hurling personal political attacks and curse words will be productive for the discussion. Mindraker2 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Is everything going to be fought over now, like some latter-day Hamburger Hill ? JFK International is not "also known as Idlewild", Ghana is not "also the Gold Coast", and of course Istanbul not Constantinople. The former name can certainly be mentioned in the lead, but to say that a thing is "also known as" its actual name...and the name of the article, now...is simply untrue. Tarc (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
But that's where the rub is. It is still called Mt McKinley, whatever you may say. Per the US and Alaska it is "officially" now Denali. But informally and probably by 99% of the US it is Mt McKinley. For all I know the Russians still call it Bolshaya Gora. It is also called "Deg Xinag" in some dialects... that's not a former name. We call it Myanmar now in English but it is also known as Burma. When it was officially called Mt McKinley it wasn't formerly known as Denali... it was also known as Denali. The name Mt McKinley is going to be around for a long time yet, just not officially (unless Ohio passes some strange law to outlaw calling it Denali). Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Argument for "Denali" based on Wikipedia's geographic naming convention

We have a specific guideline regarding geographic names which is located at WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). The subsection most applicable to this situation can be found at WP:WIAN. That says: "For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed." I submit that the recent US government official renaming of the mountain to Denali is a "watershed moment" in the history of the 40 year naming dispute about this mountain.

Following that sentence, the guideline lists a variety of high quality sources that "may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name." Of these, the following sources have been updated since the name change:

  • Encyclopaedia Britannica has been updated in recent days, changing their article title to Denali.
  • The Geographic Names Information System has been updated in recent days, listing Denali as the primary name, along with many variants, not just McKinley.
  • The National Geographic Society has published an article in recent days called McKinley vs. Denali: Who Decides Names on a Map? That article includes a new map showing the name as Denali (Mt. McKinley). Variant names are shown in parentheses. Their chief geographer is quoted as saying "Cartographic houses, including National Geographic, will update all maps that carry that name. We are updating our cartographic database, so the change will get reflected right away in any future cartographic products."
  • The CIA World Factbook - Elevation extremes has been updated in recent days and shows Denali (Mount McKinley) as the highest point in the United States.

The guideline also says that recent coverage in high quality newspapers can help in the process of determining the proper name. That guideline mentions the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Times of London as three specific examples of such newspapers.

The New York Times ran an Associated Press report a couple of days ago about recalculation of the mountain's height, North America's Tallest Mountain Gets New Name _ and Height. That article uses Denali five times as the name of the mountain, mentioning Mount McKinley only once as the former name, plus mentioning that the mountain had previously been named after William.McKinley. The Washington Post ran the same story, throwing in a couple additional usages of Denali in a photo caption. The Times of London ran a story called America’s highest peak gets its old name back, saying that Mount McKinley was "a name that had been mocked for more than a century as the product of a shameless political stunt."

Accordingly, I conclude that the current article name Denali is in compliance with our guideline Naming conventions (geographic names). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


Agreed, and from WP:COMMONNAME the second paragraph of section "Use Commonly Recognizable Names" supports and expounds on this further by stating "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." Note it clearly states we should focus more on reliable sources that are published after the name change when referring to a person, group or object, which is clearly the case here. All articles in reliable sources as you have listed state Denali, and use Denali as the proper name. I can not find one reliable source using Mount McKinley as the name, other than to state it as the former, also known as, or previous called, etc. So really all of this is now a moot point. The horse is dead, the ship has sailed, let's put this baby to bed Itanaman Dakar (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
No, while some entities recently shifting from "McKinley" to "Denali" is certainly noteworthy, the "watershed" examples given deal with major geopolitical changes like nations collapsing or borders moving (the underlying facts on the ground), not mere official name changes, and policy goes out of its way to differentiate between colloquial and official names anyway (the whole point of common name policy). In fact WP:IAN also says, "The United States Board on Geographic Names determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States. Most often, actual American usage follows it, even in such points as the omission of apostrophes, as in St. Marys River. However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American usage to the official name." As Itanaman quotes above, more weight should be given to sources published after a name change, which isn't the same as completely excluding old sources as your watershed argument suggests. Most sources used "McKinley" prior to the official name change, and English speakers are more familiar with that name than "Denali". That might very well change with the official name change, though I'm not sure a few days is enough to gauge that. Also, lest anyone be confused, I'm not arguing against Denali here, just commenting on the argument being used in the op. VictorD7 (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Give it up, VictorD7. In the immortal words of Darth Vader: You are beaten. It is useless to resist. The name of the highest mountain in North America is Denali. That is the name the people who live by the mountain call it; that is the name the state of Alaska calls it; that is the name the United States government calls it. It used to be Mount McKinley, and before that, some people called it Densmore's Mountain, and before that, some called it Bolshaya Gora. But its name is Denali and at least for now the matter is settled. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Leaving aside how Vader ended up, I'm not "beaten" because I'm not even arguing against Denali here. Did you not even read the post you replied to? I just added an insight about the argument used in this section op, namely that "watershed" should apply to official name changes, and that all sources prior to the change (which was just a few days ago) should be completely disregarded. VictorD7 (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to argue that the recent official renaming was not "watershed" in this matter, (an argument I consider very weak regarding this topic), then it is incumbent on you to furnish links to significant coverage in reliable sources in recent years and decades that prefer McKinley to Denali, VictorD7. I have shown in a previous section above that there has been a very clear trend going back decades preferring Denali to McKinley in book length in depth coverage of the mountain. Several editors here including you have repeatedly asserted that McKinley is the preferred usage but have failed to produce the sources. The one who tried came up with 100 or 50 year old sources, or off topic sources. On the other hand, I have linked to many sources first published in recent decades (or days) preferring Denali. Where's the beef? Where is the significant, in depth modern coverage of the mountain that uses McKinley in preference to Denali? Where are the links? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

My point here was only that your "watershed" argument is weak and wrongly interprets policy, and one wonders why you're even bothering to try to exclude all sources from before a few days ago if you don't believe they favor McKinley anyway. That said, you posted four book titles using "Denali" from the 21st Century in your section above, while countless sources using "McKinley" have been linked to all over this page, including numerous books from the 90s and the 21st Century. You've criticized some of the 21st Century ones as republications of older books, and tried to dismiss others as not being primarily "about" the mountain, but they still referenced the mountain with "Mount McKinley", so I don't think your dismissals are valid. Again, I'm not even arguing against Denali, but to help answer your question and contribute to gathering information for collaborative editing, I'll post this sample of news usage:

Keep Mt. McKinley's name honoring president who gave ultimate sacrifice - Sep. 3 column by a radio host and native Alaskan arguing for honoring President McKinley (assassinated while serving) and saying he'll always call the mountain "McKinley" regardless.

Monumental misstep: Obama should have taken input on Mt. McKinley - The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, in an editorial board column just published today (Sep. 5), blasts the unilateral renaming of Mount McKinley, recounts the growing opposition by people of both parties, and touts reasons that President McKinley should be honored.

Notable & Quotable: The Real Mount McKinley - WSJ reprint of an Aug. 30 New York Sun editorial (McKinley’s Greatest Monument) questioning Obama's power to unilaterally rename Mount McKinley, wondering if JFK airport might someday be renamed "Idlewild" as many locals still call it, and praising McKinley for defeating an "anti-Semitic" campaign run by William Jennings Bryan.

Mount McKinley, North America's tallest peak, may be shorter than estimated (CBS, 2013)

Mount McKinley 83ft shorter than previously thought (BBC, 2013)

Four climbers feared dead after Mount McKinley avalanche (CNN, 2012)

4 missing climbers presumed dead after Mount McKinley avalanche (Fox News, 2012)

Search called off for 4 climbers believed killed on McKinley (Alaska Dispatch News, 2012)

Grand Marais climber Lonnie Dupre reaches summit of Mount McKinley (Minnesota Public Radio News, 2015)

Climber from Argentina found dead on Alaska's Mount McKinley, North America's tallest peak (Fox News, 2015)

Veteran Climber Found Dead on Mount McKinley in Alaska (NBC, 2015)

Washington climber dies on Mount McKinley (USA Today, 2014)

5 wounded warriors attempt Mount McKinley summit (USA Today, 2012)

Climber abandons solo winter attempt on Mt McKinley (Reuters, 2011)

Climber's incredible view from summit of Mount McKinley (The Telegraph, 2015)

Vets plan to summit McKinley in tribute (Juneau Empire, 2011)

I could post thousands of these. So much for the assertion that "McKinley" had fallen out of usage. A google news search for "Mount McKinley" turns up 3.9 million hits. A similar search for "Denali" turns up slightly fewer, around 3.7 million, but restricting the search to before August 29 shows the vast majority of "Denali" news hits reference the national park or the vehicle line (news searches through Aug. 28: Mount McKinley, Denali), with the few mountain references mostly coming from Alaskan outlets. It's also noteworthy how many of the Alaskan outlets use "McKinley". Of course the unrestricted search causes the glut of recent name change stories to pop up, and those invariably mention both names. Now maybe all these news sources will drop "McKinley" and go with "Denali" in the future, but they haven't yet, and it would take more than a few days to establish a completely different common English language usage anyway. Since you've made it clear you want a name change the stronger point is the recent shift of key sources like Britannica, but to deny that McKinley has been the overwhelmingly commonly used name is simply untrue. VictorD7 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the links to those items which are of two types: Editorials criticizing the name change, and news reports regarding the mountain. I think that the first type constitutes a short term blip. The second type are generated by press releases issued by federal government agencies, usually the National Park Service in the case of climbing accidents and successes. The NPS must use the official name of the mountain and is already using Denali in its day to day coverage of the mountain. I still maintain that in depth, independent writing about the mountain as opposed to restating government press releases has increasingly used Denali in recent decades. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Those contortions and restrictions (in depth, independent writing) aren't rooted in policy, leaving aside the fact that book and news searches show more "Mount McKinley" references even in recent decades. All the news articles I linked to were from the past few years and these weren't just government press releases. Again, whether they stop using "Mount McKinley" and follow the federal government's lead in the future we don't know, but there's no question that "Mount McKinley" has been by far the primary commonly used name. As for future speculation, news articles will probably still mention the name somewhere for a long time to come if for no other reason than "Mount McKinley" is what Americans have called it for generations and good reporters at least will want their readers to know what they're talking about. VictorD7 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" that is "independent" are among the most important factors we use to evaluate the quality of a source. And we consistently pay less attention to a news story which is clearly the product of a press release than we do to independent reporting. In this case, the fact that the press releases were from a government agency which is required to use the official name is directly relevant to a discussion about the new (or restored) official name. I do not see that any of the articles you listed (as opposed to the editorials) were not the product of US government press releases. Of course, it is reasonable to expect that future news articles will mention the past name at least once. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
These are independently written articles that differ from each other even when multiple outlets are covering the same story. I'm sure they were based on a combination of notices (from the government and others), personal interviews (found throughout the articles) and the particular author's choices. Regardless, it shows actual as opposed to hypothetical common usage. VictorD7 (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What desperate tripe :). The paragraph talks about how its important to use sources from the proper historical period, such as not calling Constantinople "Istanbul" before it got the works, etc. Its about watershed moments in history, like World War One. This is a boring, standard, textbook case of something being renamed, and the new name still not being as common as the old one. A case clearly covered by the "use the common name damnit!" provision in our policy, and one which, lets be honest, wouldn't be disputed at all but for stupid American politics and political correctness. Read up on WP:WIKILAWYERING and lets wind down this song and dance. Restore the consensus, policy-appropriate title. -- Director (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Since my argument is "desperate tripe", Director, then it ought to be very easy for you to furnish a nice assortment of sources published in the 21st century that devote significant coverage to the mountain using McKinley instead of Denali. Please do so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. One of the most blatant out-of-context bits of meaningless WIKILAWYERING I saw in years.
Since you're requesting "sources published in the 21st century" (i.e. less than 15 years :)) - I'm sure you'll have no problem finding backing in policy for such a bizarre demand. Or rather, I'm sure you will.. There's nothing in our project's naming policy stating that you or anyone else gets to pick a time period wherein our preferred title wins out. We don't look at usage at our own time only, and for a reason: to account for inertia in changes like this. I don't want to stereotype, but I can only ascribe this to American myopia.. there is a world outside the US, and it has no idea that the peak they learned about in school was renamed.
Further, I hope I can swiftly correct your misconception that common names are determined by assembling "assortments" of sources, rather than SETs and other forms of more comprehensive research. This rock has publications on it ranging in the thousands - and you'd propose to solve the issue based on how much time you or I can get off work copy-pasting them here?
This is as cut-and-dried as it gets: place renamed, new name still not as common. The move was clearly done in error, and out of ignorance of policy - which disregards official status. Move it back. -- Director (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
No. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Really don't get why this topic is attracting so much rancor. The mountain has been renamed, and apart from a few fringe, Tea Party-esque political holdouts, no one will be referring to it as Mt. McKinley. This is a simple reality, and the suggestion that the Wikipedia must wait for some arbitrarily-fixed point in the future to rename the article to match the reality just seems silly. Tarc (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kudzuq1. Yes.
What's a tea party? See, I know what it is, but I dare say the majority of English speakers never heard of them. Did you miss the bit about American myopia? This is a political issue in the US and it did make the news - but there are hundreds upon hundreds of millions of English-speakers outside the States who didn't hear of, and don't care about, the renaming. The operative phrase in your post is "will be referred to". At a (completely non-"arbitrary") point when the new name sinks in, we'll have a justified move. And let me say its by no means a certainty we'll ever reach that point, as there are very few places as obsessed with pc wording as the US. -- Director (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I have heard of the Denali name before and I support naming the article "Denali." While Mt. McKinley is the name I grew up with, Denali is the name that exists now. It is the name chosen by both Native Americans and Alaskans. That is why the article should be named Denali. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
See - this. This is the problem here. People just sort of "deciding" what they favor without ANY regard to WP:NAME. It may be the official name now, but Wiki doesn't give much of a damn about that. -- Director (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
When you read policy selectively, ignoring the most relevant and applicable sentences of that policy, and when you refuse to engage with the specifically applicable guideline about geographic naming, and when you misrepresent what other editors are saying, and you ignore and dismiss source analysis, and when you make brash assertions of what usage actually is without engaging with the highest quality sources documenting usage, then you can correctly say that Wikipedia "doesn't give a damn" about your highly idiosyncratic interpretation of policy in this specific case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomic honors

--Kmoksy (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Where are these Denali naysayers coming from?

My God! What the hell is with the hate towards moving the article title to Denali? Are there really editors out there who are so proud on having a two-month discussion on changing the name of article, even when the vast majority of participants are in favor of renaming it? Or do you people just possess this permanent hate-boner whenever Obama does something? Because I have a strange feeling that none of you would complain had it been a Republican who renamed it. 24.255.44.92 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This user's got a point: IT'S TIME TO CLOSE & ARCHIVE THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ON CHANGING THIS ARTICLE'S NAME BACK TO McKINLEY !
--- Professor JR (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL! "Two month" discussion? "Hate boner"? Political motivation? Oh, the irony. VictorD7 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

  • VictorD7, what the hell do you mean by irony? It is blatant that the sole reason that you are against the move is because it was the result of Obama performing an action. I've seen your talk page and the numerous people telling you to "stop having a hissy fit, Brietbart.com is not a reliable source." And don't you dare say, "...b-b-but what about WP:COMMONNAME?" Sorry to break it to you, but other than some butthurt Ohioans, the vast majority will have no problem calling it Denali. 24.255.44.92 (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
If President Bush had changed the name eight years ago, these folks would have thought it was the best idea ever.  Buaidh  00:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Exactly! 24.255.44.92 (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Bullshit. The political blame-game is pointless, ridiculous, and completely unhelpful. Take it to an online forum, not here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Projection. Your latest gibberish (Breitbart? Huh?) above is mildly amusing but your op was hard to top. Your posts are seething with such mind warping partisan animus that you whined about a "two month" long discussion that actually just started 7 days ago. Your entire view of reality is distorted. Still, it made me laugh. Gems like that are one reason I still invest time in online posting. Oh, btw, I haven't even been opposing a long term move to "Denali". I just had process concerns which have since been acknowledged and validated by the lead move supporters themselves. And yes, WP:COMMONNAME is policy. VictorD7 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
First off, I was exaggerating when I said "two months", you know, like how one would say that a place that's only a couple of miles away is on the other side of the Earth because it feels excruciatingly long to get there? Sorry that I feel that your proposal to change the mountain back to McKinley has remained opened for far too long. Second, you have no goddamn right to accuse me of "seething with such mind warping partisan animus", considering that you honestly believe that ["Breitbart did not edit the Sherrod tape"]. And don't accuse me of using ad hominem; my entire point is that the vast majority of people pushing for this article to back to Mt. McKinley are only doing this so they can do something more than just writing comments like "BAA WHY IS OBUMMER NOT FIGHTING ISIS?" to vent their irrational hatred towards him. And so far, the people who want to move it have made comments like: "...[it] lends credence to those who attack our project for being skewed liberal." — Hallward's Ghost; "Calling it "Denali" is a political act" — Abbondanza7777; "I understand that the power of this website has given rise to people who believe it's more appropriate to use Wikipedia to influence the world rather than merely reflect it, but making Wikipedia a party to the current political effort to eradicate names because they are of "dead white guys" — RadioKAOS; and "Seriously!!! How would you like it if I opened and closed a name change for this to Mt. McKinley in the early morning of New Year's eve just so that nobody but my close friends and family could log in and support it? Is this type of activist stupidity what Wikipedia is devolving to?" — Hilltrot.
Since 7 days is supposed to be the standard minimum for an RM itself to remain open, you crying that all the related discussions have been going on for "2 months" when they just started 6 days ago is more like saying Michael Jordan in his prime moved slower than your grandpa does. Whether the result of careless skimming or warped hyperbole, your claim is the opposite of the truth. I didn't mention "ad hominem", but your unsolicited denial is hilarious considering your entire section here is nothing more than a trollish call out. As for politicization, you left out the part where the moving editor literally said "#thanksObama" in his edit summary, where another cried "Down with the oppressor" in the original RM (which closed after 2 hours, since acknowledged to have been a mistake), and where various others have shown up attacking everyone from the "Tea Party" (really nothing to do with this) to "imperialism" (also nothing to do with this), along with your own charmingly insane partisan rants of course. The cherry on top of your irrational sundae is you investing the time to delve through my posting history to dig up an out of context quote that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic or anything I said here, despite me reminding you that I'm not even opposing (or supporting) an indefinite move to one name or the other, almost as if you're performing some sort of disturbed non-sequitur performance art. The discussion about the proposal to reset the page while a discussion took place had already wound down before you showed up. While move supporters declined to do that, a consensus did emerge that this move happened the wrong way and editors will presumably try to avoid repeating this mess in the future. I only replied to your new section here to applaud you for your entertainment value, unintentional though it likely is. VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I love this! "I'm not the one who's irrationally partisan, you are!" Please, stop with the TLDR arguments and stop attacking everyone who cast their vote to oppose. 24.255.44.92 (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
At least you admit you didn't read it, which partly explains why your claim about what I said was false. VictorD7 (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh please, that is a perfect summary of what you just wrote. Fuck off and admit that you wouldn't give a shit if the renaming took place under a Republican president. 24.255.44.92 (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I opposed things Bush did all the time. And while I do think Obama's move was crass and in bad taste, especially since it bypassed Congress, was a naked PR stunt, and involved a member of the opposing party (like a Republican renaming JFK Airport or Johnson Space Center, which I would also oppose, and I guarandamntee you would), again, that's not the same as opposing this article move, which I don't necessarily in the long term, underscoring that no, you've read and understood almost nothing I've said. VictorD7 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where the naysayers are coming from among editors. In terms of politicians, some of them are from Ohio where McKinley was from. Dustin (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

See, at least the politicians have local pride to go with the "must oppose everything that Obama does" mentality. What these editors' excuse? "I need something to latch on to so I don't have to admit that I don't actually care about the renaming?" 24.255.44.92 (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I can not emphasise this enough: as far as this project's naming policy is concerned - there. is. no. "renaming". It didn't happen. Policy explicitly states "Wikipedia does not care about official names". Please - get that straight.

This could be a case for ARBCOM.. -- Director (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't deal with content disputes.--MONGO 09:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The article is protected. This is more than a content dispute. We're seeing disruption on a pretty long-term basis here, in just brazen defiance of policy. -- Director (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem with your assertion is that our naming convention for geographic names explicitly allows consideration of government sources establishing official names in cases like this: "Many governments have an agency to standardize the use of place names, such as the United States Board on Geographic Names (see BGN below), the Geographical Names Board of Canada, etc." It also explicitly mentions the GNIS as a useful source, which is the US government database of official (and variant) names. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
A direct quote from the policy: If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
But it doesn't say how much more weight to give the new publications. 10% more? 20% more? That's for us to decide. And there hasn't exactly been a million publications printed since the official name change 7 days ago. We always have to balance official names, non-official names, common names, local names, etc... when determining where our articles will be located. This is a mountain known by many names throughout it's history... even among local languages. It is a US mountain, an Alaskan mountain, and those two entities have given it an official name. Of course to make things fun here, it has a common name that is probably 100x better known by 320 million US citizens. It's understandable why there is some controversy as to where we put it given our policies and guidelines often contradicts themselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Kampuchea redirects to Cambodia, Burma to Myanmar, and so on. When the official name of a place changes, there's no question that the project's articles change too. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
If that's what you are going by, it's absolutely wrong. The Burma article title moved for one reason only and that's because the name Myanmar became more common in English usage. That did not happen over night. And when it did things like Burma (also known as Myanmar) became Myanmar (also known as Burma). It had nothing to do with what is official or where it's official. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not wrong at all. The name has changed, the Wikipedia follows suit. This is a very A-to-B salutation. Tarc (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You know what I hate about Wikipedia? The users who seem to have a huge hard-on for bureaucracy. It bugs the crap out of me that for a site that prides itself on being the only encyclopedia where everyone can edit, there seems to be a large amount of editors who absolutely loathe when someone decides to use that ability to update outdated information. Especially because these editors have no problem with teaming up with the people who are blatantly opposed to updating it for petty ideological reasons. Thank god this site wasn't here when Cassius Clay announced his name change to Muhammad Ali. 24.255.44.92 (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This reminds me less of a normal geographic name dispute and more of a Chelsea Manning situation. Up until she announced her change sources all called her "Bradley". Afterwards, we changed our article, then edit warred and argued on and on and on and on, until ArbCom got involved, etc. In the meantime, sources had begun anfailingly referring to her as "Chelsea" and noting with some amusement that Wikipedia couldn't seem to decide. The article finally stabilized and is now a good article. This article is going to be at "Denali" at the end of the day. That's just how it is. I'd prefer to do this the easy way, without ArbCom, without bans and blocks, without move warring, but if you all prefer to argue it to the end of time when the outcome is obvious I don't suppose I can stop you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I think this is true. And I think the vast majority want it left at Denali. Many were upset it moved improperly without discussion (self included) but it is at the correct location. There will be continued minor problems though, just as there still is with Chelsea Manning and Caitlyn Jenner, about wording and peripheral articles. Naming of past achievements of Manning and Jenner is still a thicket of thorns. I think we have come to an understanding of "Denali (also known as Mt McKinley)" so maybe this will actually go smoother than those other articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Do I need to explain how silly it would be to set a criteria demanding we look exclusively at publications from seven days ago? I hope that's not a serious suggestion, and that Cullen can perceive its in no way consistent with the intent of the quoted sentence. If anything it emphasizes the premature nature of this move and the fact that it was carried out for no real reason other than the irrelevant official name (and a whole lot of pc euphoria). Anyone who genuinely cares about this project's consistency, and reputation in general, ought to defend policy, acknowledge this as an error, and counsel patience with regard to "Denali". Burma and the rest are common names; and in any case, "that place is a mess too" is actually an argument for straightening this one out.
As for the supposed inevitability of "Denali" coming out on top, I think we should refrain from playing the prophet game. Not least because this rock is far more than an internal US issue. Its the tallest peak in the hemisphere, and grade school curriculum from Timbuktu to Japan. Not everyone cares that much about constant pc changes going on in the States. I'd say it'll be a while before "Denali" truly supersedes "McKinley" in the world at large - if ever. For all we know, Trump will change it.. probably to "TRUMP" :). Or Hill' might change it again to "This is How Much We're Sorry", in some charming Indian dialect.
I'll again stress Recognizability must be our priority. Its for "McKinley" both in terms of adherence to the word AND spirit of policy. Stacked against that is not much more than a whole lot of emotional sentiment. -- Director (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how "more weight", which is a direct quote from policy, is a synonym for "exclusively"? When Encyclopaedia Brittanica, GNIS, the National Geographic Society map database and the the CIA Factbook are all changed within ten days, all of which are mentioned specifically in the geographic naming guideline, don't you think "more weight" should be given to those sources than older wire service reports of climber successes and deaths? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@Director: This is a side point, and I'm probably feeding a troll at this point, but the assertion that a future President will rename the mountain is nonsense. The legal basis on which the Secretary of the Interior (not the President, although I'm sure this didn't happen without his explicit approval at the very least and likely at his request) changed the name was that it had been proposed for forty years, easily and inarguably meeting the statutory requirement that the Secretary wait a "reasonable period of time" when there is Congressional opposition to changing the name. The next administration will have had no such long time since any change away from Denali is proposed, and the Alaska Congressional delegation will surely oppose any change away from Denali. Therefore, of all the arguments being thrown around here, can we drop the completely absurd notion that our crystal ball tells us that the next administration will change the name back to Mt McKinley?
And again, your assertion that Mt McKinley is recognizable and Denali isn't is unsourced and inconsistent with my personal, non-Alaskan experience. Of course, Mount McKinley will always redirect to Denali assuming the article does stay Denali. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
While Director is right that the issue here isn't the so called "official" name anyway, on the tangent you raise I have to say that you're only giving one side of a legal argument, always a dangerous proposition. Even if you completely agree with it and view it as a slam dunk, just look at how many split court cases there are (5-4 on the SCOTUS level) where both sides were convinced they had the stronger legal merits. I'd guess that opponents would challenge the applicability of the statue cited to this issue (in fact after I typed that I did some quick searching and indeed already found articles along those lines), especially since the mountain was named by an act of Congress to begin with. And for the record it's been reported that Obama directed the secretary to change the name just before his Alaska trip (it's not like it was an amazing coincidence). Almost any executive action could be undone by a future president one way or another. VictorD7 (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The back and forth here is not accomplishing a whole lot other than raising everyone's temperature. Is there interest in drafting a Request for Comment on the matter, where everyone can weigh in in a more structured manner, and work towards closure? Tarc (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, very much. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I concur Itanaman Dakar (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Consensus in favor of the move to Denali seems pretty clear and I doubt an RFC would do anything but confirm that. Those who refuse to get the point should either move on or accept the consequences. Calidum 01:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Before you dismiss iron-clad policy provisions from on high, unironically brand their advocates "trolls", and "beneficently" silence opposition by what amounts to a declaration of victory through superior numbers.. before you bring this project lower into the slime of the US political circus, allow me to post one brief quote from WP:CONSENSUS, one which seems increasingly forgotten nowadays: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
Its one of the first things you'll find at "Determining consensus". And the text of course goes on further to list policy and guidelines as examples of "consensus on a wider scale".

It is consensus to use the most common name, are you not aware of this?? How anyone can seriously call upon "consensus" in overriding policy, with a straight face (and that IS what you're doing), is beyond my powers of comprehension. -- Director (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus overrides policy all the time. If that's beyond your comprehension, you apparently haven't been paying attention. Now would you please calm down? Your tone is most certainly contributing to the degradation of this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the lamest arguments I've seen lately. Obama authorized his Secretary of the Interior to change the name after the board that regulates names failed to respond to the naming issue in a timely manner. Republican members of Congress from Alaska support the name change, one that was requested for forty years. I think its highly unlikely the name will be changed back. All we do is report what the sources say....if there was a legally binding action which changed the name to Mount Obama then that would be what we titled the page.--MONGO 17:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd say "Wikipedia doesn't follow official names", but that's just policy, so obviously its irrelevant. The votes are in, though, and it appears Wiki will not be following WP:NAME on this article, as its application has not met the approval of the majority of participants. -- Director (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
So as I suggested above, why not hold an RfC and settle it? You're obviously rather passionate about your opinion, but continuing to go back n forth here and in other sections isn't going to resolve the matter. Tarc (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I fully share the opinion that an RfC, and an RM for that matter, would bring around a majority in favor of "Denali". I do, however, believe this project should follow its own policy even if a majority votes against its application - or else we literally might as well dump the lot of them and set up just one: WP:DEMOCRACY. Expressing such values openly will allow us to elaborate on them as well: we'll be able to explain how we at enWiki firmly believe reality bends to the will of the electorate. In fact, why call ourselves "editors", when "voters" might be more appropriate?.... If I sound bitter, Beeblebrox, its because I am. -- Director (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Slavish obedience to "teh rulez" is not how things do or should work around here (and that's assuming agreement with your position that the rules are being ignored in the first place). We have a pretty clear consensus, so I don't know why this discussion is even still going on and see no point in opening move requests or RFCs. If this is making you bitter or angry, you may find that just letting it go and finding something else to focus on helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

But they shouldn't go out the window either, in spirit as well as letter. The initial move showed a good faith ignorance of basic, universal Wikipedia naming policy and an insanely rushed process that didn't give a chance for those who opposed the move to participate in the discussion. These policies and guidelines exist for a reason. And Director is completely right to point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy where simple vote counts hold sway; policy based argument weight matters too in establishing consensus. So while the page may not be moving, repeated, one sided threats of "blocks" or trying to push an editor off the page for the crime of pointing out longstanding, firmly established policy are frivolous and unhelpful to what's supposed to be a collaborative editing process. This place isn't supposed to be ruled by mob justice. To my knowledge Director hasn't edit warred on the article and no one is harmed by a little talk page discussion. Some might hopefully be better informed going forward, improving Wikipedia. VictorD7 (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to threaten or chase off anyone, I just don't see any good coming out of continuing this conversation. And I can imagine a lot of bad if it just keeps escalating. I obviously won't be blocking anyone here as I am involved in the discussion, but I'm about done with it myself for the reasons I just stated. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I had to beg off this discussion or else I would have never been able to get any work done. Anyone who cares to visit my user page and read the "biography" I left may realize that I may have plenty of dogs in this fight, which was all the more reason to abandon it. Having a perspective which is broader than what a Google search is able to provide doesn't exactly prove beneficial when dealing with other editors who don't have that perspective. Let's just say that Canton had only two members of the U.S. House (Frank T. Bow and Ralph Regula) for a period spanning 58 years, but is currently on its third House member since Regula retired; the incumbent may live closer to Cleveland than Canton, but I didn't confirm that. Does a lack of clout in the Ohio delegation possibly enter into anyone's minds as a reason for all this? I don't want to dwell too much on how editors are motivated in editing Wikipedia by government directives and news headlines, even though it's plainly obvious. However, look at the recent move of Black River (Alaska) to Draanjik River. The sources don't offer any information on when the BGN decided on this, but it should be pretty obvious that the page move on Wikipedia was done for the same reasons as this page move, with the same motivations and all. As my daughter is Gwich'in on her mother's side, I've been around the language enough to where I can understand conversations, but still, I would think that this name would just confuse the average reader. At least that isn't the case with "Denali". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denali/Archive_3&oldid=1136337036"