Jump to content

Talk:Denali/Archive 4

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

Proposal to restore last consensus name while name discussion occurs.

Discussion seems to have stagnated over the past several days and it doesn't look like the end result is going to change. Several users have decried the out-of-process move and Muboshgu is encouraged to take note of their viewpoints as well as the excessive drama the move has caused for future consideration. That being said, consensus is very clearly in support of keeping the article at its new name in spite of the procedural concerns (which constitute most of the support for moving it back). Swarm ♠ 03:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As the above sections lay out, Wikipedia article titles are determined by the WP:COMMONNAME policy, not the "official" name (especially when different branches of government disagree with each other on what that even is). That means the name most commonly used by established, reliable English language sources and the one most recognizable to readers around the world. The question is what the sources currently call the subject, not what we speculate they might call it in the future, and certainly not what we personally prefer it be called.

Since "Denali" is a national park and car line and "McKinley" was a president, simple google searches have proved inconclusive. However, book searches are more likely to bring up established, reliable sources and less extraneous noise. A google book search of mount mckinley (without quotes) shows 2,080 results. A quick sample scan of the first couple of pages show the hits are indeed books about the mountain, and they do virtually all contain "McKinley". A search for mount denali (again, without quotes; "Mount" isn't in the official name but adding it without quotes helps bring up hits about the mountain without requiring the presence of "Mount") only yields 1,450, and interestingly most of the results on the first two pages include "Mt. McKinley" in some form in the title. Several, including the top result, only use "McKinley" and not "Denali". A search of denali without mount yields 3,150 hits, but a huge majority of hits, 14 of 20 on the first two pages by my quick count, are using "Denali" to refer to the national park, and one of the other 6 is a kid's book about a wolf named "Denali". In fact "McKinley" pops up at least as often to refer to the mountain on the first two pages of this search as "Denali" does.

That authors mostly use a stand alone "Mount McKinley" to refer to the mountain, and when they do use "Denali" it's usually also accompanied with a "Mount McKinley", indicates that they assume general readers know what "Mount McKinley" is but may not be familiar with "Denali". As the continent's largest peak "Mount McKinley" is a household word around the country and the world in a way that most specific mountain names aren't, which means the peculiar local preferences hold even less sway in usage determinations than they usually do. A key factor in WP:COMMONNAME policy is recognizability.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, of course, titles its article "Mount McKinley", underscoring that the common reliable source name was and is that. That may or may not change in the future, but it hasn't yet, and we are bound by sources, not a politician's press release.

This isn't the end of the discussion, but given this preliminary evidence that "Mount McKinley" is the primary common name, the fact that it was the last consensus title of the article, and the fact that the discussion supporting a move above was opened and closed on the same day with only 4 respondents and ignored naming policy while focusing only on the alleged "official" name, I propose restoring the previous article name while this discussion continues until a real consensus based in policy to move it is reached. Hopefully even the move supporters will agree to this as a show of good faith to recognize the current lack of consensus and avoid an edit war. If evidence and arguments are presented adequately showing "Denali" is the common name I will happily support a move there, but until then let's restore "McKinley" and do this the right way. Even if a respondent adds arguments for "Denali" he or she can start by stating "support" to (temporarily) restore "McKinley" while the discussion plays out. A new round of opinion taking can take place after more evidence and arguments are presented. VictorD7 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - For reasons given, though, again, I'll happily support a move to "Denali" if adequate policy based evidence establishing that as the common name is presented. VictorD7 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, given that WP:COMMONNAMES does state that the common names should take into account the name change and what the common name is after such a change. It seems logical to wait before moving it back since the actual name, which is now Denali (there does not appear to be any ambiguity at the federal level beyond a couple of blustering Ohio politicians, and no ambiguity at the state level (and hasn't been any for 4 decades)), is more than likely going to shake out as the common name in short order assuming it isn't already since most sources are already moving to the new name if created in the last 2 days. And at present we do not have any conclusive evidence one way or the other beyond sources claiming that Denali is the common name in the home jurisdiction (Alaska) and among a large community focused on mountains (mountaineers) and was not per the Federal government until yesterday.Gateman1997 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC). As an addendum to what I said yesterday, it appears that in the intervening hours several reliable sources such as major encyclopedias, the Board of Geographic Names, etc... have also moved to the new name. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose even taking any WP:COMMONNAME argument aside, you want us to move the page so that it might be moved right back? No, this is silly procedure that's not worth the effort. Just open the RM discussion and we'll centralize all the pro/con arguments and then we'll abide by the consensus of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus is required for a move like the one you made and such consensus clearly doesn't exist. The rationale for (at least temporarily) restoring "McKinley" is that it was undisputedly the last consensus title. I'll add that so far the only pertinent evidence on the common name is presented in my op, and shows that Mount McKinley is the primary common name, so as it stands now policy dictates the non consensus move be reverted. VictorD7 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's be clear, I didn't "make" the move. A RM discussion did take place, though I agree it wasn't the best one I've been part of. That's why I've been suggesting that you open a new RM. There's no bias in favor of either name based on whatever the name is during a move discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually you made the move only 47 minutes after the request was first posted, when there were only 3 respondents. You did move it to the wrong page, which prompted even a move supporter to call you "impatient". So your concession that the discussion "wasn't the best one" you've been part of is hopefully a gross understatement. And no, if a discussion fails to result in a consensus the article remains at the status quo, which is Mount McKinley according to the last consensus. Otherwise you would have forced through a change without consensus. That's why it's important to restore the name while the discussion continues. VictorD7 (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I made "a" move, but not "the" move, and I was indeed incorrect in doing it. Seems pretty clear from reading this talk page that consensus favors Denali, which I suppose is why you're stalling on opening that RM request until you can reestablish the page where you think it belongs, so as to better fight its move. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The point is you rushed to move the page after only 47 minutes, before that discussion even closed and with very little participation, and the notion that it's clear there's already a talk page consensus supporting the move here is laughable. This discussion has just started, and I haven't even posted community notices yet. I figured the same few already involved posters who rammed this premature move through under false pretenses would probably decline to revert, but I figured I'd give you a chance in good faith (no "stalling"). Again, I don't really have strong feelings about the mountain's name one way or the other, which is good from a neutrality standpoint but also explains why I wasn't planning on investing a great deal of time in this. If after a few days this discussion doesn't attract enough attention from editors to revert the policy violating change, then I may or may not initiate a formal RFC to draw a broader swath of (hopefully less biased) editors in. VictorD7 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want me to address that point, I made the move when I did without checking to see if there was a RM discussion underway because I thought the move was so common sense that a RM wasn't necessary. Clearly I misjudged that. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Denali is widely used in recent titles of academic books about the mountain, it has been the official State of Alaska name since 1975, and is supported by Alaska's congressional delegation. It is the ancient and historic name of the native peoples around the mountain. No need for lengthy debate. Denali it will be. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It was my movereq, and while frankly I was surprised to see it acted on so quickly (would that all of my WikiProjects were given the same attention), I do think it was the right move. Perpetually angry Obama-haters aside, I don't think there's much "controversy" here. I have lived in Alaska, where Denali is actually, you know, located -- and no one there calls it "Mount McKinley". This change brings the name into line with that on-the-ground reality. It is now official; the COMMON argument is not convincing, in my view; let's all live with it, no matter how much some of us may dislike our president. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Everything you just said could more appropriately be reversed, especially given the inappropriate Obama "love" given in the move edit summary. Ohio alone trumps Alaska, and Wikipedia usage is dictated by the entire English speaking world, not your local preferences, so your personal former residence is irrelevant. Clearly everyone is not going to shut up and "live with it". You would have been better served going about this the right way. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Begging your pardon, but I started a movereq discussion, provided sources and a rationale, and awaited the outcome. I'm pretty sure that's exactly "the right way" to go about it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I was referring to your dismissive "Obama-haters" comments here. And no, supporting a move that occurred after only 47 minutes of discussion before more than 3 respondents had participated is not going about this the right way. That discussion didn't touch on actual Wikipedia naming policy, but operated entirely under the erroneous premise that articles use "official" names as titles. One move supporter just posted a bit of anti-American trolling, clearly an invalid rationale. VictorD7 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The move was completly improper and should be reverted immediately. A controversial move discussion is supposed to be open for at least a week. This move discussion was closed in less than 2 hours. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

•Oppose changing page name back to McKinley. It can at times be helpful to attempt to quantify "most common" on the basis of search results, but not here: "McKinley" is no longer the mountain's name. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's first responsibility is to present information that is current and correct. The mountain's name has reverted officially to the traditional name Denali, even if some people used to "McKinley" will continue to call it that informally. The official name will be used in textbooks, academic works, journalism and signage as we move forward. The application of a MOS guideline should never cause an article to state or imply information that is incorrect. Naming the page "McKinley" would imply that the mountain's "real" or preferred name is McKinley. Redirects assure that users looking for the former name will arrive at the correct destination. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia WP:COMMONNAME isn't a "helpful" suggestion, it's policy. The "correct" common name is clearly Mount McKinley given the evidence presented so far. Speculation about what sources may say in the future is irrelevant here, except as something to keep an eye on. When the sources actually do mostly change, then and only then should the page be moved. Redirects did and can assure that those looking for the "official" name of Denali will be taken to the Mount McKinley page, just as those looking for "United States of America", "Stefani Germanotta", or the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", are taken to the United States, Lady Gaga, and United Kingdom pages respectively. VictorD7 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • True, but by that rationale, as one example, shouldn't Bruce Jenner have remained at that name rather than be almost immediately moved when she changed her name as the old name was still the clear more used name? It is understandable that there may be more sources out there using the now former name of the mountain, but that doesn't negate the fact that the old name is just that... the old name. The new name has and will continue to quickly supplant it as that is the new reality of the situation just as Caitlyn Jenner is now that person's reality. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I haven't followed the Bruce Jenner debate, and I will say that living people are treated differently than prominent place names, but if that move was similarly rammed through based on political concerns rather than Wikipedia policy I would have criticized that too, especially if the move was made with less than an hour of discussion and only a few editors participating. For what it's worth I suspect millions of people will continue to call it Mount McKinley for decades at least, though neither my nor your speculation about the future is relevant here. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
* Is there a reason this discussion isn't a requested move?--Cúchullain t/c 23:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • ^^^ This is not a Request to Move because Kudzu1 moved the Mount McKinley page before the proper time-frame had passed and appropriate discussion had taken place.
Support This move is based on a press conference and a small minority of persons wanting a peak to have a different name. The grand consensus throughout the country and the globe is that the name IS CURRENTLY Mount McKinley. This is regardless of why it was named that way. The 'Mount McKinley' name was placed as an Act of Congress, not some regulatory committee without the authority to grant such names. Effectively, Mr. Obama's move to have the peak renamed is illegal within U.S. Law. Aside from the legalities, once again, the peak is CURRENTLY considered Mount McKinley by the world, not just one state or group of people.
Also, this move had no basis in WP policy, whatsoever— it even broke WP policy in moving the page. The correct thing to do to fix the error is to move the page BACK immediately and resubmit the Request to Move to 'Denali'. That's the proper, appropriate way to handle this situation based on WP policy. Rhino8989 (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC) — Rhino8989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • While it is quite likely the move was done too quickly and in doing so broke Wikipedia policy, what's done is done. And every minute we're here discussing the justification for the move grows. I'd point out that major mapping applications that Wikipedia geofinders link to such as Googlemaps and BING Maps are now referring to it as Denali. Even if we move it back in the next day for the policy violation, we're just going to be moving it back to Denali a few days after that. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • At least you acknowledge the move was a mistake. I'll add that Wikipedia is not a simple vote count democracy; policy and argument weight matter to determining consensus. Invalid rationales (e.g. "new official name"; "down with the oppressors!") are properly disregarded. Furthermore, there are multiple editors even on this page who oppose the move, and undoubtedly many more who are not yet involved in this discussion who do. I've already answered the RM question above, and Rhino is correct in stating that the proper course of action would be to revert the move and initiate a RM to "Denali", one that lasts the standard 7 days and is closed with consensus assessment before action. Barring that, it appears a move review might be more appropriate than a RM back to "McKinley". I'll probably try to contact the closer as instructed before initiating one. VictorD7 (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not an argument against "most common" as a general principle. Trajan is, for instance, the best article title on the principle of "most common", not his full Latin nomenclature, which would be useless geekery. But when a modern place name changes, it's the responsibility of the encyclopedia to provide its users with accurate, up-to-date information. WP:COMMONNAME recognizes this, as noted above by Cúchullain. For a time some people will continue to use the former name informally: Peking/Beijing; Burma/Myanmar. In a science article, we wouldn't present information contrary to the current state of scientific knowledge just because an outdated or disproved theory was "most common", as indicated by a greater quantity of sources. The policy further specifies that Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Gateman 1997 points out above that major mapping applications that Wikipedia geofinders link to such as Googlemaps and BING Maps are now referring to it as Denali. That's an excellent indication of why geographical nomenclature should be contemporary, accurate, and encyclopedic rather than sentimental. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Except naming has nothing to do with scientific theories. One name isn't "inaccurate" if it's commonly used. WP:COMMONNAME says nothing about changing a title a mere day after one branch of government makes a disputed "official" name change (indeed that's contrary to the policy's entire thrust), and Cuchullian provided no real examples in the post you linked to. More recently some editors have, which, though they still represent a minority, is the type of discussion I've been hoping to have and the way this should gone from the beginning, all before the move (if it happened). VictorD7 (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Denali is the correct name, and will become increasingly more used over time. Mount McKinley is the old name. To all those saying the policy is a must, well take a look at WP:5P5 The fact of the matter is, Mt. McKinley doesn't exist anymore. WikIan (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: There does not need to be consensus to restore the last name for which there was consensus. The fact that someone moved it out-of-process should not circumvent the need to gain consensus for the renaming of the article. There is clearly no consensus to move it from the long-established name, "Mount McKinley", to the name "Denali." Playing politics with article naming is completely unacceptable, but that is what appears to be happening right now. The original name (established through long consensus) should be restored, and the person who moved it out-of-process reprimanded for their actions. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 23:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    There was no consensus for the name Mount McKinley except when it was the official name. That is no longer the case. And it is clear the majority of people favor using the official legitimate name for it. Dream Focus 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose You can call me biased, though, because I think it's about time. I have to laugh at all the political hoof-stomping and the TLDR arguments put forth against. (I have to wonder how much has anything to do with the mountain of if it is just because Obama's name is attached.) I really like how insulting and hostile people are toward Alaskans, especially the one that said "Ohio trumps Alaska." That had me rolling in the aisles. What's really funny is that, here in Alaska, nobody is talking about it nor seems to care. We call it by the name it has had for thousands of years (not just 40) and couldn't care less if a majority of the world chooses to be wrong. Zaereth (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You presented no valid rationales for opposing the restoration to the last consensus version, and I've seen no insults or hostility directed toward Alaskans (the "trump" line was in the context of directly referring to population size). Reading does help, even if it seems a little long compared to what you're used to. VictorD7 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Nor do I intend to. "Compared to what I'm used to?" Perhaps you don't see your tone as insulting, but I thought I point out, in my own sort of way, it's not doing you any favors either. Zaereth (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: I have procedurally closed the move review. WP:MRV is not an applicable forum for contesting bold page moves and directs users to contest such actions with a formal requested move on the article talk page. Swarm ♠ 05:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The close itself should have been overturned, as the closer himself requested, so your closure of the review was inappropriate. And are you seriously suggesting that the only way to contest a bold move is to gain consensus through an RM? That would mean that the move, which didn't have consensus, is the new status quo and can't be undone if the RM fails to gain consensus. Preposterous. VictorD7 (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - and I'm heartened to see that I agree with Winkelvi on something :) This is pretty clear-cut; the federal government has changed the name of a geographic feature. The argument based on WP:COMMONNAME is, at first glance, interesting, but the mountain has been commonly and widely known as Denali for thousands of years, long before anyone showed up to stick a president's name on it for the purposes of political grandstanding. The state of Alaska and Alaskans have recognized this for decades, with both Democrats and Republicans committed to making it happen; only petty home-state "favorite son" politicking prevented the change from becoming official. Wikipedia should properly recognize the official change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -Why is nearly every editor here clearly disregarding WP:COMMONNAME? Has anyone even bothered to read it. We are only proposing the article get moved back during the discussion time. When consensus is reached, we should go from there. How can everyone simply through the guidelines out the window?
Also: Let me make this clear I do NOT move the page. I simply closed what seemed to be an uncontroversial discussion as someone who didn't participate in the discussion, which is following the guidelines as there is no time suggestion for uncontroversial discussions. I closed the discussion because there was NO opposition at the time and the article had ALREADY been moved. Thanks, WikIan -(talk) 05:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no possible reason to bother moving it back just to move it again after a set time period. People have overwhelmingly supported Denali as the name to keep. Dream Focus 05:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There hasn't even been a real discussion yet. Since a lot more people oppose the move today than yesterday, there's no reason to assume what the final result of such a discussion would be, and that's not a legitimate reason for violating policy anyway. VictorD7 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The WP:COMMONNAME argument fails because the "common" use of Mt. McKinley in reliable sources was largely due to its status as the official designated geographic name of the mountain. Now that the name has been officially changed (and political grandstanding aside, will never be changed back), reliable sources have already switched to Denali - as many sources, particularly Alaskan ones, already had done in recognition of the longstanding views of local residents and the longstanding cultural heritage of the original name. There is no compelling reason here to use the temporarily "common" name over the name which has been applied for thousands of years and is now official. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Your assumptions and future predictions aren't relevant (nor are your time traveling anecdotes about what local tribes called it "thousands" of years ago), and you didn't produce evidence of reliable sources switching en masse (it'd be tough after one day), but I appreciate your concession that Mount McKinley has been the common name. VictorD7 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • VictorD7, the highest quality sources for the name of a mountain are full length books about the mountain. Please take a look at the list that I have added below, which shows that book authors have used "Denali" predominently in the last 40 years, and 100% of the time in the 21st century. If I have missed any recent books about "Mount McKinley", please point them out. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the contribution you're making and will take a look at your list. Though it appears another editor has posted contrary evidence, this is the type of evidence/policy based discussion I was hoping to have that should have taken place before the move. Again, that's been my only concern from the beginning. I don't have a dog in the fight over what the mountain's called, but Wikipedia deserves better than the clusterfuck that this move was (or an "honest mistake" as one strong move supporter put it). Since multiple move supporters have conceded this was handled the wrong way, hopefully editors remember this going forward when similar issues arise. VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose – I believe it does nothing but spread confusion when an article's title bounces back and forth while people try to reach consensus on what the title ought to be "temporarily" while they have the "real" consensus-building process about the eventual, more permanent title. I say this from experience watching, but not participating in (even afraid to participate in), several past contentious article title changes. The change to "Denali" was bolder than some editors would have liked. Fine, and that's a lesson learned for Wikipedia to build a better guidance policy for future name changes (which I believe we sorely need). But it's not an argument for being bolder than other editors (like me) would like and changing the title yet again based on rash arguments about a WP:COMMONNAME that can't exist right now because reliable sources are in flux, or a "last consensus" that can't be reliably interpreted because it's tied to circumstances and resembles the color grue. Metadox (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia should not try to influence political decisions. If at some time in the future the courts reverse the decision announced by the country's President following a recommendation by the Senate, it would be an argument for a move back to Mount McKinley. Until then, no. Encyclopaedia Britannica changed promptly to Denali. Apuldram (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, even though the original move discussion was closed far too early. The extensive research results provided by CynwolfeFyunck(click) below are also quite persuasive. The common name, in terms of scholarly work, local population, and now the government, all line up. —Torchiest talkedits 14:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to point out that the search results aren't mine. I only attached a "quality, not just quantity" addendum per WP:WIAN. This guideline refines how we determine "most common" by encouraging verification through recommended geographical RS, some of which may make statements about place-name usage, instead of relying on editors' own assessments of raw data from searches. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per my reading of the current sources, the common name of the mountain, at least amongst users of the mountain, has been Denali for a long time. I therefore think that, per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should have been Denali, not Mount McKinley, from the beginning. The fact that the US government now considers Denali to be the official name is just icing on the cake (and the impetus for Wikipedia to catch up with reality). Of course, the most important thing is well-sourced and clear discussion of the name in the article itself, which I think is pretty good as it is. Which of Denali and Mount McKinley is the article and which is a redirect is just not a big deal. And I think that this position has clear enough basis in policy that there's no need to move back pending the outcome of the discussion. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME, more weight should be given to sources published since the name change was made. A cursory look suggests that the newly-official "Denali" is what more sources are using. As others have pointed out, "Denali" was apparently already the common name in some of the quarters most likely to publish reliable sources on the mountain - namely, Alaskan sources and mountaineering sources. As such I think we're better off going with "Denali".--Cúchullain t/c 16:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Close this section This is a really long discussion that is going nowhere. Literally nothing will come of continuing to argue for or against in this section. The move review initiated yesterday was a procedural close due to WP:FORUMSHOPPING and the admin said the proper thing to do, as I've said, is to open a new move discussion. That makes everything in this section moot. Let's just stop posting here and if VictorD7 or someone else wants to open a fresh section for a move proposal to "Mt. McKinley", we can discuss that there. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no possible reason to start a new discussion about changing the name, when its the exact discussion we're having now. Most are opposed and have stated reasons for it. Restarting the discussion won't change things. Dream Focus 17:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The only reason I suggest a new discussion is that this thread was started to "revert to prior consensus" and not a full RM. I agree with you that I'd ideally like to let the whole matter drop, but I'm assuming that those who oppose the move to Denali still feel they need a "proper" RM discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't support or oppose a move, apart from pointing out that the initial move was improper, something even multiple move supporters have conceded. As other editors have already pointed out, the notion of forcing people to gain consensus through an RM to restore to the last consensus version, when there's a chance such a process would result in no consensus, was wrong on principle and probably why no one started an RM to move back to McKinley; it would have implied an acceptance of a new status quo. Since the good faith pre RM restoration of McKinley was rejected by move supporters and an extremely involved admin, a proper RM won't be happening. At this point I'm fine with this section being closed. But with the original RM closer and several move supporters acknowledging this move happened the wrong way, and new discussion about policy and sources finally occurring below (which should have happened before the move), this section has served a useful purpose. Hopefully editors keep this in mind going forward when similar situations arise. VictorD7 (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I do agree as well, in case I haven't said so, that the move did not happen the right way. In this case poor means led to good ends. This experience does serve as a good reminder to me personally to check a talk page before making any page move, even if I don't anticipate it being controversial. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Just on the technical question, I was reading up on the Requested Move process and my interpretation is that, if an RM that follows a BOLD move results in no consensus, the article is moved back to its pre-BOLD title. Given that, I wonder if a WP:BOLD geographic name change made in the good-faith belief that it won't be controversial, followed by an RM if it turns out to attract some dispute, isn't as bad a process as some fear. Particularly where the name change follows what WP:WIAN calls a "watershed moment" and any existing consensus was based on pre-watershed sources.Metadox (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support You don't charge forward and take a long-standing article and start a discussion on changing the name and close it MINUTES later in order to stop anyone from being able to disagree with you to get your way. If common name as oppose to presidential order is the method Wikipedia uses to make article changes, the name should stay McKinley, until Denali sticks with the rest of the country. (I know Denali is popular in Alaska, but the rest of the U.S. won't know what you're talking about. I think that over time this may or may not change.) Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. 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? Yes, WikIan there's probably no rule stating how long you have to wait. But WP:SKYISBLUE common sense should have told you that a few minutes wasn't long enough, especially since the none of the primary editors to this article had had a chance to respond.
What is even more obnoxious is that nobody even read the title of the article used to change the name.
"McKinley no more: North America's tallest peak to be renamed Denali"
Yes, "to be renamed" which means in the future. Either people are functionally illiterate or they are blatantly disregarding WP:NOTNEWS.
You won't even wait for the news to actually happen! These "good faith editors and admins" have to report future events as well?
"Strong Support - Down with the oppressor. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)" <------ Actual response for name change!
The name change obviously and clearly violated WP:NOTNEWS. It may have not violated the letter rules for name changes, but it definitely violated the spirit of the rules for name changes. I believe that anyone who is not an activist and not into promoting absurdity on Wikipedia should see that the name change was done inappropriately.Hilltrot (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - When will the 10th Amendment be defended and obeyed? Benjamin Franklin said, "We are a new Nationality, we require a new Nation"; to begin renaming things to its "old" name is in direct conflict with the New Nationality and New Nation of the United States". Like it or not, the lands of the United States are no longer an Indian Nation (and I say this as a 15% Native American, my mother's father being 53% Native American). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.129.34 (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • From your rationale it's not entirely clear whether you really intended to oppose or support the proposal, which was to reset to the name to McKinley before a formal RM discussion toward Denali takes place. VictorD7 (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


Notice

edit 

Notice to anyone participating in this discussion

I am writing this because did anyone even read what I wrote? It seems not. So here is what happened: I DID NOT MOVE the page. I came here AFTER it was moved by another user. I DID NOT know it was controversial. I DID NOT start the discussion and immediately close the discussion to stop anyone from [disagreeing with me]to get [my] way as I was accused of. That's ridiculous, please back up YOUR ideas with the correct edit histories. I saw an open discussion and closed it because the move HAD ALREADY HAPPENED before I got there. Do not blame me for the editors who disregarded WP:COMMONNAME and moved the page without reaching consensus. However, at this point I do not think we should move it back to Mount McKinley because that is no longer going to be the common name and there is so much opposition against moving the article back. WikIan -(talk) 03:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hilltrot: The discussion was rendered obsolete by the WP:BOLD page move by another editor and the procedural early closure of the RM was correct as it would no longer display properly at WP:RM if left open. The close was a minor procedural measure as opposed to a unilateral content decision. Attacking WinkIan for the move is completely inappropriate, as are accusations of bad faith and your assessment of the move is blatantly misinformed. Please take better care to look into the actual circumstances so as to avoid attacking editors for no reason in the future, and in general, focus on content, not contributors. Swarm ♠ 04:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Swarm: I never attacked WikIan. Nor, did I accuse or even imply bad faith. "Blatantly misinformed" is a paradox and makes no sense! Please look up the words. However, I will apologize for overuse of WP:AVOIDYOU. " A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack." My wording was poor, but I felt rushed and for good reason. When discussions are closed within minutes of the start, one generally feels the need to react quickly or never be heard from. I did question the decisions being made.
"Proposal to restore last consensus name while name discussion occurs" was the title of the section I was adding comment to. The actual decision to name it Mt. McKinley or Denali wasn't the only or even the primary part of the discussion. Many of those who said support actually stated that they might later support the name change. The problem was that the discussion was prematurely ended. Sometimes the methods have to be discussed.
WP:RMCI "Some RM discussions are contentious; undiscussed, unilateral page moves during a discussion or page moves made immediately after and contrary to an RM close decision are disruptive and hurt the integrity of the RM process." The WP:BOLD rename of the article you discuss may have been good faith, but it was disruptive and wrong and should not be encouraged. While the premature closure was done in good faith and was not a disruptive edit - It was made with very poor judgement, was wrong and should not be encouraged. The RM was not rendered obsolete, the RM was disrupted with disruptive editing.
Instead of a closure, the move should have been reverted and the editor invited to join the conversation. In every other article page, this is what I've seen. In fact, in moving an article, it is generally good manners to look up and notify the primary writers of the article. Rudeness was the norm in this move, even if the rudeness was unintended. Instead of the RM being restored per the "fifth pillar", editors were told that they had to follow a very strict bureaucratic method of restoring the RM, but even if they were to do so, they would be opposed and that some had already been meted. And then the victor was declared before even the second discussion got started.
Is this the new way to change article titles? Wait for an RM to start. Boldly move the article to the title you want before the conversation even gets started. Wait for someone to realize the article has already been moved and so the RM has?? to be administratively closed. VictorD7 has a good point which follows my statement.
Right now Kiev is Kiev on Wikipedia. There is growing evidence for the spelling Kyiv http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/. The people who regularly edit these articles and are WP:HERE sometimes don't visit but once a week, much less, once every few minutes. The consensus has been Kiev for a very long time. I can just see many making a similar move on this and many other articles in Wikipedia if what was done here was determined to be appropriate. If the name was changed to Kyiv in this manner, it would take a tremendous amount of effort and waste a lot of time to change it back to Kiev. This is because the burden of proof is on the person doing the changing. This is Wikipedia policy. It is harder to change something than to keep it the same. It is harder to change the name back to Kiev than it is to keep it Kiev. This time wasted by the Kiev editors could be used to improve the article and make this encyclopedia better.Hilltrot (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you're saying any RM can be torpedoed simply by an editor making a bold move while it's happening. VictorD7 (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    Not at all. It's strictly a matter of consensus either way. Even though the RM was closed, the bold move was still thoroughly, openly and transparently discussed, vetted and then endorsed by the community. If there wasn't such a clear consensus in support of the move, it would have been moved back and the RM discussion continued. However doing so against the tide of consensus, for the sake of process, would not be appropriate. Swarm ♠ 05:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    But there wasn't a clear consensus. The RM was closed after only 2 hours with only few editors having participated, not the 7 days spelled out by guidelines. That's not enough time to form a consensus. You just said an RM should be closed if a bold move takes place while it's occurring, even citing a technical justification for it. As Hilltrot points out above though, WP:RMCI states that unilateral moves during RMs are "disruptive". Apparently the proper course of action would have been for an admin to issue move protection while the discussion continued and maybe revert the move. I suppose a regular editor could have reverted the bold move, but they're far less likely to when there's a closed RM apparently endorsing the move sitting on the talk page, understandably thinking they'd be violating policy in taking unilateral action. I'll add that according to that page at least it appears Metadox may have been right above about a no consensus RM resulting in the page being moved to its pre-bold move version, though that doesn't address what you've said here about RMs being properly closed if there is a move (meaning every RM could be ended by one editor suddenly making a bold move, and others having to start over with a new RM), or about whether such a closed RM might be interpreted as the last consensus. VictorD7 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    If no one took you seriously the first dozen times you said that exact same thing, what makes you think saying a hundred more times will matter? It doesn't matter. The result would've been the same. The only thing disruptive is you beating a dead horse. Consensus is clear that Denali is the proper name for this. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, you aren't changing that, nor will you get anything moved back just so we can wait around a full week of people repeating themselves nonstop, just to change it once again to its current title. Do you want to drag those responsible for whatever wrong you see them as having done to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? That's the proper place to complain about editor conduct, not here, and I'm sure they'll close it quickly and tell you to stop wasting everyone's time with this. Dream Focus 22:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    Your post here is so off the mark as to constitute wasted space at best and vandalism at worst. Leaving aside the fact that numerous editors on all sides have made it clear they take me "seriously", most pertinently the third editor in this three editor (not counting you) sub exchange, this portion of the discussion actually is covering new ground important for future situations, namely whether it's truly necessary to close an RM when an editor makes a bold move, as Swarm alleged above. In fact it's vital to clear this up. So no, I'm not being disruptive, but your attempt to derail this promising line certainly is. As for whether there's consensus that the "proper" name (whatever that even means) is "Denali", I'm not even sure that's true since we haven't had an RM on the matter lasting more than 2 hours (much less the 7 days called for by guidelines). The only thing one can firmly say is that there's no consensus to reset back to McKinley so such a discussion can take place (what this section was actually about), though the proposal has received significant support. VictorD7 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    this portion of the discussion actually is covering new ground important for future situations. No it isn't. Anything decided here locally won't affect anywhere else in the future. You need to go to the talk page of the relevant guideline to discuss things there. You'll get more feedback from people interested in the subject as well. No need to keep dragging this out here in multiple sections and cluttering up the talk page. Dream Focus 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    Yes it is. I just laid what's new here. I replied directly to a claim by the acting admin that seems to be in contradiction to policy, another editor joined to comment on the matter, and the admin has replied to us both. This is something that needs to be clarified here for involved parties so people on all sides will know how to act in the future (and it's only happening in this one section). The discussion has advanced but has yet to be resolved. If you aren't interested then don't participate. Your two posts in this exchange are what's cluttering things up. Your advice has been read and rejected. I'll ask that you refrain from posting here again simply to repeat yourself. VictorD7 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    We get it. The page move wasn't proper because the RM consensus wasn't clear yet. No one's debating that...but it doesn't matter. If there wasn't any consensus before, there is a clear consensus now in support of the move, in spite of it being out of process. Swarm ♠ 00:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    But that's not the issue. The question is whether it was right, or even mandatory as you suggested, to close the RM because of the move, or if next time this happens it should be left open for the discussion to continue and a real consensus to be established. VictorD7 (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@VictorD7: After taking 2 hours to read all the different sections (I personally count 10, but 1 other may be able to be counted as well) dealing ultimately with the same subject of moving this page back or not, and in almost every section it shows the consensus against moving it back. That means the page stays. It also established umpteenth times listed (mostly by you) how it was wrong for this to have been moved like it was. Your point HERE is made on that subject. However, as ( Dream Focus) and admin (Swarm) have tried to convey to you anything else is a subject that is not directly related to Denali aside as a reference of this is where the wrong happened at. From this point, on this page, stating anything further on it is beating a dead horse. Take it to the talk page on the SUBJECTS of the proper procedures to perhaps initiate change there, as here it is doing nothing more than causing people to see your comments at this point to be repetitive at best, and highly disruptive at worst (not an exaggeration since at least 3 other editors have told you the same thing on this page). I am not saying you are wrong in the way you feel and no one else seems to state that either, but if you were to take out every else comments on this whole page and read your very numerous amounts of comments about it, you would find, 1. You have overly repeated yourself on numerous occasions 2. Have offered on only 2 occasions any new pertinent information to the subject to help your cause or line of thinking, and 3. In the process argued against others on more than one occasion with the same exact statements as before, as if no one read you the first time. We get it, your upset, your angry, and you feel a grave misjustice has been done where Wikipedia standards are concerned. OK, lets move on now. ITS DONE, THE MOVE IS COMPLETE, ITS NOT BEING REVERSED. Let's talk about issues involving Denali now if need be from this point on. What do you have constructive to discuss, add, question, or refer to on that, because that is what THIS talk page is supposed to be for. Not the rest of this repetitive information/arguing/flaming (Wikipedia politics, so to speak) going on that is extremely disheartening and ultimately disruptive, to see on any Wikipedia page. Please don't think I am trying to attack you, as I really am not, and it does not appear anyone else is either; I am just tired of seeing the same old information on one page repeated over and over and over again.Itanaman Dakar (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
You should have paid more attention in your reading, because none of your paragraph long rant had anything to do with the reasonable and pertinent question I asked in the post you replied to, a question Swarm could quickly answer if he's inclined to, and you mischaracterized my comments and those of several other editors, including the other one just above making the same point I did before you and DreamFocus attempted to derail this exchange. If Swarm declines to answer then he doesn't answer, but it's not like I'm posting repeated, impatient demands that he answer. In fact I said long ago that I'd be fine if this section was closed, and aside from one brief reply to Swarm's comment a few paragraphs up my last several posts here have been responses to queries directly to me or false claims made about me in direct response to me. Instead of getting in the way with useless spam, if you're not interested then don't post. Nobody's forcing you to read this exchange. And I'm not seeking a "change". I and others have been trying to clarify what the current proper procedure is, given the logical contradictions in Swarm's comments vis a vis policy. You're simply wrong about this not being the appropriate forum. For one thing, I already tried to take the specific RM issue to the move review page only to have it shut down by Swarm, accompanied by false accusations of "forum shopping". Since Swarm commented directly on the RM procedural issue above while addressing another editor, I just asked him to clarify the comments he made here. We're allowed to discuss these issues with the involved parties on their user pages or on the talk pages where the controversies arise. I'm also not angry or upset, though the all caps indicate you are for some reason. I suggest you relax and click away to a discussion you find more interesting. VictorD7 (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • To answer your question simply, yes, it was absolutely appropriate to procedurally close the RM. Why? Because when a requested move is performed while the discussion's still open, it no longer renders properly at WP:RM (i.e. it appeared as a request to move Denali→Denali). The close itself is a technicality and is not the controversial action at play here. The procedural close did not mean consensus had been determined, or that the discussion was over. The page could either be moved back so that the original RM could continue (the most typical response but one that risks creating an edit war), or alternatively the move could be left in place and discussed retroactively (most likely if the move was uncontroversial to begin with). Those were the two options and you chose the latter. Either way, you still have to resolve the dispute by coming to a rough consensus and the end result is going to be the same. MRV is not an appropriate forum because the RM discussion did not play a role in the contested move (also, while I'm willing to believe you that it was unintentional, attempting to re-start the discussion there was forum shopping on its face). If you're looking for some sort of procedure or process beyond that, it doesn't exist—literally the only reason this situation arose was because someone ignored procedure to begin with. The procedure is not to ignore the RM, not to flaunt process, and not to create unnecessary drama. However, we're allowed to ignore the procedure without consequence. However, when we do this, we're still subject to consensus. The move itself was out of process, as was the good faith attempt to re-start the discussion at MRV, but beyond that, you're not going to find any procedural flaws. Discussion was still initiated right away and the community has been building a consensus, just as it should have happened. Swarm ♠ 07:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    So if this issue arises again, where a bold move takes place while an RM is going on, especially if it's just started, it seems the best course of action is to revert it so the RM can continue, which also may mean holding off on procedurally closing it too quickly unless that can simply be reverted too. Otherwise the RM will be torpedoed by an editor boldly moving the page as Hilltrot and I said, and will have be shut down for the technical reasons you cite. To avoid having to restart new discussions it's better for everyone to be patient and let the 7 days play out. Thank you for clarifying. I'm still not sure I agree with you on WP:FORUMSHOPPING, since that section implies intent with the word "shopping" (as if you're shopping around), by including "spin-doctoring" and "admin-shopping" in the same header, by following subsections on tendentious editing, sock puppetry, etc., by saying not to "try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want" (emphasis theirs), and by calling it "asking the other parent" (a classic intentional manipulation by children). Someone might do that without knowing it violates policy but they would know they were shopping around for a different result. I wasn't doing that. I was trying to jump through all the proper hoops and reasonably figured the RM close should be formally addressed since such closes are typically treated as consensus on Wikipedia. The section also adds that where multiple issues do exist then raising them in multiple forums might be reasonable, and in this case there were issues with both the RM close and the move, which you've now helped clear up. But if I encounter this situation again and the move is reverted I'll try boldly reverting the procedural RM close so the discussion can continue instead of bothering with a formal review. VictorD7 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (←) Take it on a case by case basis but it is an option. Just take care not to edit war. Swarm ♠ 03:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request elevation correction

I request the change described below. The purpose of the change is to

  • Correct the datum of the elevation from NGVD 29 to NAVD88
  • Use a more complete web page from the United States Geological Survey to support the elevation claim
  • Add an additional author to the citation.

Existing wikitext (changed to one parameter per line): 

| elevation_ref = {{NGVD29}}.<ref name=ADN>{{cite press release
| url=http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4312&from=rss_home
| publisher=USGS
| title= New Elevation for Nation’s Highest Peak
| author=Mark Newell
| date=September 2, 2015}}</ref>

New wikitext: 

| elevation_ref = {{NGVD88}}.<ref name=ADN>{{cite press release
| url=http:http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/new-elevation-for-nations-highest-peak/?from=title
| publisher=USGS
| title= New Elevation for Nation’s Highest Peak
| author1=Mark Newell
| author2=Blaine Horner
| date=September 2, 2015}}</ref>

Jc3s5h (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done KnightLago (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio

In the history section, please either rephrase or place in quotes the copy pasted text Until then 18,000-foot (5,500 m) Mount Saint Elias was believed to be the continent’s highest point, and Mount Logan was still unknown...the source material immediately follows that sentence but is not properly attributed with quotations.--MONGO 08:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Quote marks added. Vsmith (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Move request?

Is there a formal request for moving the article back to Mount McKinley? I made a couple of comments earlier, and came back to see how things were going. I'm not seeing a section headed by a template. I'm unclear about the purpose of the continuing discussion if no one has proposed a move. Since the move to Denali is more controversial for its bold procedure than for even the name change itself (some who support Denali agree that the move was precipitous procedurally), shouldn't the effort to achieve consensus be structured within a formal move request? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think even dyed-in-the-wool opponents of the new name acknowledge that there is overwhelming support for it in this editing community, so they've not bothered to create a formal movereq or RfC. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I find this whole "Deny Denali" effort incredibly silly. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah. That was my impression. I see lots of sources to support Denali per WP:WIAN, which seems intended to address ambiguities arising from applying "most common" to out-of-date place names. But it would be disingenuous were I to say that I didn't expect imminent deceased equine the minute I saw the NYT story on the name change. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

In the discussions above, why do people assume that WP:COMMONNAME favours "Mount McKinley"? Google n-gram viewer shows that Denali overtook mount McKinley in 1982 as the most used name in the corpus of (scanned) English books. Am I missing something? Diego (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 September 2015

Change the pronunciation from 

(/dɪˈnɑːli/ or /dɪˈnæli/)

to 

/dɪˈnɑːli/

The symbol "aː" is intended specifically for cases such as this, where some people have /æ/ and some have /ɑː/ (like "bath"). Also, with only a single IPA entry there's no need for parentheses. Maybe remove the following parentheses as well, but certainly two parentheticals in a row is a bit much.

Note also the preceding request on updating the elevation convention. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — kwami (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sometime after I added the transcription with alpha, I was considering switching it to a (or coalescing the two; not sure when I noticed that /aː/ was defined in the key), but at the time, the key only associated it with items of the BATH set.
Though, I see that you changed the key to mention variability in foreign placenames; I recently changed that to mention words with this variation that people will actually be familiar with, such as taco and pasta, but I still find it somewhat dissatisfying — probably because it currently looks like it's being framed as a BE vs. AmE difference, which isn't really accurate (note that I can't do anything about it today), as can be seen with Nevada and the pronunciation of pasta and names and other words from Italian with /æ/ rather than /ɑː/ in various parts of the US (at least in older speakers with the latter case).
Nonetheless, the editor that added the /æ/ version did so with the intend to give some sort of representation of the Alaskan pronunciation rather than representation of a (potential (this dictionary, at least lists it with /ɑː/ rather than their /a/ = /æ/)) British pronunciation with /æ/. Ignoring the fact that the augmented definition for /aː/ still isn't particularly satisfying, which is an issue for the key rather than this page anyway, I would go with what you propose in addition to providing a transcription of the common Alaskan pronunciation or at least mentioning somehow that it's pronounced with /æ/ rather than /ɑː/ there.
What do you think?
Espreon (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
We should always give local pronunciations where they are not predictable, so yes, either a note or IPAc-en with the 'local' parameter. If everyone outside Alaska pretty much uses the SPA vowel, then I'd leave that alone and change the 2nd pron. to 'local'.
You're welcome to clean up the note in the IPA key as well; I did a quick explanation late at night based on what I'd seen but with no actual research. It should certainly be fixed if I got it wrong or if it's significantly incomplete. — kwami (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't really get the whole IPA thing (unless we're talking about beer), but if it helps, the only pronunciation I have ever heard from an Alaskan is duh-nahl-ee. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not too up on the whole IPA thing either, but as a lifelong Alaskan, the pronunciation I've always heard is də-nŏl-ē (basically what Beeblebrox wrote). A closer-to-Native pronunciation is to drop the first vowel, similar to how we pronounce "Knik," (K'nik -- all one syllable; the "K" is not silent) as is D'nŏl-ē. Zaereth (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I just figured out that if you hover your cursor over each individual letter, it will explain what the IPA symbol means. In this case, I would say the local pronunciation is "D" as is "dye," "N" as in "no," "A" as is "father," "L" as in "lie," and "I" as in "happy>" The addition of the schwa sound (uh) for the letter "E" seems to vary among locals; some add it and some don't, although it's very common for Alaskan dialect. (ie: Rəly, rəlate, rəpublican). Hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the question is whether the /dɨˈnæli/ pronunciation actually exists, since it is evidently not the local pronunciation. If it does, then the two should be merged per the original suggestion. If it does not, then it should be deleted. — kwami (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Well the last thing I want to do is start a controversy. (I'm rather enjoying the recent calm.) I was just throwing in my observations, but unfortunately have no sources for that. It is very common, however, in the local native languages to have a hard consonant in conjunction with an "N" or an "M," as in "Knik" or D'na'ina (English spelling: Dena'ina, pronounced D'nine-uh). Unless you grew up here, with many Alaska Natives as your friends, this sort of consonant pairing is rather difficult for most English speakers to say, thus the schwa sound is added, represented by the letter "E" in our English spelling of the name. That my two cents, but whatever you all decide will be fine with me. Zaereth (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It would be fine to add /ˈdnɑːli/ (or whatever the vowel is) for the local pronunciation, but dn is not an acceptable sequence for most varieties of English, so we can't use it for the general pronunciation. For general English, I assume that both æ and ɑː are correct (that is, the article as it stands is correct), in which case we should conflate them to /dɪˈnɑːli/. Any objections to that? — kwami (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
None from me. For the latter half of the word, I've heard both ali (as in "a bowling alley") and ali (as in "Ollie and the Beaver"). (Oops, I guess it "Wally" but same sound. Whichever works for me.) Zaereth (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Reopened. It looked as though there might have been a problem with the second pronunciation, but per the latest comments that seems not to be the case. — kwami (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: It doesn't look like you've decided whether or not to add the local pronunciation yet. Or perhaps I've misread this? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
We don't usually bother with local pronunciations unless they're notable, and there doesn't seem to be any consensus on specifying a local pronunciation here, so I was sticking with the original request. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough - Done. (Although actually, the protection just expired as well.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 September 2015

The first sentence reads as: "Denali (also known as Mount McKinley)"

It should really say "Denali (formerly known as Mount McKinley) Luxure Σ 11:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

formerly known as implies no longer known as, which is incorrect. The name is Denali, but the mountain is still known as Mount McKinley to some people, and will continue to be for many years. Old habits die slowly. Apuldram (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
There was a huge edit war over this topic and discussions as well. The way it is now -- "also known as" -- is a decent compromise. Some people refer to it one way, and some people refer to it the other way. Otherwise it's just going to be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Mountain_In_Alaska_With_An_Oil_Pipeline_Through_It . Mindraker2 (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... fair enough. Luxure Σ 06:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: I've disabled the edit request for now - please reopen it if/when there is a consensus to make the edit. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Prominence of Denali

Hi Buaidh. I am wondering if you can clarify some matters on this subject. I checked out the key col against my most updated resources and found that, although its coordinates are inaccurate, it correctly claims that the col is, per 50K topographic mapping of Nicaragua, between 40 and 50 metres, not 56 metres as on peaklist. But by giving a prominence of 6141 metres, we are basing it on "clean" prominence, not interpolated prominence. Is this the practice on Wikipedia for mountains in the USA generally? If so, then this practice is inconsistent with the rest of the world. Note that in reality there is no such thing as clean prominence based on topographic map contours because there are subjective error margins in these contours, and in most cases, summit spot heights. Viewfinder (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

At issue is the elevation of the Isthmus of Rivas (Istmo de Rivas), the lowest point on the Continental Divide of the Americas between the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. I have various elevation references of 56 m (184 feet), 50 m (160 feet), 47 m (154 feet), and 153 feet (46.6 m). I chose 50 m as the best estimate. I am rather mystified by the uncertainty in this elevation since a Nicaragua Canal has been proposed for at least 190 years and its latest reincarnation is scheduled to begin construction this year. Regardless, any canal will not cross the isthmus at its lowest pass due to engineering constraints. See the Nicaragua Canal Project Description.
I try to use the best estimate of col elevation available. If no reasonable estimate is available, I use the average of the clear and optimist topographic map elevations. Please let me know if you find a better estimate of elevation. Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You should discount the 56 m elevation. I was its original author when I researched this for peaklist way back in 2004, but I now have more access to more accurate maps and SRTM data, from which I have concluded that I misplaced the col. I now uphold peakbagger's claim that the col is between 40 and 50 metres. In this case, an average of the clear and optimist topographic elevations is probably about right, although if you have a source for 47 m that would be consistent with my information. Note that peakbagger are still using the now outdated 6194 m for Denali's summit. Also note that the Panama canal, being artificial, is not taken into account. If it were, the col would be, I think, about 26 metres, being the highest elevation of the canal. Viewfinder (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The Report of the Nicaragua canal commission, 1897-1899 cites an elevation of 154 feet (46.9 m). While this report is more than a century old, it may well be our most accurate citation. This would give Denali a topographic prominence of 6,143.6 m (20,156 feet).  Buaidh  17:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to go along with this col height. The survey work carried out at the time is probably as accurate as anything more recent. Viewfinder (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denali/Archive_4&oldid=848595004"