Kommunal.az

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It is clear that the vast majority of editors do not agree with the reasons proposed for the move, and/or accept the counterarguments proposed against it. (closed by non-admin page mover) (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denali → ? – Now that climbing season is over I wonder how Denali / Mount McKinley has been referred to throughout the season. I'm proposing a move to either Mount McKinley or Denali / Mount McKinley. While "Mount McKinley" may not have been the only known name in Alaska, and many Alaskans may have called it "Denali" prior to 2015 already, "Mount McKinley" was the only common, undisputed name in the world (including the contiguous U.S.) till 2015. The rename in 2015 is what created a confusion over which name to use, as many people still referred to the mountain as Mt McKinley. Hence from my point of view, the 2025 re-rename settled that dispute in favor of Mount McKinley (worldwide, not in Alaska where there has always been a dispute over which name to use). Glasfaser Wien (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose For a number of reasons. This was discussed as recently as April, and even earlier, not good practice to re-open these discussions ad nauseam. I'm also not too keen on these "move it to something else but not sure what" proposals. Double names are also deprecated on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If you make a RM, it's your job to decide what the new title you want should be. If you don't know, don't make an RM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless there are sources that hints the situation has changed since Talk:Denali/Archive_10#Copying_moratorium_from_Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico, I think we should consider a new 6 month, or a year, moratorium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made clear what the new title shall be: either Mount McKinley or Denali / Mount McKinley. WP also has a double name page Aoraki / Mount Cook. There's an option not to specify where a page shall be moved, so I made use of that, in case someone prefers the double name rather than "Denali" or "Mount McKinley" only. But if double names truly are deprecated on WP, "Mount McKinley" is the target title. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoraki / Mount Cook is the official name of the mountain, and is commonly used in sources as well. Denali / Mount McKinley has no official status and is not commonly used. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – nothing has changed since the last two discussions. Denali remains the common name both in Alaska, in the US, and worldwide despite the name change, and the OP hasn't provided any new arguments, just made a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions about the common name. It's been less than a year since the last discussion, and I feel like we should make another moratorium if there's no indication that "Mount McKinley" is increasing in prevalence. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that Denali is "the common name" in the US and worldwide is unsubstantiated too. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No longer. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limited use and hard to say how relevant per Denali (disambiguation)/McKinley/WP:GOOGLETEST, but possibly indicating something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and speedy close. A move request with no proposed title and no work done, launched almost as soon as the moratorium has ended, is not a productive use of anyone's time. I see no evidence that the situation has changed and no reason to consider the move any further. Turnagra (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Denali is the clear COMMONNAME. There is no evidence that the name Mount McKinley has grown in use since the last requested move. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 18:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move. Mount McKinley is the Federal name.Halbared (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a global encyclopaedia, not just an American one.HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite? The US faces the world as a nation, no a collection of localities.Halbared (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move - Looks like I'm seeing more and more Mount McKinley these days whether at Google or advertising. It's been seven months so this was certainly a more than reasonable wait to bring up again. Plus no one has shown that Denali was ever more used in sources than McKinley. ngrams favor Mount McKinley over Mount Denali, and McKinley over Denali. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  'McKinley' is used in many more contexts, it's a surname after all. Searching the keywords 'McKinley' in the contents of books in libraries turns up almost exclusively instances of it being used to refer to people. While 'Denali' is often used on it's own (without 'mount') to refer to the mountain. 'Denali' is used much more than 'Mount McKinley'. It may be out that 'Denali' is the more popular name for the mountain. We just don't know what portion of the 'McKinley' (without 'mount') uses refer to the mountain. Ngrams are not that useful in this situation. Kardoen (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would disagree with much of this. Denali is used way more often as the National Park and gas grills and Denali College and Denali Education Center and those aspects probably dwarf all the other McKinley uses. And I gave both instances in ngrams to cover that. With what I've read in University and High School teachings, it's almost all Mt. McKinley these days. What is true is that ngrams and other sources used here will always be suspect, especially in this case. But that didn't stop the Wikipedia move to Denali, nor the last go around discussion. Only when it's a move away from Denali does that seem to matter. Lot's of politics right from the get-go on this issue. I'm not playing that game but I'm not surprised in the least at the responses here. I said last time that we will never change it back to McKinley here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose NO evidence has been presented that the "worldwide" common name has changed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was immediately moved to Denali in 2015 no such evidence was presented either. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Bad request for the article to be renamed and moved "somewhere else" with no proposed title in the request itself. No evidence presented. Carlstak (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the (post)request? Titles are proposed. One just cannot RM to two names. There's no problem with the official RM to "somewhere else" because users know what the target names are and can state their desired target name themselves. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glasfaser Wien, I'd suggest you give WP:BLUDGEON a skim. I'm not accusing you of anything to be clear, but it's still early days of the move request and you've replied to a fair few people already, so I thought a helpful reminder to stop things getting out of hand might be worthwhile. Turnagra (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Not a good look and wasting our time. Carlstak (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had to expose some nonsense you're writing. You (and another user above) claimed there is no target title. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to "expose" anything. Other editors can read comments in this section without your interpolations. Still wasting our time. Carlstak (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose One vainglorious proclamation by one head of state does not alter reality. RfC creator has not articulated a valid reason why the previous discussion should be overturned. Zaathras (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose / procedural close Per WP:RSPM, an editor requesting a page move should use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines to defend their request. No evidence has been provided and no P&Gs have been cited. OceanGunfish (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – No info or sources provided that warrant a change since the previous RM in April.--Wolbo (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the RM doesn't have a proper destination target and no new sources presented to change status quo. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:STICK as it was thoroughly beaten to death long before this discussion. The constant agitation also raises questions of whether WP:ADVOCACY is being violated. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per previous RM The result of the move request was: not moved. The evidence presented in the discussion favors Denali as the common name. Wikipedia prefers common names over official names. It is a type of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to constantly rehash the same debates and launch repeated move requests in the face of community opposition. The wider community is likely to consider any further move requests in the near future as disruptive. Katzrockso (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However seven months later is not the near future at all. This is likely to come up every six months for sure and is not disruptive at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Not disruptive at all"? Large parts of the encyclopedia are an abomination and aren't being improved, meanwhile we make it far too easy for time wasters like this. All it does is prove that "collaboration" only occurs around here when there's something to battle over. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and requesting permission to close this early per WP:SNOWCLOSE Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 13:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - to Mount McKinley per WP:COMMONNAME ~2025-32789-06 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide a source for it being a common name over Denali? @~2025-32789-06? Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 14:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did up above already. Can you provide a source that says Denali is more common? They were pretty much equal 7 months ago and McKinley has grown in school usage and advertising since then. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fyunck(click) We were talking about the temp's message, not yours. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 21:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter if they are following the given stats that show McKinley is more popular in sources and Google, as compared to a heap of I don't like it posts. I've been piling on the proof and that's all a closer should care about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A summary of the evidence provided so far is:

  On the Mount McKinley side, Ngrams comparing "Denali" to "McKinley" (a common surname) and "Mount McKinley" to "Mount Denali" (a term that doesn't exist) but curiously no comparison to the two actual proposed names, and a list of WP:CHERRYPICKed sources;

  On the Denali side, a list of similarly cherrypicked sources, the actual Ngram between Denali and Mount McKinley showing much higher use for Denali, and a Google Trends showing Denali far outstripping McKinley.

  Is a direct comparison between the terms difficult? Probably – there are a lot of other things both named Denali and McKinley. WP:TITLECHANGES says: If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. OceanGunfish (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 While the sources on both sides are decently cherrypicked, the analytics for both the google trends and Ngram are a good tell on the WP:COMMONNAME. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 00:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 Linking guidelines doesn't really do much unless you explain why the guideline is linked. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 14:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you could add some of the same evidence to your own response that refers to the same guideline without any? ~2025-32789-06 (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no evidence that the name Mount McKinley has grown in use since the last requested move. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 15:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pardon? If you mean by my request to SNOWCLOSE, my source is a move request from the past. We don't need to repeat this. WP:ONUS is to Denali. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources to show that universities and grade schools are teaching it as Mount McKinley? DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Nothing has changed since the last discussion about this. Gamaliel (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - this has been dragged on for way too long, even Britannica and TripAdvisor have gone back to Mt. McKinley at this point. Many of the Oppose arguments seem to be made in bad faith. Rolesafter1 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Made in bad faith" literally how? Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 16:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:AOBF:

  Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute.

  OceanGunfish (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 23:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: No significant changes since the last time this was brought up. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, no comparative evidence provided for WP:NAMECHANGES/WP:COMMONNAME (so not a picked selection of sources from one side). Strongly oppose specifically the dual name which goes against WP:MLN, dual names are not to be used unless the dual name itself is proven to be most common. DankJae 03:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - No actual comparing the two names to show that McKinley is now the common name worldwide - TwoNineNineOne (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even though more people are switching to Mount McKinley as an official name, I still think Denali should be used. Take Imja Tse for example, most people call it Island peak but Wikipedia still keeps it as Imja Tse. This should be the same for Denali. Breck0530 (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would go against Guidelines and Policy at Wikipedia. If more are going one way that's what we use, and obviously the article you mentioned should be looked at as against Wikipeida protocol. We don't do things because someone likes it better, we go by English sourcing, which is why based on presentation it's an easy call for Mount McKinley. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the climbing world — as referenced by the OP above — still rejects McKinley as per its most widely read publications and magazines, including: Climbing Magazine, Outside Magazine, Gripped Magazine. It is hard to find any of the WP:NCLIMB sources that use "Mount McKinley" when referring to the mountain. They seem to be sticking with Denali for now. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is incorrect. Two of those articles are before the name change, so of course they use Denali. But americanalpineclub.org uses both at the same time, and International Mountain Guides uses McKinley. The naming to McKinley is the new norm. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fyunck(click) Hi there, just make sure you aren't Wikipedia:BLUDGEONING. You seem to have a lot of comments in the discussion and are responding to opposing views within a few minutes of them being posted. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 22:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He's making valid arguments and correcting misleading citations. A more constructive response would be to engage with them, especially since your stance is Oppose. Rolesafter1 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And actually LuniZunie may be the one doing the Wikipedia:BLUDGEONING with the quick uncivil bludgeoning template. They are the ones that could get reported if they continue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fyunck(click) I never gave you a template, I never even accused you of bludgeoning. I just wanted to make sure you were aware, as it may make people less inclined to fully read & understand your points. I do not see why threating a report here is necessary, as this was in no way an escalation. I didn't make that comment in the hopes that my opinion would have more "weight", I just wanted to make sure you were aware of how many comments you were making. Hope that clears things up, and again, I do not see any reason to threaten a report. Let me know if I misunderstood anything, happy editing =) – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 23:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And I hope you realize how many comments you are making with this frivolous bludgeoning attrition when it's not even close. To even think that it is bludgeoning is ridiculous. There was no call for it at all. If editors say they want to go agaisnt Wikipedia policy, I will point it out that it's wrong to do so. If someone comments on my post I will respond if it's wrong. And if someone posts something with sources that are unacceptable, the closer should know that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly I think both of you need to stop commenting and let this pointless discussion run its course. Turnagra (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]