Talk:Denali

Prominence is original research

To find a difference the prominence, two elevations above sea level must be subtracted. If reliable sources provide both elevations with reference to the same datum, such as North American Vertical Datum of 1988, it is a simple calculation that falls under the WP:CALC exception to the no original research policy. Since no reliable source has been provided for both the summit and the base elevation referred to the same datum it is original research by User:Buaidh. I have reverted the original research. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

In this edit User:Buaidh claims the prominence of Denali is "20,146 ft (6141 m)" and cites Peak Bagger as the source. But that source does not contain 6141 m, instead, the source claims the prominence is 6140 m. The source does give the prominence as 20,146 ft. It is not obvious from the source whether the US customary or the SI measurement is regarded as the authoritative measurement, and which is regarded by the source as a unit conversion. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This edit creates an apparent contradiction. As I understand it, the prominence for the highest peak on a land mass is defined as the elevation of the peak minus the elevation of the lowest pass on the land mass; in the case of the Americas, it would be the lowest pass across the continental divide. The edit in question implies that the elevation of the lowest pass across the continental divide is that found by the Nicaragua Canal Commission, 134 feet above sea level, in 1899. If that is subtracted from the elevation of the peak stated in the article, 20,310 feet, the result is 20,176 feet. Put the prominence stated in the article, which is taken from the Peak Bagger source, is 20,146 feet. Either we should accept Peak Bagger as a source and not try to explain their calculation (such an explanation would be original research) or we should reject the source and remove the prominence from the article. Accepting Peak Bagger but adding unexplained contradictory information is not acceptable.

The edit in question was [1] reverted by User:YBG Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the current state is just fine.

• |prominence=20,146 ft (6140 m) in WP's infobox as of my edit linked above
• Clean Prominence: 20,146 ft/6140 m in Peak Bagger as of just now.

So it seems to me that the two are in perfect agreement. My edit above removed a source that can be used to derive Peak Bagger's calculation, which would in fact be OR. YBG (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Change related to this page

See Talk:List of extreme points of the United States § Denali for discussion of a related change. I mention it here, not to incite an edit war, but in hopes of inviting some WP:AGF-type collaboration. YBG (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to end edit warring over the name

I have added some hidden comments to the lead and infobox, and created an edit notice for this page. These measures should make it clear to anyone wishing to just unilateraly change the name that they should not do so, and that they should propose any such changes here first. If they ignore all that, please make sure to direct them to the talk page and archives when you revert them (a talk page message is preferable to just doing it in an edit summary) so that they cannot claim they did not know about the existing hard-won consensus for the current name and wording. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it can be useful. I have been on top of that mountain twice and everyone around the mountain say "Denali". In the climbing community the mountain is called "Denali".--Silvio1973 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hence the reason this article is named Denali. But it is also commonly called Mt. McKinley, so that is also mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Claims of wide spread use of 'Denali' prior to official legislation

The source provided does not have any evidence to back up the stated claim. I have heard this claim quite often yet I've never seen any evidence to back this up, only conjecture and anecdotes. Booktorium (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The source says this: "Today most Alaskans refer to Mount McKinley as Denali." Of course, this was prior to the official name change, so our article does correctly reflect the source. The book Michelin Must Sees Alaska says "Denali is the name you'll hear most often in Alaska for this most massive of all mountains; Alaskans of all heritages prefer it by far." This news article says, "Alaskans have long called the 20,320-foot mountain Denali." In 2015, the LA Times said, 'According to official U.S. maps, the mountain known to climbers as well as most Alaskans as Denali is officially Mt. McKinley." That was just from a quick search. Having been born and raised in Alaska, I find these statements to be accurate. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes to USGS Reference Links

At the USGS, we just recently changed our site and many of the news articles now have new URLs. I was notified that References 1 and 10 in this Denali page are no longer valid.

Reference 1 should go to: https://www.usgs.gov/news/new-elevation-nation%E2%80%99s-highest-peak

Reference 10 should go to: https://www.usgs.gov/news/old-name-officially-returns-nations-highest-peak

There may be other articles affected which I'm not familiar with. Sorry for the inconvenience but we wanted to be sure those links are updated for this article.

Thank you. Scott Horvath, Bureau Social Media Lead, USGS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.11.43.157 (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have made the requested changes. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Denali is not the tallest in terms of base-to-peak height

While Denali is very impressive there are easily bigger mountains in Himalayas/Karakorum ranges. Giants like Dhaulagiri, Rakaposhi, Annapurna or Nanga Parbat are true candidates for this title. For example Rakaposhi lies in Hunza river bend and rises almost 6000 meters in only 12 km (closest point to river) and even more over bigger distances. Dhaulagiri and Annapurna also rise 5500-6000 meters over 10-12 km. Obviously Denali never rises that steeply (max. 4600-4800 meters over 10-12 km and 5200 meters over 20 km) and the question is how long horizontal distance is allowed here? If we compare longer distance Asian giants are even more impressive. Annapurna rises 6850 meters over Nepal plains in just 20 kilometers, Nanga Parbat and Manaslu rise 7000 meters in 22-25 km. What is more, peaks like Dhaulagiri and Rakaposhi truly dominate their surroundings in all directions (i.e. vertical relief of 5000-5300 meters in 20 km averaged over all directions - comparable to Denali's maximum vertical relief over that distance). Obviously there are many other mountains in that region with huge vertical rise over surrounding terrain which I didn't mention so far (i.e. Haramosh, Annapurna II, Ngadi Chuli or Gyala Peri) so comparing Denali to Everest (which rises from high glaciated area) doesn't make much sense. --1123581321 (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

When discussing mountain heights for a general audience, it's customary to first mention the elevation of the summit above sea level. Base to summit vertical distance can also be discussed, but elevation above sea level is generally the first thing mentioned. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

In the article it's written that Denali is largest in terms of base-peak elevation difference. It's wrong and I brought the arguments regarding it (I've done some research on it using GoogleEarth as well as my own software). This information should be removed as largest Himalaya/Karakorum mountains (especially those relatively close to river valleys) are unmatched in terms of vertical relief. --1123581321 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)