Talk:Kuwohi
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Highest Point
[edit]The article states that Clingman's Dome is the highest point in Tenn, in the GSMNP, and along the AT. It is also the highest point in the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. Barryclinton (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Unless there is a very very recent measurement of which I'm unaware, Mount Mitchell is the highest east of the Miss. River. Bms4880 (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Clingmans dome is the third highest peak east of the Mississippi river after Mount Mitchell and Mount Craig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.226.143 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Gallery
[edit]The gallery is out of hand in my opinion. See Photo galleries. Some one could move the gallery to Commons --DRoll (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC).
- How do I go about adding photos to the gallery. I have some recent photos from the top of the observation deck that I feel would look nice in the gallery section. --Magik Mayne (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- The gallery is already a mess, and I'm not certain it doesn't violate WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Bms4880 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
short form
[edit]The mountain group is normally referred to by the full title, "The Great Smoky Mountains," or "The Smokies," for short, as in the second paragraph of "Access." Ragityman (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Gallery 2017-04-03
[edit]I don't know if the Gallery is still "out-of-hand". I have made some corrections to the captions.
- IMO, the cloudy day picture, previously erroneously captioned as showing a "A particularly "smoky" day ...", offers nothing notable specific to Clingmans Dome, and could be removed. In this photo, the mountains and any VOC "smoke" are largely obscured by normal low cumulus clouds (apparently mistaken as "smoke"). Other images actually portraying the "smoke" are provided in the Great Smoky Mountains article. I might have a clear photo of the smoke from the dome that I can upload later, but it was taken during the recent fires and the actual smoke plumes from fires might be misinterpreted.
- The observation tower trail pictures were erroneously mislabeled "Clingmans Dome". The "dome" is the mountain itself, not the Observation Tower.
- The observation tower architecture is notable as a registered Historic Place, so the concrete ramp and tower pictures might be kept, only so much as they record the tower and ramp -- the general foot trail photographs are less notable, but the trailhead photo does show (incidentally) the unusual access the lower trail provides to the outcrop of the metaconglomerate of the Copperhill Formation.
- I think the hikers are actually past the start of the steep grade, maybe a third up.
IveGoneAway (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
True elevation 6660 ft?
[edit]Is the actual elevation of CD 6660 feet? I was poking around altitude.nu and put the pin down on a part of the mountain that registered 6660 feet. Also, this old North Carolina book lists the altitude as 6660 ft.
Guessing there may be some reasons it is not officially listed as 6660 feet (if it is in fact the true elevation). One is the 666 part of the number. Then, guessing the builders of the tower wanted it to be in both states, so they didn't put it at the actual peak, which is well into NC. Although, it looks like the tower is entirely in NC anyhow. The base of the tower's looping sidewalk appears to be partly in TN. A park ranger told me the "pedestal" of the tower is in TN, but I'm not so sure.
One thing for sure: The NPS is secretive about all of this and there is no USGS marker at the peak (or that's what they say). There is a relatively unimportant marker next to the parking lot.
BillVol (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- The tower is north of the peak to preserve the site and to gain grade for the lower ramp. The USGS 2016 7.5 minute topo suggests more than 6600 but maybe less than 6640. USGS pubs have it at 6643. This NPS pub lists it at 6660. My guess is that the 6660 is an old datum. Go find out for sure, knock yourself out. IveGoneAway (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC) 01:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- You forgot to date your comment. Remember four tildes. Not three. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Clingmans dome
[edit]When do they close clingmans dome for the season? 2601:843:C202:2AC0:7559:F037:CE1A:129B (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Renaming - confederate
[edit]Clingman did become a confederate general several years after this mountain was named for him. But his background does not seem to have been part of the debate over the name change recently. Articles mention native heritage, the trail of tears, native boarding schools, etc. The only mention of Clingman himself I found was that he did not live in the area and had no descendants to be offended by the name change. Rmhermen (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Cherokee name - syllabary
[edit]There appears to be two equally valid ways to spell Kuwohi in Cherokee, ᎫᏬᎯ & ᎫᏩᎯ. Should the article reflect that? Dosbears (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Foreign language articles
[edit]I am requesting anyone who knows the above languages (except German and Simple English they’ve already done it) to update the articles to match the new name. I have moved the title in Simple English, French, and Latin Wikipedia; the latter two still need the text within the article to be updated; and I can’t because my understanding of French and Latin is very limited (barely userbox level 1 at best); I had to use Google Translate just to provide an edit summary on both of those. I have also left talk page messages on a couple other Wikipedias (again using Google Translate) to request moves. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve left messages on multiple wikis. Someone is going to update the text on the Italian Wikipedia. Have yet to get replies on some of the other ones. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve also at least attempted to update the entry on the French Wikipedia. Hopefully I did it correctly; but I think it would be wise if someone who knows French goes and proofreads it just to make sure. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve also just gotten in contact with someone who welcomed me on the Portuguese Wikipedia; I’ve brought up the Kuwohi issue with that editor. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 06:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- They have now changed it on the Portuguese and Norwegian Wikipedias. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I was able to find the Spanish Wikipedia’s version of the village pump; and got someone to rename the article to the new Kuwohi name. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have also tentatively contacted an administrator on the Polish Wikipedia for help on there; I have not heard back yet. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I got someone on Danish Wikipedia to update the title; but the information within the article still uses the old name; and apparently the person (who is an administrator over there) wasn’t too happy that I directly talk page messaged him about it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Polish Wikipedia has also been updated. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I got someone on Danish Wikipedia to update the title; but the information within the article still uses the old name; and apparently the person (who is an administrator over there) wasn’t too happy that I directly talk page messaged him about it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have also tentatively contacted an administrator on the Polish Wikipedia for help on there; I have not heard back yet. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I was able to find the Spanish Wikipedia’s version of the village pump; and got someone to rename the article to the new Kuwohi name. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- They have now changed it on the Portuguese and Norwegian Wikipedias. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve also just gotten in contact with someone who welcomed me on the Portuguese Wikipedia; I’ve brought up the Kuwohi issue with that editor. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 06:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve also at least attempted to update the entry on the French Wikipedia. Hopefully I did it correctly; but I think it would be wise if someone who knows French goes and proofreads it just to make sure. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Attention EVERYONE WHO KNOWS SPANISH: we need to find sources specifically in Spanish. Because I didn’t know this but they require the sources to be in Spanish over there; they don’t allow (for our purposes) foreign language sources.
I probably made Spanish Wikipedia mad because I posted my reply in English; but I don’t know Spanish (no habla español), so I don’t think I would be able to find those sources. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
pronunciation
[edit]what is the correct cherokee pronunciation and can an English pronunciation guide be included at the top? 24.209.136.142 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Cherokee pronunciation will vary between different communities and especially between speakers of the Eastern and Western dialects, and both Kuwahi and Kuwohi are correct and interchangeable depending on the speaker. The root word is "kuwa" and the terminal vowl is typically dropped in speech (and Cherokee is foremost a spoken language rather than written), so adding the "-hi" suffix (locative) can alter the pronunciation further. Both would be understood. Pyrocatch (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 1 February 2025
[edit]
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that Kuwohi be renamed and moved to Clingmans Dome. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Kuwohi → Clingmans Dome – Article was moved, without any discussion I am able to find, in late 2024 following an official renaming by the US government. This was a clear violation of Wikipedia's longstanting policy of using WP:COMMONNAMES rather than WP:OFFICIALNAMES as WP:TITLES. Perhaps Kuwohi will become the common name in time, perhaps it won't, but at the present time there is no evidence Kuwohi has supplanted Clingmans Dome in common use. The move was premature. Jbt89 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I'll have to do more research before !voting, but from what I can find after searching for both names on DuckDuckGo is that neither name (Kuwohi or Clingman's Dome) makes the news enough for there to be an obvious common name. One specific mountain in Tennessee isn't exactly the sort of subject that's going to be talked about enough for a clear common name to be possible. All of the news articles from the last 3 years are about either the recent rename or the movement that advocated for said rename. The only non-rename-related article I found when searching for "Kuwohi" was this weather report that used Kuwohi, and the only post-rename non-rename-related article I found when searching "Clingman's Dome" was this news article which also calls it Kuwohi. If there is a common name, and I'm not so sure there is, then post-rename sources indicate that it's probably Kuwohi, not Clingman's Dome. It seems like the premise of this move discussion is wrong. Vanilla Wizard 💙 05:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Precedent set on Talk:Mount McKinley is that the supposed WP:COMMONNAME should be the article's title. According to Google Trends data [1], Clingman's Dome is the WP:COMMONNAME by far. Derpytoucan (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think we can say the Denali/McKinley move discussion set a precedent if the request to move Denali to McKinley closed as "no consensus." It's at move review right now, but it seems like it was a messy discussion with a mix of fair arguments on both sides and politically-charged bickering on both sides. It'll probably need a fresh discussion when the dust has settled (unlike the Gulf of Mexico / America discussion where there was clear and overwhelming opposition) Vanilla Wizard 💙 11:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support, if If editor Vanilla Wizard is correct that there is no real common name, then it must move back to Clingman's Dome per recent discussions at Denali. That was it's long-term name and it should not be moved just because the official name changed. If however, it can be shown the Kuwohi is easily the common name, then I reserve the right to change my support. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click), I’d recommend looking at the websites I listed. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I see them but I also see popular guides like CNY Hiking, and Hiking Ohio Parks, and Hike the South, and Smokies Adventures, and Little River Trading Co. and books such as Clingmans Dome, and photos we can buy from Getty Images. People use these guides and info a lot. I can also see a bunch with Kuwohi as the name. What I wonder is if there is a common name that rules over the other. If not it was moved too soon and should be moved back. Right now I'm not convinced either name is much more prevalent than the other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- One question @Fyunck(click): when were they published? Those guides could have very well been written before the name change; especially the written books. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 07:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click), most of these are old webpages that predate the renaming. The CNY Hiking article is copyrighted to 2006, which means they haven’t updated the webpage in 19 years. I don’t have a date from the Ohio Parks article, but the quality of the webpage leads me to think it’s years old. Smokies Adventure is copyrighted to 2021, which is still three years before the name change took effect. Little River doesn’t give a date but I imagine it’s before the name change. That book was very likely printed prior to 2024. Of all the sources you’ve listed, I’ve only found one to be up to date, and that’s the Hike The South article; and even then, there’s a chance that they forgot to update it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 08:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- By sources: we only care about sources published after September 18, 2024. Older sources are almost certainly going to use the older name, because the old name was the official name at that time. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 08:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also @Fyunck(click), read WP:NAMECHANGE, it generally recommends using the new name. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 08:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- We just went through that with a huge Denali/McKinley move request. All that mattered was the common name... not the new name, not the official name. And late 2024 is not all that matters. They may get more weight but published works before then also matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Since I'm online I'll answer this (inb4 wp:bludgeon or whatever), but, if I'm understanding, Clyde claims that what you're saying shouldn't apply to Mount McKinley because "Trump changed it unilaterally".
- I find that to be very dishonest. Mount McKinley isn't a unilateral name change like "Gulf of America" is. It was the mountain's name before 2015 (and there were a lot of objections to the 2015 renaming btw), and changing the name back was one of his campaign promises, if I remember correctly.
- If Trump's name change is "unilateral" then so is the change to "Kuwohi" since although there was a vote by the BGN, the name change was requested "unilaterally[2]" by the Cherokee. Nobody else wanted "Kuwohi" or asked for it.
- Derpytoucan (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- We just went through that with a huge Denali/McKinley move request. All that mattered was the common name... not the new name, not the official name. And late 2024 is not all that matters. They may get more weight but published works before then also matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also @Fyunck(click), read WP:NAMECHANGE, it generally recommends using the new name. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 08:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- By sources: we only care about sources published after September 18, 2024. Older sources are almost certainly going to use the older name, because the old name was the official name at that time. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 08:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click), most of these are old webpages that predate the renaming. The CNY Hiking article is copyrighted to 2006, which means they haven’t updated the webpage in 19 years. I don’t have a date from the Ohio Parks article, but the quality of the webpage leads me to think it’s years old. Smokies Adventure is copyrighted to 2021, which is still three years before the name change took effect. Little River doesn’t give a date but I imagine it’s before the name change. That book was very likely printed prior to 2024. Of all the sources you’ve listed, I’ve only found one to be up to date, and that’s the Hike The South article; and even then, there’s a chance that they forgot to update it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 08:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- One question @Fyunck(click): when were they published? Those guides could have very well been written before the name change; especially the written books. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 07:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I see them but I also see popular guides like CNY Hiking, and Hiking Ohio Parks, and Hike the South, and Smokies Adventures, and Little River Trading Co. and books such as Clingmans Dome, and photos we can buy from Getty Images. People use these guides and info a lot. I can also see a bunch with Kuwohi as the name. What I wonder is if there is a common name that rules over the other. If not it was moved too soon and should be moved back. Right now I'm not convinced either name is much more prevalent than the other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click), I’d recommend looking at the websites I listed. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support – I hike as a hobby, and all sites and books that I frequent for that purpose use Clingmans Dome (and Denali). 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 22:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Very strong OPPOSE – unlike Denali (which was unilaterally renamed by Trump), Kuwohi was called Kuwohi before the settlers came; the settlers unilaterally renamed it to Smoky Dome and then Clingmans Dome. The Cherokee has been trying to get the name restored for years, I’ve already seen multiple news reports (see WVLT) that began using the new name immediately. Apple Maps and Google Maps use the new name. Given the wide acceptance of the new name, I will very strongly oppose any move back to Clingmans Dome. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- It’s also all other local Knoxville TV stations calling it by the new name. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I Will also further add that every mapping application that I know of, uses the new name. So renaming it back to Clingmans Dome could also create confusion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I’d like to ping @Vanilla Wizard back over here. I’m sure they’d like to read my research on the matter.
- Local sources that might help: https://www.wvlt.tv; https://www.wate.com; https://www.wbir.com; there are search bars on all three websites; type in “Kuwohi” you’ll likely see a bunch of stories. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Searching the first for Kuwohi gives articles about the renaming plus a couple of references to specific trailhead names used by the Park Service, second appears to have used the Kuwohi name a few times for the mountain, third one has no results for Kuwohi. This hardly seems conclusive. Jbt89 (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I Will also further add that every mapping application that I know of, uses the new name. So renaming it back to Clingmans Dome could also create confusion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, it is extremely dishonest to say that Mount McKinley was "unilaterally renamed by Trump". McKinley was the mountain's name before 2015 and you know this. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Derpytoucan, please stop calling it dishonest. See Executive Order 14172, yes, it was unilaterally renamed. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Usage hundreds of years ago in non-English languages is completely irrelevant to WP:COMMONNAME and hence to WP:ARTICLETITLES on English-language Wikipedia. Jbt89 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- And re: the analogy to Denali, the name Mt. McKinley was in far more widespread use before 2025 than Kuwohi was before 2024. It's a very relevant comparison. Jbt89 (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- And re: Google Maps, at least from what I recall of the Denali discussion, it is their policy to just use whatever the official name is in the country thekr site is being accessed from. It is a reflection of the official name only, not necessarily the common name. Jbt89 (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- It’s also all other local Knoxville TV stations calling it by the new name. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- VERY STRONG OPPOSE The name should stay Kuwohi. 74.138.97.3 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pretty classic WP:POINT, this wasn't an issue before the Denali discussion, and isn't one now. Both names are used with regularity. Frankly, it looks like you have an axe to grind because of the way the Denali discussion went. I oppose this because I feel it was made in bad faith. Carlp941 (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Common name arguments aside, the change was made without any apparent discussion. WP:NODEADLINE takes us to the point when the name was changed from Clingman's to Kuwoki. By the looks of it, the discussion shows no consensus to change it from Clingman's to Kuwoki. Revert the title back to Clingman's, and then we can revisit a change to Kuwoki after some time, if supporters can bring evidence that WP:commonname can be used to justify it. 76.178.164.53 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment – I do concur that Google Trends shows the old name being more popular; however, there’s likely a couple of simple reasons for this.
1. People sometimes forget what the new name is, so they type in the the old one.
2. Many sources may have forgotten ti update their data; or more likely, people are reading older stories that still use the name.
3. If someone has a paper map of the Smokies like I do. It ain’t going to immediately update on paper. People will often keep using paper hiking and road maps for years. I still use a road atlas from five years ago for instance. Anyone who uses paper maps that were originally published before September 2024 are going to see the old name.
Especially given the third factor, give it about a year and I just about guarantee that search terms for Kuwohi will increase significantly. If it doesn’t by this time next year, then I MIGHT consider supporting in a subsequent RM. But for now, my mind is made up, I’m strongly opposed and nothing that anyone can say is going to change it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- In fact I still use atlases that are at least 10 to 15 years old. Many people (especially in Appalachia) don’t get a new atlas/roadmap/hiking map until either the old map is worn/broken or until so much time has passed that it’s (in their eyes) too outdated to continue use. And often that time can be many many years. I have a 3D map of the Smokies that has the old Clingmans Dome name; and I ain’t going to replace it just because it was renamed, in part because it’s expensive to replace. Many people likely have the same attitude. Thus, the old name continues being searched for because that’s the name written down. I almost guarantee if you go on say for example Facebook (I know that’s not a reliable source in general, but it may be able to establish a common name) many people, especially those of Cherokee decent, are probably using the new name. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- And as for the policy regarding place names. I’ve just posted this to village pump, waiting to see what they say. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Village pump answer shuts down the rationale for this move:
- WP:NAMECHANGES says and I quote:
If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well
(emphasis in the original). - I have multiple sources that started using the new name immediately. Pinging EVERYONE involved in this discussion because they need to read this: @Chicdat, @Derpytoucan, @Fyunck(click), @Jbt89, @Vanilla Wizard. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- If we should retain "Kuwohi" because it is the "official name", and it's the name that WP:RS use, then we should rename "Denali" to Mount McKinley, because the latter is the official name and it's the name used by RS like the Associated Press. I'm really sorry, but you just cannot have this both ways. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree completely. Either we rename articles immediately after official renamings, every time, or we wait for the name to definitively come into common usage, every time. Jbt89 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yep. If this RM fails, you should open another RM → Mount McKinley at Talk:Denali and cite this discussion (as well as the failed RM at Talk:Fort Liberty). An encyclopaedia is no place for a double standard. We can't have this both ways while pretending to follow NPOV. Derpytoucan (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree completely. Either we rename articles immediately after official renamings, every time, or we wait for the name to definitively come into common usage, every time. Jbt89 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- If we should retain "Kuwohi" because it is the "official name", and it's the name that WP:RS use, then we should rename "Denali" to Mount McKinley, because the latter is the official name and it's the name used by RS like the Associated Press. I'm really sorry, but you just cannot have this both ways. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- And as for the policy regarding place names. I’ve just posted this to village pump, waiting to see what they say. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Give it about a year and I just about guarantee that search terms for Kuwohi will increase significantly
Textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL. The name was changed last year and "Clingman's Dome" remains the by far common name. If that's the criteria we use to name things, we should change this article back to "Clingman's Dome" UNTIL Kuwohi takes over. Again, you cannot have this both ways. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)- First of all @Derpytoucan, I’ve warned you already about not assuming good faith. Second of all, my justification is NOT WP:CRYSTAL like you said, I have a separate policy backing me. Third, see Executive Order 14172, yes, he did unilaterally rename Denali. Fourth, the Denali–Mount McKinley issue is a contentious case that falls outside the scope of that section; a section of the policy that by the way, also says that you need to obtain consensus in those kinds of cases. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I greatly suspect that "Mount McKinley" will become the COMMONNAME within the next few years. Let's move Denali then. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying there’s valid reasons why people could be searching the old name more often. It’s NOT a crystal ball issue. Mount McMinley/Denali has nothing to do with Kuwohi. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I greatly suspect that "Mount McKinley" will become the COMMONNAME within the next few years. Let's move Denali then. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- First of all @Derpytoucan, I’ve warned you already about not assuming good faith. Second of all, my justification is NOT WP:CRYSTAL like you said, I have a separate policy backing me. Third, see Executive Order 14172, yes, he did unilaterally rename Denali. Fourth, the Denali–Mount McKinley issue is a contentious case that falls outside the scope of that section; a section of the policy that by the way, also says that you need to obtain consensus in those kinds of cases. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Oppose. I'd never heard of this mountain before seeing in mentioned at the village pump discussion. I've had a look at all the sources published in 2025 that a Google News search finds which are not about the renaming, one uses only "Kuwohi"[3], one uses only "Clingmans Dome" [4], and three use both.[5], [6], [7] the first and third of the sources that use both clearly indicate that they consider "Kuwohi" to be the present-day name and include the old one only for context. Google Scholar found only one hit from 2025, and that mentioned this mountain only in the context of the renaming, and so is not useful. This, combined with the evidence presented above convinces me that. if there is common name in 2025, it is "Kuwohi". I'll also pre-emptively respond that the name of any other mountain and/or our article about it is WP:OTHERSTUFF and not relevant to this discussion, but in the case of Denali/Mount McKinley I have not looked at the evidence and so I offer no opinion on that issue at the present time. Thryduulf (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: Then just wondering... your searches make it sound like there is no real common name. And the argument is that someone moved this without discussion, with their only rationale being it's the official name, and without Kuwohi being the common name, which it may not be even now. Shouldn't you support the move back before the error was made? It was made clear at Denali that the official name has no bearing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- As I said earlier; Denali is a much different case, and had it not been for Trump unilaterally renaming Denali; we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion here right now. Sometimes it takes time to fully adjust to a new name; but with the use of Kuwohi rapidly supplanting Clingmans Dome (at least in the media), I have no reason to believe that if Kuwohi isn’t the common name now, that it isn’t rapidly moving towards that really soon. (And Derpytoucan can throw his CRYSTAL at me all he wants, but many sources are using the name Kuwohi in the here now) Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 08:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's barely different at all, and this move was done against policy per the wording of the one who moved it. Plus this question was not directed towards you as you should have been able to tell by the replyto beginning. You had your !ivote so you don't need to keep replying to everyone eleses. Put more stuff in a summary section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I ain’t even going to reply to any more of this. I know what this is turning into and I want no part in it. I nearly got blocked on Commons a few months ago for being involved in a multi-way argument over there. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's barely different at all, and this move was done against policy per the wording of the one who moved it. Plus this question was not directed towards you as you should have been able to tell by the replyto beginning. You had your !ivote so you don't need to keep replying to everyone eleses. Put more stuff in a summary section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- The big difference is that with Denali; it was Trump unilaterally renaming it; with everyone else opposed to it. With Kuwohi, there were at least two hearings before council-like boards that voted on the matter; after the Cherokees held a referendum; and the name change was supported by pretty much everyone. Now do you see why this is a completely different scenario? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 08:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- This has absolutely nothing to do with article titles and WP:COMMONNAME. Also, many RS are using McKinley, and you voted against renaming that particular article. Derpytoucan (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Actually that’s where you’re wrong @Derpytoucan, I actually !voted weak support the moving of Denali in the RM, explicitly because reliable sources were referring to it as McKinley. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- This has absolutely nothing to do with article titles and WP:COMMONNAME. Also, many RS are using McKinley, and you voted against renaming that particular article. Derpytoucan (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Chill with the personal attacks. That editor wasn't even in this comment chain. Jbt89 (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- It wasn't really a personal attack, but I am concerned about his obvious CRYSTALBALLing, which he is just hand waving aside.
- To his credit, he didn't use this logic, but about a dozen other editors on Talk:Mount McKinley !voted to oppose the move based on WP:CRYSTAL. Again, if CRYSTALBALL is a reason to retain the "old" name, then that should apply here too especially since the name change happened a year ago and "Clingman's Dome" remains the COMMONNAME (most commonly searched by far, RS apparently use both). I really don't understand why this has to be controversial or contentious, it is so basic. Derpytoucan (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- You're not the one I was suggesting was out of line for preemptively accusing an editor who wasn't even the comment chain at the time of misapplying WP:CRYSTAL Jbt89 (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that. I'm saying I don't think it was a personal attack against me. I think the nonchalant handwaving of an obvious CRYSTALBALL argument is a lot more concerning. Derpytoucan (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- You're not the one I was suggesting was out of line for preemptively accusing an editor who wasn't even the comment chain at the time of misapplying WP:CRYSTAL Jbt89 (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click) As I explicitly noted, Denali/Mount McKinley is completely irrelevant to the name of this article. Based on the evidence presented, I'm not sure that there is a common name but if there is one it definitely isn't Clingmans Dome so while the article might have been moved prematurely it would be wrong to move it back. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Except that "Clingman's Dome" is the COMMONNAME. RS use both, my Google Trends data (not sure if you've seen it) shows that Clingman's is the most commonly used by far, in spite of the name change happening a year ago.
- McKinley is very relevant in that it's an identical case and it set the precedent that only the COMMONNAME matters when it comes to an article's title, of an official name change. Anyway, regardless of which precedent to follow, one of these articles has the "wrong" title and we have to figure out which. If it isn't McKinley, it's Kuwohi. Derpytoucan (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Final comment until this dies down – Corrected since I did make subsequent comments: Let me just say this one final thing. I respect all of your opinions. And I understand that I have no more power to influence this RM than anyone else. I have my opinion about it; you have yours. If it gets moved; I’ll probably open another RM in a few months if it’s firmly established that the name Kuwohi is used more frequently. But for right now, I’m doing what I probably should have done last night; I’m going to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, I’d suggest anyone whose already !voted, who doesn’t plan to change their vote; to do the same (that statement is NOT directed at anyone in particular, just to any involved person who doesn’t plan to make changes to their !vote). I’m making that recommendation because we all know how heated these discussions have been getting lately. Derpytoucan just got a weeklong block at ANI for bludgeoning the process and being uncivil. I don’t want to be blocked, and I imagine no one else does too. Which is why I am making this comment to let everyone know that I am going to stay out of this discussion
henceforthuntil this gets a little less heated. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)- I will say, IF this gets moved back to Clingmans Dome. If I see at ANY point the trends data for Kuwohi get to being the majority of the search terms (meaning more often searched than the old name); and stay that way for a few weeks; I’m opening another move discussion. Also, for folks using the Google Trends, don’t query the terms “Clingman’s” or “Clingmans” because that term is ambiguous and may refer to more than just the mountain. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Goodness, good to know the onslaught that is coming. And nice to see you made it over 24 hours before commenting after your "final comment". We'll start the timer again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that 5P4 had been suspended. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 12:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I made the “final comment” moniker because it was getting very heated and I did not want to be a feudin’ on here, I made that extra comment since I had 24 hours to calm down; and to let everyone know my intentions to open a new RM as soon as it becomes readily apparent that Kuwohi is the true common name by your standards. Btw, my strong oppose remains as valid as it ever was; and I continue to reiterate my opposition. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- And also @Chicdat, WP:5P4 hasn’t been (And never will be) suspended. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Bzzzt and Bzzzt and Bzzzt. I suggest you strike out your post saying "Final comment, and abstaining from any further comment after this" since it was obviously a fabrication with no intent to follow through. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I Will strike it out, but it wasn’t a fabrication; I initially intended to follow through; I just changed my mind later. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 23:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, I’ve amended the statement to reflect my current intention. Does “final comment until this dies down” (with the “this” being the heated argument that was ongoing at that time) suffice? Either way, I do intend to refrain from any further comments unless something happens that warrants a comment; or unless I think of something else that is really important. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 23:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I will also clarify this @Fyunck(click); I can assure you a statement like that ain’t never happening again. I’ve corrected it. Next time something like this happens, I’ll post “final comment for now” or something similar. Because there’s always a chance that something will happen to where I actually need to post another comment. But I’m never going to fabricate something like that. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 23:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I Will strike it out, but it wasn’t a fabrication; I initially intended to follow through; I just changed my mind later. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 23:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Bzzzt and Bzzzt and Bzzzt. I suggest you strike out your post saying "Final comment, and abstaining from any further comment after this" since it was obviously a fabrication with no intent to follow through. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- And also @Chicdat, WP:5P4 hasn’t been (And never will be) suspended. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- I made the “final comment” moniker because it was getting very heated and I did not want to be a feudin’ on here, I made that extra comment since I had 24 hours to calm down; and to let everyone know my intentions to open a new RM as soon as it becomes readily apparent that Kuwohi is the true common name by your standards. Btw, my strong oppose remains as valid as it ever was; and I continue to reiterate my opposition. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that 5P4 had been suspended. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 12:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Goodness, good to know the onslaught that is coming. And nice to see you made it over 24 hours before commenting after your "final comment". We'll start the timer again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I will say, IF this gets moved back to Clingmans Dome. If I see at ANY point the trends data for Kuwohi get to being the majority of the search terms (meaning more often searched than the old name); and stay that way for a few weeks; I’m opening another move discussion. Also, for folks using the Google Trends, don’t query the terms “Clingman’s” or “Clingmans” because that term is ambiguous and may refer to more than just the mountain. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Final comment until this dies down – Corrected since I did make subsequent comments: Let me just say this one final thing. I respect all of your opinions. And I understand that I have no more power to influence this RM than anyone else. I have my opinion about it; you have yours. If it gets moved; I’ll probably open another RM in a few months if it’s firmly established that the name Kuwohi is used more frequently. But for right now, I’m doing what I probably should have done last night; I’m going to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, I’d suggest anyone whose already !voted, who doesn’t plan to change their vote; to do the same (that statement is NOT directed at anyone in particular, just to any involved person who doesn’t plan to make changes to their !vote). I’m making that recommendation because we all know how heated these discussions have been getting lately. Derpytoucan just got a weeklong block at ANI for bludgeoning the process and being uncivil. I don’t want to be blocked, and I imagine no one else does too. Which is why I am making this comment to let everyone know that I am going to stay out of this discussion
- As I said earlier; Denali is a much different case, and had it not been for Trump unilaterally renaming Denali; we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion here right now. Sometimes it takes time to fully adjust to a new name; but with the use of Kuwohi rapidly supplanting Clingmans Dome (at least in the media), I have no reason to believe that if Kuwohi isn’t the common name now, that it isn’t rapidly moving towards that really soon. (And Derpytoucan can throw his CRYSTAL at me all he wants, but many sources are using the name Kuwohi in the here now) Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 08:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: Then just wondering... your searches make it sound like there is no real common name. And the argument is that someone moved this without discussion, with their only rationale being it's the official name, and without Kuwohi being the common name, which it may not be even now. Shouldn't you support the move back before the error was made? It was made clear at Denali that the official name has no bearing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support:, we go by the common name. Also, the page on Mt McKinley shows that precedent on Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors is that we go by WP:COMMONNAME and not by government edict. 00:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support via NAMECHANGE and COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - NPS still callsit Kuwohi, and this is one of the cases where I'll take the official name. EF5 02:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Which you can do... but that goes against Wikipedia policy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- No… it doesn't. Can I get that policy? COMMONNAME states that there are exceptions, and I think a government-given name of a National landmark is a solid exception to that. EF5 13:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- That is not one of the exceptions. All you need to do is look at the just-completed Denali naming dispute to see the Federal name is useless in favor of common name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Other articles are still not relevant. COMMONNAME says
Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.
andWhen there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic [...] editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering [the five] criteria directly.
This is a situation where there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequent. We have a situation were one name is both slightly but not immediately obviously more common, and the official name. Both aspects give weight to it being th better title. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)- And consistency gets shattered because that is the exact opposite of the Denali article. It was not shown which title was more common and the official title is McKinley. Here it is not shown which is more common, though I usually see Clingmans Dome, and the official name is Kuwohi. This is very confusing to editors that the choice seems arbitrary. This is what starts arguments and head butting. This leaves it up to the political views of the editor which creep in whether we like it or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Consistency is only one of the five criteria, and is the least important of them. I shouldn't have to keep saying it, but the title of other articles is not relevant to the title of this article. Thryduulf (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry but per wikipedia RMs it can be very important for consistency in how another article title came to be. Editors and their reasons for !voting the way they do have a direct bearing on these things. I've seen it for 20 years here whether you want to believe it or not. My main point was that editors get mad and the discussions can get heated because of the inconsistencies in handling rfcs and rms. All things being equal, one page will move because of A and one page will move because of B. That is not right. If they would have some firmer standards we could avoid all sorts of problems. If wikipedia said per policy we ALWAYS go with A) common name and only move to B) when common name cannot be determined, and then only go to C) when A and B can't be determined, then a lot of issues could be solved. But it doesn't works that way now and peoples views turn the conversation into a hypocritical mess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Consistency is only one of the five criteria, and is the least important of them. I shouldn't have to keep saying it, but the title of other articles is not relevant to the title of this article. Thryduulf (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- And consistency gets shattered because that is the exact opposite of the Denali article. It was not shown which title was more common and the official title is McKinley. Here it is not shown which is more common, though I usually see Clingmans Dome, and the official name is Kuwohi. This is very confusing to editors that the choice seems arbitrary. This is what starts arguments and head butting. This leaves it up to the political views of the editor which creep in whether we like it or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Other articles are still not relevant. COMMONNAME says
- That is not one of the exceptions. All you need to do is look at the just-completed Denali naming dispute to see the Federal name is useless in favor of common name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- No… it doesn't. Can I get that policy? COMMONNAME states that there are exceptions, and I think a government-given name of a National landmark is a solid exception to that. EF5 13:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Which you can do... but that goes against Wikipedia policy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I've never heard either of these names before stumbling into this discussion, and the Wikipedia move wasn't controversial at the time - if it had been, I think we would have waited. But looking at the sources even a few months later shows Kuwohi looks like the common name. Recently published books generally use the new name while still noting the name change, official websites all use the name while noting the name change, the Knoxville News Sentinel doesn't talk about it much but has clearly moved to Kuwohi (see [8]). Since this isn't an internationally known place like the other contentious move mentioned by the petitioner, it's actually a bit easier to show the new name is already in use. SportingFlyer T·C 07:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, at least for now. Essentially the same as a wait !vote. The Google trends results do look like a compelling argument in favor of Clingman's Dome being used more at first glance, but upon further examination, we can see that most of these search results are users searching about the name change. Wikipedia policy does give more weight to usage of the new name after the name change, and from my own findings and the findings of several editors above, it's clear that sources published after the change are using Kuwohi. I still think it's hard to say there is an obvious COMMONNAME for a subject as specific as this, but if there is a COMMONNAME, there's stronger policy-based reasons to say that the COMMONNAME is more likely to be Kuwohi. Vanilla Wizard 💙 12:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- As an aside, I was really considering just not !voting in this discussion at all because things got way too heated for my liking above. Unlike the proposals to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America", I really don't have very strong feelings about this one, so there was a large mismatch between how passionate I am about this and how passionate the discussion was getting. I'd like to briefly offer a little constructive criticism to a few editors.
- To anybody who tried to hypocrisy-burn editors for feeling differently about the Denali/McKinley discussion, two things: 1. no, that discussion did not set any precedents, it was a no consensus close. 2. different subjects need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A few people in this discussion need to chill with the accusations of bad faith, political motivations, and/or hypocrisy. Fyunck(click), teasing editors for saying they have nothing more to say and then having more to say later on is uncivil and unhelpful.
- And Hurricane Clyde, while it's clear to me that you are acting in good faith, you've left so many comments in this discussion that it could reasonably be viewed as bludgeoning the process. I'm saying this as someone who's done the same thing plenty of times, it's easy to get carried away and flood a discussion with comments, especially when you struggle with being concise (like I do, case in point: this reply is very long!) And it's not just you, this goes for everyone who was arguing with you as well. We should all make an effort to keep our comments a relatively small % of the overall discussion when possible (which again, I am absolutely failing to do right now as evidenced by the length of this comment).
- Vanilla Wizard 💙 12:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah oops. Well, @Vanilla Wizard owing to the Wikibreak banner on my user/talk pages right now, you’re probably not going to see much more of me on here. This heated discussion (for which I DO have some strong feelings/opinions about) is one of the principal reasons why I’m taking a de-facto Wikibreak, likely until this is closed. So this is the only comment I’m making. Now I’m going to not only stop commenting on here; but to be assured that this time, I stick to it; I’m going to unsubscribe from the thread; and watchlist this page instead (because I do want to know how this discussion ends). Now certain editors are probably going to believe that I’m fabricating this, and I know good and well that they’ll accuse me of lying and fabricating this; and you know what, they can have their opinions. But I say this, it ain’t a fabrication. Goodbye. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class North Carolina articles
- Low-importance North Carolina articles
- WikiProject North Carolina articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Mountain articles
- High-importance Mountain articles
- All WikiProject Mountains pages
- C-Class Tennessee articles
- High-importance Tennessee articles
- C-Class Appalachia articles
- High-importance Appalachia articles
- WikiProject Appalachia articles
- C-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
- Low-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
- C-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Low-importance
- Requested moves