Talk:Alaska

Why do we have an article about bears, which is a double redirect? Why do we need articles about whales, fish, foxes, and eagles? -(WT-en) phma 22:36, 31 Jan 2004 (EST)

Why shouldnt there be articles about wildlife which are key reasons for visiting alaska?

Uh, according to our goals and article policy, none of these things should be articles. Now if someone whanted to make an itinerary about seeing one of these animals in Alaska, that might be a possibility. (WT-en) Majnoona 23:39, 31 Jan 2004 (EST)

Just wondering if there should be another region to cover in between Central_(Alaska) (listed as around Fairbanks) and South-Central_(Alaska) which incorporates Ancorage southward. Thinking of where places like Denali / Talkeenta should go. I'm leaning more towards Central and perhaps making Denali a seperate region. - (WT-en) Arcae 06:40, 7 Feb 2005 (EST)

I'd vote no...Southcentral Alaska is officially considered to be everything south of the Alaska Range and Interior Alaska is everything north of it. That would put Talkeetna in Southcentral and Denali, er, right on the border, I guess. (I'd place Denali in Interior.)

Note that the terms "Southcentral" and "Interior" are the official ones as designated by the State of Alaska. (WT-en) Cluth 20:28, 28 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Much of the section on getting in and getting around was copied from the Transportation section I wrote for the Wikipedia WikiPedia:Alaska article. I copied it directly from the history page that shows what I edited. Based on reading other discussion pages on WikiTravel, this appears to be legal and complies with both the GFDL and the CC Attribution-ShareAlike license. I also added some original information.

Much of the material is from that which I posted on Wikipedia's Alaska page. When copying it, I removed the Wiki links as most were not applicable here. As time allows, I'll study the article database of related articles to see what types of Wiki links you guys here on WikiTravel like, and then I'll go back through and Wikify the appropriate ones...unless someone beats me to it.

(WT-en) Cluth 20:14, 28 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Great contributions, thanks! The rule of thumb is that place names should be linked the first time they are mentioned, but nothing else — unless it's a travel topic that happens to have an article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:41, 28 Apr 2005 (EDT)

OK, so I'll go back in and wikify the city names like Homer, Palmer, etc. (My original article had a bunch of links to things like the Alaska Marine Highway System, the Iditarod, etc. (Surprisingly, the Wikipedia has a pretty extensive Alaska article collection! Most places ignore us...) I noticed that the Anchorage article is titled simply "Anchorage," presumably because we are the most famous Anchorage (there is an Anchorage, KY US, but how can there be when they're landlocked? :-) ). However, should I link other city names--especially to uncreated articles--as, say, "Palmer (Alaska)" (which is the format I've seen elsewhere on WikiTravel? How about towns with decidedly unique names, like Talkeetna? Should I link it as "Talkeetna (Alaska)" just to preserve consistency? (WT-en) Cluth 03:23, 29 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I've noticed some adding and deleting in the External Links section with some comments about some being commercially oriented. (I'm not speaking of the recent spaming by 210.214.89.130.) There are a couple that I believe do fit with Wikivoyage's external links policy. Might I clarify three links that I'd like to add or add back in, pending no objections:

- http://www.travelalaska.com: This is the Alaska Travel Industry Association's Web page. The Alaska Travel Industry Association was created by the State of Alaska to promote the tourist industry. It also serves as the travel industry's lobby. While the site ends in .com, it's not a commercial organization--as I said, it was created by the state government.

- http://www.anchorage.net: This is the Anchorage Convention & Visitors Bureau's site. It's a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting travel and tourism to Anchorage. They also create the most annoying TV/radio ads possible (picture animated moose singing "Wild! Wild about Anchorage! Wild about Anchoraaaaaaaage!" over and over while dancing New York, New York...), but that's beside the point.

- http://www.alaska.org: This is a nonprofit organization that prints good free guidebooks and produces a TV channel featured in many hotels. The site features tips on things to see and restaurant reviews done by local residents (primarily bellhops/concierges and other local down-in-the-gutter tourist industry folks), lending a very honest and knowledgeable feel.

- http://www.adn.com: The Anchorage Daily News is the primary newspaper for the state. They also operate http://www.alaska.com. While it is a commercial site, it's operated by a journalistic organization and might be useful.

(WT-en) Cluth 04:31, 31 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Under the external links policy, the first link above can be put into Alaska#External links, the second can be put into Anchorage#External links (not the Alaska article), and the third and fourth should not be added. "Useful" and "Non-profit" are not exceptions to the policy. -- (WT-en) Colin 09:46, 31 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I am a big anti-fan of articles with names such as "North (Somewhere)". With rare exception, no one actually called these places "North"; they call them "North Somewhere" or "Northern Somewhere". And the region names for Alaska are inconsistent, which is another pet peeve. Along those lines, I'd like to rename a few of the region articles for Alaska as follows:

• Southeastern Alaska - as is
• South-Central (Alaska) -> Southcentral Alaska
• South-Western (Alaska) -> Southwestern Alaska
• Central Alaska - as is (though the semi-official Alaska Travel Industry Assoc. calls this Interior Alaska, which I kinda like)
• Arctic (Alaska) -> Arctic Alaska

Objections? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:58, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

I vote yea. Same could be done for Arizona and several other places as well. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:07, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

Arizona's gonna be more work. But Alaska's been done. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:21, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

I've tried to work these into a regions map (see right), but have come up short with a "leftover region." So, frigid climate experts, where should the borders actually lie? And are there other cities/towns/public lands/labels that I should include?

And by the way, seeing this discussion, I like Interior Alaska a lot better than Central Alaska, since it's after all not in the center of the state. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 06:17, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Leftover region should be included in SW Alaska. Interior Alaska is generally forests, while Arctic is generally tundra. Interior Alaska should be much larger, extending west much more and a little further north. When the map is at full size, there is a thin white line between the Yukon River and the Norton Sound, use that as the western boundary of the Interior Alaska. On the north, the thin white line running east out of the Gates of the Artic NP is a bit too far north. Draw a straight line running East from the point where the Dalton Hwy enters the GotA NP to use as the northern boundary. Another boundary which could be fixed is the eastern boundary of South-Central Alaska, there's a little corner between the "l" in "Southcentral" and the Hwy 1 symbol...the eastern boundary should keep going straight south from there. "Anchoridge" is spelled "Anchorage". A few towns which could be added are (by importance to tourists): Sitka (SW), Nome (Interior), Valdez (SC), Talkeetna (SC), Delta Junction (Interior), Circle (Interior), North Pole (Intrerior), & Kotzebue (Arctic). (WT-en) AHeneen 15:07, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Great! I've made these changes. I left off North Pole, since it's basically a part of Fairbanks (from a geographical perspective at least). And I'm not positive I got the eastern Southcentral border correct—with regards to where it falls on the coastline. Anyway, I'll introduce this to the article now. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 03:07, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

I like the regions as listed above, but would like to mention that the light green on the map, which is representing Southeastern Alaska, also includes a huge section of Southcentral Alaska. The description of Southeastern Alaska as the panhandle is correct, but the map doesn't agree. I think, Peter, if you change it close to the point where the corner of Canada comes closest to the ocean and if you follow the borough boundary lines there, it will be accurate. (WT-en) AlaskanAtHeart 10:02, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

Would it work to just move the "Valdez-Cordova" borough into Southcentral? That way we'd stick to a clear boundary. (Also, lest you think I've lost interest, I won't be around until September, so the map change will have to wait until then!) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:06, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

The other subject I wanted to bring up here is the discussion on using boroughs for breakdowns of the larger regions. I have two questions/comments regarding their use. If we use boroughs as subregions, is there any reason we cannot further breakdown the boroughs into smaller areas -- such as islands, in the Aleutians East Borough? If we don't use boroughs, I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define some areas. I could say the Tanana Valley or Matanuska Valley is a subregion, but being able to define the boundaries of these would be a fairly impossible task. Alaska is a huge mass of land with largely undefined areas. So I would be interested in hearing other suggestions on how to define subregional areas. (WT-en) AlaskanAtHeart 10:04, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

I've changed the map (although you may need to refresh your browser window to see the updated map). We absolutely can break down the regions into smaller areas. Islands that don't have more than one city/town, though, usually work better with just a small city template. For larger regions w/o clearly defined boundaries, we don't necessarily need an exact line in the dirt—if we can define a region by the geographical features and cities/towns contained within it, that's good enough. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 03:06, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

User:(WT-en) AHeneen removed the volcano warning threat box, stating in the edit summary that the threat is over. However, according to the Alaska Volcano Observatory, the threat isn't over--the volcano is still at orange alert, and the AVO is still being staffed 24 hours per day with active observations of the unstable lava dome. If that lava dome collapses, volatile ash emissions are extremely likely.

It may seem like it's over (especially to us locals, who haven't seen anything in the last couple of months and may feel like the AVO is crying wolf), but the threat is very much still alive

Should we post the warning box back up? (WT-en) Cluth 23:54, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

The eats section is very opionated.... I happen to like fried fish. —The preceding comment was added by 72.234.74.42 (talk • contribs)

It's supposed to be opinionated. I'm glad that you like fried fish, but it's still unfortunate that fish served so close to a major source is not able to be prepared well in a variety of ways. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:10, 2 February 2010 (EST)

The quality of the current banner is mediocre, so I have cropped a new banner:

I nominate this one as an alternative to the current banner. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added the current banner for comparison. IMO, suggestion 1 is better. /Yvwv (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the great big sky of the current one, which is something I would associate with Alaska. Ground Zero (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Yvwv: Thanks. @Ground Zero: Are you on a mobile device or a desktop? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

A tablet. Maybe that's why I don't notice any quality problem with the current banner. Does it look bad on a desktop? Ground Zero (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't say bad, exactly, just not as clear as the alternative. I'd say, when you have the time try looking at it on desktop for yourself and then the exact issues with the image will perhaps stand out more. What I'd say is that the whole image (on desktop) tends to look just a little blurry, which on its own doesn't have much of an effect but when you take in the whole image, it does. That's why I chose to create an alternative page banner. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm on a laptop and definitely notice the quality problems with the current banner and the technical superiority of the photo excerpted in the proposed replacement, but the composition and beauty of the current banner more than overrides quality issues for me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agree the quality of the current is not particularly good but the composition of proposal could be better. I am sure we can find another alternative that is better than both. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would be ideal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the Alaska banner needs to be of higher quality, and your proposal certainly does improve upon that. But I must agree with the comment that the "composition and beauty" of the current banner makes for a far more attractive banner (or to put it another way the current banner is more majestic). Zcarstvnz (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'll go for #3 to keep the same mood of the image. Perhaps the others could be used for other destinations? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

What I don't love about the suggested replacement banners is that in all of them, the mountaintops are cut off. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I believe #4 is an exception, but in that one it is not easy to tell where the mountains end and the sky begins. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Actually, I think we should use #4 in Anchorage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. A photo of tall buildings definitely should not represent the vast expanse of the state of Alaska! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Right! Do you think it would be OK to just replace the image at Anchorage or should I start a discussion at Talk:Anchorage? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Start a discussion. I'm not sure how obvious replacing the existing banner is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure this banner is going to work too well for Anchorage. The lower portion of all of the buildings is going be hidden by the ribbon across the bottom of the photo and only the tallest buildings are going to poke out the top. If the ribbons were below the photo, instead of on top of them, the banner photos would fully show, and then two row ribbons wouldn't take up so much photo space. My vote with the Alaska banner still remains with the current banner over everything else. —The preceding comment was added by Zcarstvnz (talk • contribs)

Actually, I think User:Zcarstvnz is right, so I won't start a discussion or change the page banner. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I may be a bit out of my depth here: Tried to add Kenai National Wildlife Refuge to the other destinations section. Got coords from WP, but they don't record them quite the same way, |coords|60|20|N|150|30|W| is how it's recorded there but WV doesn't use the "coords" template and I apparently fudged the translation as it is showing up in east Asia instead of the Kenai Peninsula. I'm guessing/hoping someone watching this page knows how to uncork it? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Beeblebrox: It looks like you had a sign error. However, manually adding coordinates is complicated and usually unnecessary. It is simpler to just get the Wikidata ID (click "Wikidata item" in the sidebar of the article here or on Wikipedia) and add that to the marker via the |wikidata= parameter, leaving |lat= and |long= blank - that way, the correct coordinates will be fetched automatically. I've done this for you. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 21:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank You! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

From the lede:

most of the state is in the Arctic

But:

(a) Does Arctic Alaska cover most of the state?

(b) Isn't most of the state below the Arctic Circle?

(c) Are we using the second definition in the Arctic article? "The Arctic is formally defined as either the area within the Arctic Circle (at 66°33′46.7″ N), or all northern areas normally colder than 10°C (50°F), year-round." (emphasis added) And given the rapid advance of warming in the Arctic, how much longer will this be true? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here's some new ones I've made. While the current one is nice, for me, it looks like any other mountain that either is near the poles or has a high altitude. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

My preferences are: 2, 3, 3a, 4 (pity the hilltop in the center had to be cropped out), 0 (whose filename ends with the number 2), and then a pick 'em between 1 and 5. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I didn't give my preference, but it's 3, 4, 3a and then 2. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why does this phrase got reverted, and does not belong here?

"Natural disasters also shaped the history of Alaska, for example, 1964 Good Friday Earthquake that struck in Anchorage."

There is nothing wrong about this. Some did an edit and it got reverted. --204.129.232.191 15:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

We need to keep the Understand short, and that phrase adds little value. It doesn't tell why that earthquake is relevant, and neither does it tell how it changed the history. The only thing it tells me is that there probably was a disastrous earthquake at that day in Anchorage – but perhaps it just changed some VIP's travel plans and thus avoided having him murdered. Either we write a paragraph on it or, and I assume that's the better route, just leave it out (I checked the Wikipedia article – yes it was big, but disasters happen, and the article mentions few lasting effects). –LPfi (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The text

"Most maps of the US represent the size of Alaska inaccurately"

was (in edits by two different people) changed into

"Most maps using the Mercator projection represent Alaska a lot larger than it actually is"

When reading the original wording I assumed that Alaska is included in a smaller scale in some corner of most maps of the USA. That's quite different from the Mercator distortion, which makes Alaska look larger. –LPfi (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I restored the original wording, adding a clarification. If the Mercator thing is an issue, a comment on that should be added, but I think people will mostly get their impression on Alaska from maps of the United States, not from maps of North America. –LPfi (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

This could be true in the US, but I certainly don't get my impression of Alaska from looking at maps of the US – I get mine from looking at Mercator maps, hence why I changed the wording. But the key thing to take from this is context. There are some people who get their impression of Alaska from Mercator maps, making it look way larger than it actually is (it really took me quite a while to conceptualise that Alaska is smaller than Queensland). Others get their impression from maps on the right, getting an impression that Alaska is way smaller than it actually is.

The wording should be changed so it reflects both. May I suggest the following wording:

Most maps represent the size of Alaska inaccurately – Mercator maps overrepresent the size of Alaska, while most US maps exhibit Alaska smaller than its true size.

Does that work out? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I made a try with a different wording, check what yo think. –LPfi (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Alaska</span>#Natives"}]]}'>Alaska#Natives now says:

"When visiting Alaska Native villages or communities, it is important to be respectful of cultural sensitivities. This includes asking permission before taking photos or videos, and dressing respectfully. It is also important to be aware of specific cultural protocols, such as how to greet people and how to address elders."

Do we give any advice on how to greet people and how to address elders, or how to get to know how to? Are the ways very different across native peoples or is there something that could be said here? Are there resources in some standard locations, which could be used before visiting a local community?

Is how exactly to greet people important, or is it enough to do that respectfully? Is greeting people at all more important than elsewhere (cf shops in France)? Is there more to addressing elders than that they should be shown respect?

Is "respectful clothing" the same as in Arab countries and most holy sites, where shorts and tops are seen as disrespectful? Or is this about things that can be seen as mocking, such as fake native clothing details, or true ones that shouldn't be worn by outsiders? Or something entirely different?

–LPfi (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply