Talk:Alaska

RFC: Should we mass-change maps which do not correctly show the location of Alaska?

You know what I’m talking about. That map. The map of the states they had in the classroom when you were a kid, the one that show Alaska in a box where Baja California should be.

Shows where Alaska is not, and the scale is grossly incorrect.

Shows where Alaska actually is, and with a much improved sense of scale.

So, if the purpose of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge, should we not use the map that actually shows reality? We already do in this article, because I changed it some time ago, but should we not use this, if not universally, at least in all articles that are actually about Alaska? Because as of right now there are over a hundred articles using the highly inaccurate map and only 5 using the more accurate one. If this request succeeds in forming a consensus for change I intend to file a request for a bot to make the necessary changes, or failing that I’ll do it myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should, but we have to fix the colors. The bad map has the good colors. YoPienso (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but only as long as Alaska is the only state highlighted colored. If we are only pointed out Alaska (or Alaska+Hawaii) - then yes. If we are coloring/shading multiple states - then having that big chunk of Canada, ocean, and Greenland detracts from inter-state comparisons.Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, agree with Icewhiz completely - but for the comparison maps I'd advise that we emphasise Alaska is not to scale in the tagline. From personal experience that scaling of Alaska is a very common misconception and we should be actively fighting it. (Alaska not to scale) or similar in italics would be all that's needed. VeritasVox (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree that the maps should be changed. Also agree with the idea of putting (Alaska not to scale) in italics would be good.AnaSoc (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks to scale to me. YoPienso (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

map with actual scale of Alaska superimposed over contiguous states

In the Alaska-in-a-box map the scale is way, way off. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I know; I understand AnaSoc to want to label the second one as not to scale. YoPienso (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think they meant what I said but yeah, I can see that misunderstanding. VeritasVox (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes with a suggestion A map showing Alaska with west Canada and north-west US would make sense, unless the purpose is to show the relative sizes of Alaska and the entire 48-state areas. For location, there is no need to show the entire US. "Not to scale" maps, IMHO, are an abomination. Collect (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes but ... I endorse comment by Icewhiz that the amount of ocean/Greenland is unnec and those of Collect that it may not be nec to include ALL of mainland US. It would also be helpful to label Canada and US (though not necessarily states/provinces). Surely establishing location is primary? Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Excellent idea. scope_creep (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it’s been nearly a month and it feels like we are more or less all on the same page. It sounds like some wuld prefer we had a slightly different map, with no other state highlighted and maybe limited to the Pacific Northwest? Personally I don’t have any skills in that department but if anyone here does that would be more than welcome, or we could ask for help at WP:GL/MAP but before I do so I’d like to be sure we’re in basic agreement about what to ask for. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I support the change. What about one of those maps that highlights Alaska's place in the circumpolar north that would show its position relative to Russia, Canada, and the contiguous US? I also do not have expertise to accomplish the changes, but I'm willing to learn. Thanks for the conversation.AnaSoc (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve just filed a request at the map workshop that I believe reflects these results. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been kinda ignoring this discussion, real world obligations and all. My watchlist shows the closure of yet another ultimately fruitless XFD related to the University of Alaska. Our coverage of UA is a real mess, as it's a little too dominated by blatant COI edits which amount to a PR whitewashing in many cases. Witness this edit, removing mention of the Ted Stevens archive from Elmer E. Rasmuson Library because it was ultimately not a successful venture for EERL. Most of the news coverage it generated while it was a going concern appears to have disappeared from news sites, though this piece remains, lending some insight as to what a hot potato the matter was. The reason I mention all this? While EERL had the Stevens papers, they put together a small number of public displays from certain materials in the archive. One of them concerned this very topic. Evidently, Stevens mounted a campaign to put pressure on the USGS to quit publishing maps of the sort Beeblebrox complained about as long ago as 1974 or 1975. Due to how long ago that happened, combined with moving the archive to a more private setting, relevant sources may be hard to find. I've done a fair amount of research into that specific era of Alaska's history and don't remember seeing anything which referenced Stevens's campaign besides what I saw in that one display at EERL years ago. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn’t heard about all that. What a mess. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Update

Apparently, it's pretty standard for requests at the map graphics lab to just be ignored, as the one related to this was. I guess best we can do is go through every instance of the "bad" map and see if it it should be changed per this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

price paid for Alaska

If anyone who has access to the article wants to add this in, US$7.2 million in 2017 prices is US$123 million according to this website: https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/ ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.59.74 (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Davidson

What party is Lieutenant Governor Davidson affiliated with? If she's not affiliated to any, then that makes her an independent. So, which is it? GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is that it isn’t 100% clear what affiliations she may have. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: Alaska ranked 29th in the nation for educational performance, according to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2018 report. It earned an overall score of 73.1 out of 100 points and a grade of C. By comparison, the nation received a score of 75.2 or a C. Alaska posted a C-minus in the Chance-for-Success category, ranking 46th on factors that contribute to a person’s success both within and outside the K-12 education system. Alaska received a mark of B and finished ninth for School Finance. It ranked 49th with a grade of D on the K-12 Achievement Index.

Explanation of issue: Since I work for Education Week, who put out this report, I was instructed to request the edit rather than make it myself. I feel that this information about the quality of Alaska's K-12 schools would be a beneficial addition to the page and add something that it currently does not have. References supporting change: This is the URL I'd cite - https://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/quality-counts-2018-state-grades/highlight-reports/2018/01/17/Alaska.html Csmithepe (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Csmithepe

 Not done: Please provide a source unconnected to Education Week for this claim.  Spintendo  21:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019

I Just wanted to add an internal link to Anchorage. Anchorage Joshua C Love (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Without any indication of what external link you wanted to add, it is impossible to process this request. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

He said internal link, as in wikilink, while you're saying external link. The Anchorage article is already wikilinked in the article in the infobox, the "South Central" section, the "Climate" section, the "Agriculture and fishing" section, the "Cities, towns and boroughs" section and the "Cities and census-designated places (by population)" section. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It was early and I had not had coffee. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2019

Can someone change the formatting of the "2018" in the part with population of Alaska? It's unusual to have a thousands-delimiter when providing the year 2601:187:807F:3380:8BF0:D4C2:3086:6F48 (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I tried to remove the comma, but it's not actually there. It has something to do with that particular parameter. Someone with better knowledge than me about infoboxes will have to fix it. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done. The template parameter expects a single number (which semantically should be the 2010 census value); adding extra text produces weird results apparently. So I rolled the text back to the 2010 census number. Ideally, the infobox should actually note that this is the 2010 estimate, and not necessarily the most recent estimate. That would have to be fixed at the infobox though. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Elaska" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Elaska. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Ulaska" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ulaska. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Alaska for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Alaska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alaska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

I'd want to add the largest towns/cities in Alaska. Please! Eugen Sulina (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Um, is it too much to ask for you to actually pay attention and use your brain instead of using a bot to dash off an irrelevant and meaningless reply solely for the sake of saying that something's been replied to? The content Eugen Sulina is asking about already exists in the article at Alaska#Cities and census-designated places (by population). As it's based on the 2010 Census, this section will need to be redone shortly. As the typical editor around here appears to be interested solely in whether or not the article happens to have citations of some sort in certain places, those with a more sincere desire to improve it and accurately reflect what's notable about Alaska have likely been dissuaded and moved on. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)