Talk:Anchorage, Alaska/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this U.S. Borough Entry?
The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties standards might help.

Larry Sanger

I see no reason not to mention Larry Sanger on the Anchorage, Alaska page. Anthony DiPierro 21:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that it's something the town is at all famous for. moink 22:31, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I never said it was something the town was famous for. Anthony DiPierro

Demographics and Geography

Do we really need these long and boring sections? Maybe move them to a subpage? The page could be much better if we'd stick to an encyclopedic format. Anthony DiPierro 22:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page due to a constant revert war. Resolve any differences in the talk page and I'll remove the protection. Dori | Talk 18:55, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

When this page gets unprotected, would someone mind changing the link Chinook winds to Chinook wind. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ack! I did this when the page was protected! My first act as an admin was to edit a protected page! I feel really awful but I didn't notice it was protected, not used to being able to do this. I hope everyone sees that I meant no harm. moink 18:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Somebody revert that edit and de-sysop her immediately! (just kidding) Even though technically it was against the guidelines, the change is so unobjectionable that acting on the request promptly may be better than waiting and forgetting about it. --Michael Snow 19:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Census debate

"As of the census of 2000, there are 260,283 people, 94,822 households, and 64,099 families residing in the municipality."

So many problems... OK, for one, it's not even proper English. As of 2000, there were whatever. Secondly, it's an estimate, it shouldn't be presented as an exact number. Third, it's redundant. It's already mentioned at the top of the article. Anthony DiPierro 19:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that the numbers are too precise. I think rounding to about the nearest 100 is good, and adding approximately. For percentages, round to the nearest whole percent. moink 19:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As this applies equally to tens of thousands of articles, it should be discussed elsewhere, and if there is consensus about any change of the format, a bot would have to be approved to change all articles. I refuse to even discuss it here on the talk page of a specific city. --Wik 19:13, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think we should try this on a limited basis before extending it to 10,000 articles. Anthony DiPierro 19:20, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The numbers are not too precise - those are the exact numbers reported by the census. If you have issues with the accuracy of the census, that I can understand. But the way to resolve that is to make the Demographics section say "according to the 2000 census", as the top of the page already does. Then we're just reporting what the census said, and that's indisputable fact. We have no basis for adjusting the census figures unless you've got some other sources that aren't being cited. --Michael Snow 00:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Michael. These were the reported numbers from the census. They're the best numbers we have, there's no need to change them, especially not in every article the bot created. RickK | Talk 00:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The numbers reported by the census are estimates, not exact numbers. If you're going to say that the census report is claiming these are exact numbers, then you need to show me where this claim is made. If you can show where the census report claims that the numbers are exact, then and only then is changing "As of the census of 2000" to "According to the census of 2000" proper. And you still have to change "are" to "were". And listing the number of people a second time is still redundant. Anthony DiPierro 20:39, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where did I say they were exact numbers? Please re-read what I wrote: "They're the best numbers we have". And stop being a baby and trying to cause trouble because people don't let you get your way. RickK | Talk 01:47, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to you on that point. Michael said "those are the exact numbers reported by the census." They're not exact numbers. They're approximate, and should be reported as such. And no more significant digits than are known should be presented. I'm sorry you consider trying to fix this article to be causing trouble. Anthony DiPierro 01:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Try going to the Census Bureau website, for example at [1]. The 2000 census reported a population of 260,283 for Anchorage. The census DID NOT report a population of 260,000. When I said "exact", that was exact as in identical (an exact replica), not exact as in correct. As I've said already, I know there are arguments about the reliability of census data. But even if you consider the census numbers an estimate or an approximation, the census number is STILL 260,283 (there is no rule that estimates or approximations have to be in round numbers). As for significant digits, what basis do you have for deciding how many significant digits are, or are not, known? Why not four (260,300), or one (300,000)? Personally, I think applying the concept of significant digits to the census misunderstands what significant digits are for. There are much better statistical methods available for evaluating census data. --Michael Snow 03:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That may be the number they present, but it is not claimed to be the exact population. Presenting it as such is incorrect. If you want to rephrase it in some way to avoid presenting the approximate data as exact, then feel free to do so. My suggestion is to round the figures and use the word "approximate". Actually, a better solution for this particular situation is to move the census data to a different article entirely, maybe Anchorage, Alaska census data. Because the data are completely superfluous here. Anthony DiPierro 10:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Superfluous? Do you think nobody who reads this article would be interested in knowing the population of Anchorage?

I didn't say we should present 260,283 as the exact population, however you may be using that word; I've only ever used "exact" on the talk page. I said we should report that this data is "according to the 2000 census". Do you object to that language, too, or are you just objecting to the word "exact"? --Michael Snow 17:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As for the data being superfluous, perhaps a very small minority of people might be interested in this information. For those people, we could link to the government page which presents it. Wikipedia is not a source repository, after all.

"As of the census of 2000, there are 260,283 people, 94,822 households, and 64,099 families residing in the municipality." Sounds exact to me. How do you propose we fix it? Anthony DiPierro 21:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a complicated question. On the one hand, we can be said to be quoting the census. And they reported a number which is overly precise for its accuracy. I've been taught in engineering school that you never ever give an extremely precise number when you don't know that the data is that accurate. And I highly doubt that the census is accurate to the person or even to the tens or hundreds. Thus, if I were the census, I would round it. But I'm not the census and they idiotically give too much precision to their results. But if we're actually quoting them, we should use their numbers. I'm undecided, I guess. moink 17:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would say that we should use the census's numbers exactly as they appear in the census. There is no reason to round them off because we are reporting the official figures. Find the census figures questionable? Good for you. Then question them for yourself. What Wikipedia shouldn't get in the habit of doing is thinking for its readers -- by rounding off to a particular significant digit, we are suggesting "we know more about how inexact census figures are than you do: trust us, it's somewhere around here". Let's give people the numbers, make it clear they're based on the census, and give them the courtesy of assuming they can think about it as critically as they want. No one will sue us because they printed up 260,283 flyers to advertise a concert to the people of Anchorage and discovered subsequently that there were, in fact, 260,417 people. Someone might, though, get legitimately upset if their geography project was docked 1/2 a point because they didn't give the 2000 census's population number, but rather an intelligent estimate of it. Jwrosenzweig 18:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agree with this completely. It is well known that census figures have a built-in inaccuracy, but it is highly controversial, and attempting to judge this accuracy for ourselves by assuming a stastical rounding error would do a disservice to readers.-- Decumanus | Talk 18:09, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You make a very good point. Perhaps the solution is to link the word census and then put an intelligent discussion of census accuracy (which I admit I'm not too capable of) in census. moink

The word census is already linked on the page. So is United States Census Bureau. And yes, those would be the right places to discuss census accuracy. There's some discussion of the issue there, although I'm sure it could be improved. --Michael Snow 19:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, I don't see why we need to include this data in the first place. At the very least, it should be moved to a separate page. As long as this page still has this crap in it, it will never be brilliant prose in my mind. Anthony DiPierro 21:33, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While we should of course aim for brilliant prose where this is practical, an encyclopedia's goal is ultimately not to delight with prose genius but to inform. The information you object to is useful and desired information which we will continue to provide on this article unless the community wishes differently. I have seen no evidence yet that anyone but Anthony wishes differently. Furthermore, characterizing factual information as "crap" indicates to me a disdain for the very nature of an encyclopedia. If this is indeed your position, Anthony, I suggest that being involved in the creation of a factual encyclopedia may be a project you will ultimately be disappointed by. Jwrosenzweig 22:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, it seems pretty clear to me that Anthony simply refuses to accept the numbers as they stand ("too exact"). Reviewing the discussion above, I think most people participating in the discussion want to keep the census data without changing the numbers, but perhaps modifying the language slightly. Sounds like an impasse - should we move on and start a poll on the subject? --Michael Snow 21:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This issue has only been discussed for 2 days. That's far too soon for a poll. See Wikipedia:Polling guidelines. As for your accusation of what I will and won't accept, no one has even proposed an alternate phrasing. Anthony DiPierro 22:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I propose "According to the 2000 United States census records, there are 260,283 people, 94,822 households, and 64,099 families residing in the municipality." I am open to suggestions for modification and improvement. Jwrosenzweig 22:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like pretty fair wording to me. DJ Clayworth 22:19, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I already suggested the "according to" phrasing on a couple of occasions, but perhaps that wasn't explicit enough for everyone to recognize it as a proposal. --Michael Snow 22:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First of all, "are" should be "were". Secondly, that's not what the US census records say. The US census records say that 260,283 people (households, etc) were counted, they do not say that that is how many people reside in the municipality. If you're going to say that figure represents the actual number of households (the US census records do not make that claim), you have to say "approximately". Anthony DiPierro 00:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New suggestion. "The 2000 United States census counted 260,283 people, 94,822 households, and 64,099 families residing in the municipality." moink 00:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as wording, that sentence would be fine with me (for the first sentence, the rest would have to be changed similarly). Another issue is that the "people" figure is redundant (already in the first paragraph). And the other issue is that I feel this whole section should be moved to a separate article. Anthony DiPierro 00:15, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The rest of the data are mostly percentages and averages, not counts. How would you word those? As for moving the census data to a separate article, this article is not substantial enough to warrant splitting it. --Michael Snow 00:27, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would word them as "approximate". Anthony DiPierro 04:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How would you do that? Without telling us the context for your proposed use of the word "approximate", I don't think we can evaluate this as a proposal. I can't tell what the effect would be without seeing how the word is used in a sentence. How would you write the disputed section so that it's NPOV, factually accurate, and takes into account both our concerns and yours? --Michael Snow 07:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've already done it. It's the reason this page was protected in the first place. Substitute the "exact" numbers in for the rounded ones. anthony 07:15, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'll operate on the assumption that your last edit of the page is your proposal, but with the different numbers. Given that the word "approximately" appears numerous times in the first two paragraphs of the demographics section, and not at all in the last two, I have to believe the proposal is incomplete. And if the last two paragraphs are edited in a similar fashion, the section would be positively littered with the word "approximately". I don't think we need to beat people over the head with our doubts about census data. As a result, I still prefer Jwrosenzweig's proposal.

As Jwrosenzweig also pointed out above, we can simply state the fact that the census reported certain statistical information, and let readers make their own judgments about the value of it. I would add that restating the census data, with the source clearly identified, is purely factual and NPOV. On the other hand, rounding the numbers or fudging them by calling them "approximate" is POV (specifically, it introduces POV about the census). In my opinion, the place to discuss the multiple POVs about the census is on the census pages, which are linked from this one. --Michael Snow 17:35, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I propose leaving the damn thing exactly the way it is, unless somebody wants to create a bot to change EVERY SINGLE ONE of the city articles to match whatever other wording somehow gets voted on. And this poll should DEFINITELY not be here, since it affects every location in the United States that we are reporting on. RickK | Talk 04:15, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll create the bot. But I think this should be done on one page first, before doing it on all pages. Anthony DiPierro 04:27, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the wording of every article created by the bot needs to stay exactly the same forever (again, exact as in identical, not as in correct). A little stylistic variety can be accepted. So we need not convert this into a policy discussion that affects the whole encyclopedia. We're just talking about Anchorage here, nothing more. --Michael Snow 07:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We're talking about Anchorage here and now, but if Anthony gets his way here, you know he's going to want to expand it. RickK | Talk 02:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, wik was the one bringing up the other pages. If it all works out, then I'd like to expand it, but as I've said above, I think we should try it on a limited basis first. anthony 21:14, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any need to change anything on this page or any other page on any other city anywhere in the world. It's fine just like it is, and this whole dispute is a tempest in an igloo. Doovinator 14:24, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I moved the useless crap into a table. That way it isn't phrased as a sentence and the fact that it is merely census data is evident from the table caption. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 14:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While I think calling census data "useless crap" is needlessly provocative, I'm willing to accept this as a resolution of the dispute as it applies to this page. --Michael Snow 22:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good thing there isn't a rule against being needlessly provocative. I don't consider this a resolution. I still feel the information should be removed. But at least the POV and inaccurate aspects of the information have been relieved. It's also slightly less obnoxious as a table. anthony (see warning) 22:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First of all, it is against the spirit of Wikilove to needlessly provoke people, Anthony -- not a rule, but take that as a very good guideline. Secondly, the issue was resolved for everyone but you -- we do things by consensus here, and consensus was (and is) against removing the census data. I think the table is acceptable (though not really preferable to the previous solution), but I would like you to stop agitating to remove the data from this page. You make good contributions to corners of this project, and I know you can apply that attitude here and recognize that the census data is seen as useful and important by this community, even if it isn't by you. Jwrosenzweig 22:47, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The consensus among an extremely small portion of the community is to keep the census data. In fact, I haven't heard anyone's opinion on whether or not the data could be moved to a separate page, so as not to clutter this one. But yes, I don't see anyone else pushing to remove this data (any more, rambot has been accused of adding "gazetteer entries and not encyclopedia articles", so much in fact that it's a freqently asked question), so that's why I've come up with a compromise. But a better compromise would be to move the data to a different page, rather than pollute this one. anthony (see warning) 23:16, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's a resolution in the sense that it's Anthony's edit, and I'm leaving it where it is, and I hope that other people will too. It should be clear, as Jwrosenzweig says, that the consensus is running against removal of that information, so I'm counting on Anthony to live with that whether or not he considers the dispute "resolved". As for rules about being needlessly provocative, it's far too subjective to create a specific rule against it (I believe Anthony was making that comment to be funny anyway, though I'm not sure everybody got the joke). --Michael Snow 23:01, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are two issues: whether (and to what extent) the data should be included, and how best to phrase it. Assuming the table stays the way it is, I consider the phrasing dispute resolved. As for whether to include the data in the first place, I only removed it once, and I seem to be so overwhelmingly outnumbered that I immediately gave up on that. In hindsight, I actually think it would probably be better to move the data elsewhere rather than delete it. And presenting it in a table to some extent lessens that need. Maybe the solution is to some of the table (geography, population, maybe a few others), and then link to the rest. But then the rest is really going to be source text, and maybe it should be moved to wikisource and linked there. I don't know. anthony (see warning) 23:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So that you know, I objected above to moving the data to a separate page, and I maintain that objection. The article is not substantial enough at this time to warrant splitting it into multiple pages. --Michael Snow 23:38, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Second that. Leave it like it is, and leave all other pages like it like they are. Census data may be boring or irrelevant to some, but it's fascinating to others. When I was a kid I'd make up lists of cities, states etc. that I'd been to, and sort them by all sorts of data--by population, by altitude, by acreage of parkland, percentages of ethnic types, number of cars, age, etc. etc. etc. No harm in keeping it easily available.Doovinator 02:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The harm, in my opinion, is that it distracts from the more interesting information. As for census data being fascinating to some, that may be true, but I think it's clear we should draw the line somewhere. There is a lot of the census data that we're already not including. Institutionalized persons, people in College dormitories, Military quarters, Emergency shelters for homeless , Visible in street locations, Other noninstitutional group quarters, race of householder, contract rent, Persons per Occupied Housing Unit by Tenure, the list goes on and on and on. I think we've drawn the line too far on the inclusive end, for the main page. anthony (see warning) 02:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Independent city?

Is Anchorage's supposed independent city status any different from the status of municipalities in the various other census areas of Alaska that are not in boroughs? That is to say, some parts of Alaska are divided into boroughs, while others are not. Anchorage appears to be in the part that is not. There are other municipalities that are in a similar situation. The US Census Bureau divides up those parts of Alaska which are not in boroughs into census areas. Because Anchorage is so large, it gets its own, while the other cities just become part of whatever census area is drawn up around them. But in terms of their relationship to the government of Alaska, is, say, Nome actually any different from Anchorage? john k 05:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sort of. The state of Alaska is formally divided into sections called boroughs, with unboroughfied areas considered to be census area. These areas may elect state senators and representatives but have no areal government; or there may be separate senate and representative electoral districts which are not coterminous with the census area. There are also incorporated cities within boroughs which have internal governments, and in any borough one must serve as the borough seat. (Alaska also has incorporated villages, which are smaller than cities and have less government and services.) An example of the census area is the Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area, Alaska which covers two incorporated cities. These cities are of nearly equal size and neither wishes to lose its equal status to the other for one of them to become a borough seat of government, so they stay separate but grouped in a census area. (Note that Wrangell and Ketchikan, Alaska together form a senate district, not including Petersburg. Yes, this is insanely confusing, a hallmark of Alaskan politics which is our primary indoor sport. Wrangell and Petersburg have a strong rivalry, btw.) If you see Juneau, Alaska or Sitka, Alaska you will find that they are a single borough with a municipality whose boundaries happen to be coterminous with the borough's.

Anchorage is apart from all of this, a special case. Its municipality is on an equal status with the other boroughs, and no borough exists to encompass the municipality. This was done because previously Anchorage had both a borough and several cities (Spenard, Indian, Portage), with the City of Anchorage holding only the area of downtown Anchorage and the former extending to the rest of the Anchorage area. These two levels of government competed with each other, and since the city had basically grown to swallow most of the separate city-areas a decision was made to bring the two groups together. The entire thing was called a municipality so that it would reflect the fact that it is a city government, not a rural borough government with a particular city seat. This made Anchorage the only municipality in the state without a surrounding borough, as well as the second largest (in area) city and the largest municipality in the US. Other boroughs in the state compete with the governments of incorporated cities, but not to the extent that the conflict has encouraged people to do away with the borough as Anchorage has done. In the case of places like Juneau and Sitka the borough and city governments have AFAIK simply been declared to be identical, which solves a lot of problems. The difference between them and Anchorage is that Anchorage changed its name to a municipality, the others simply keep the name borough and city. Further details of government differences are fairly low level and immaterial from an encyclopedic perspective. Does that make sense?

I should note that Spenard still occasionally claims independent status as a city, although this is legally and politically not true, and is mostly done as a joke or for political posturing. The US Postal Service will however accept mail sent to Spenard, Alaska, even without zip code. The Spenard Community Council also sometimes refers to Spenard as The City of Spenard unofficially. It's one of a few parts of Anchorage that maintain a separate sense of identity, others are Girdwood, Indian, Bird Creek, Eagle River, Muldoon, and so forth. All of those used to be separate communities in the borough. They also elect their own state senators and representatives. — Ts'éiyoosh 00:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anchorage,_Alaska article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anchorage,_Alaska}} to this page. — LinkBot 09:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Alaskan Qualities"

I know this is a nitpick, but the tone of the following sentence seemed wrong for Wikipedia: "Anchoragites exemplify many of the qualities to be found among Alaskans generally...". It strikes me as too much of a judgement, even if flattering. How about, "Anchoragites exemplify many of the qualities Alaskans often boast...". tgeller 19:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Not only is the sentence prejudicial; it's so nebulous as to be meaningless. Kirchherr 19:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sister city?

i've seen on many pages for cities that anchorage is a sister city. last of which is perth australia

If you see them, feel free to add them. I don't think anyone has looked into Anchorage's sister cities on Wikipedia. — Jéioosh 06:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sister city - it's the right answer on all six

I just wanted to let everybody know that i got the right answers on the sister city names by looking off the Anchorage Municipality's main web site. There are six sister city names on that web site, if you just look back at it. — User:JeffreyAllen1975 00:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

A closer view photo of downtown Anchorage could be added on!

One or two more photos of the Anchorage area could be added to the Anchorage photo line on it's articles. The articles keep getting better each time. I would like to say, keep up the good work because i am a Wikipedla fan on here too. — User:JeffreyAllen1975 01:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Census information

Moved to Talk:Anchorage, Alaska/Census debate for reading convenience. — Jéioosh 11:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained changes to latitude and longitude

User:JeffreyAllen1975, a.k.a. User:Jeff, you changed the location of Anchorage from N61º13"06,W149º53"57' to N61º11"30 W149º45"43'. I checked the new coordinates against the National Geodetic Survey Datasheets website, and found that there is no survey point identified as being in Anchorage that is within 2 miles of the new coordinates. However, 26 of the 38 survey points identified as being in Anchorage are within 2 miles of the old coordinates, the closest one being the TV station KENI mast, just 0.1 miles away at N61º13"06,W149º53"41'. I understand that you want to make the Wikipedia better, Jeff, and so do I. I'm guessing you made these changes based on a map, and that they are well-intentioned. If you feel your source is better than the NGS Datasheets, then please help us out by documenting it, and then we can have a discussion in the Talk pages and achieve consensus before making the change to the Wikipedia proper. Thanks for helping to make Wikipedai better!
--GraemeMcRae^talk 04:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank You for telling me because you are right on that one because;

Downtown Anchorage does happen to lie on the N61'13"06,W149'53"41' and we get it all right this time around." Thank you for the request " done a good job on that. — User:JeffreyAllen1975 07:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A portal has been added

A photo of the Balto Statue in downtown Anchorage had been added. — User:JeffreyAllen1975 20:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Anchorage City Seal and City Flag needed

Anchorage still needs a city Seal and city Flag added. — User:JeffreyAllen1975 02:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

:Well, you could steal the small seal logo from [2]. Or you could write the mayor at mayor@ci.anchorage.ak.us. I think a secretary answers that email, but still it'd start the ball rolling. — Jéioosh 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

:Well, I tried to upload the image, but I don't know how to work the Upload file, and I know that someone out there knows how to work it. JeffreyAllen1975 06:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I just uploaded an image of the flag, which bears the seal, if that helps.--Lordkinbote 00:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

King Career Center?

I'm not sure King Career Center really belongs under "Colleges and Universities," because it is part of the ASD and provides services only to high school students. Stellertony the Bookcrosser 08:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the City of Anchorage Population by year

I added the population history by year under demographics. — User:JeffreyAllen1975 04:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained removing of the Notable neighborhood communities list?

User:Stellertony, You removed the list of Notable neighborhood communities on the article. That list of communities are the Anchorage neighborhood communities. I understand that that you want to make the Wikipedia better, and so do I. I'm guessing you made these changes based on a map. If you feel you think that are no neighborhood communities, as a part of Anchorage, then look on Mappoint, because they are on there as a part of the Anchorage Municipality. If you feel your source is better, then please help us out by documenting it, and then we can have a discussion in the Talk pages and achieve consensus before making the change to the Wikipedia proper. Thanks for helping to make Wikipedia better!
---JeffreyAllen1975 ^talk 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(Put Notable neighborhood communities back on there)

Put Notable neighborhood communities back on there

I put the Anchorage Neighborhood Communities on a separate article sheet. Look at the bottom of the Geography section for it. User:JeffreyAllen1975 21:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Notable communities & neighborhods question.

JeffreyAllen1975: Unless there is some information available about these neighborhoods, how is this list useful to anyone? --McStyles 20:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Put on a few new images

This article needs several more images around Anchorage, like a closer view of downtown Anchorage, the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts, and more. It is sad that Anchorage is Alaska's largest city and one of United States major cities and it only has two images on its city article. JeffreyAllen1975 00:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Anchorage still needs a image of the City Flag and City Seal, see below in Contents. JeffreyAllen1975 06:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

File:Us-ak-an.jpg

How's this?--Lordkinbote 00:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You've done a good job on that!--JeffreyAllen1975 01:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved History section to the top

I moved the History' section to the top before Geography and Climate section.

I looked back at a lot of major U.S. city articles on how they have their articles and there History section is always at the top before (just above) their Geography and Climate section. JeffreyAllen1975 03:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Added Insurgent49 to media list

Insurgent49 (or "i49"), based in Anchorage, is Alaska's top source of progressive news and opinion. 10,000 copies of this newspaper are distributed every month throughout the Anchorage area and Fairbanks. Its website, www.insurgent49.com, is updated weekly.

The Citys Real Nickname?

I found the citys real nickname. Its official nickname is "The City of Lights and Flowers" (Anchorage Community Profile). I've read “Air Crossroads of the World” and "The City of Lights and Flowers" out of the 2003 and 2005 official Anchorage Visitors Guide (Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau), but not "The End of the World". When was this nickname set and by what person or group?---JeffreyAllen1975 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no. Anchorage doesn't have a nickname, it's currently coming up with one. (See here: http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/anchorage/story/7659802p-7571417c.html) It's sort of been swapped around over the years. "City of Lights" is something the city promotes in the winter to get folks to light their houses and yards up, it's not official. I've never heard it as "lights and flowers," and that's one among many names.--Silja 05:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Anchorage, Alaska

I made-out the article on History of Anchorage, Alaska. JeffreyAllen1975 02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested modifications to the Anchorage history Secion.

Russia was well-established in North America by the 1800s. True but irrelevant to Anchorage, which essentially has no trace of Russian influence, having been founded in 1915. Should be deleted.

In 1867, U.S. Secretary of State William H. Seward brokered a deal to purchase Alaska from debt-ridden Russia for $7.2 million, about two cents an acre. 

True to a point, but belongs in an Alaskan History article as it long predates the founding of Anchorage. In fact, the Russians sold Alaska because it was indefensible if the a war broke out with the UK, which was feared on a number of occasions following the Crimean War. Should be deleted.

Alaska's value was not appreciated by the American press at that time, calling it "Seward's folly", "Seward's icebox", and "Walrussia". This statement is false. Most of the American papers and public supported the purchase. There were some noted exceptions that used those appelations, but the value of the purchase was instantly obvious to anyone who looked as the income from the lease of the Pribilof Islands fur seal operation alone paid the entire purchase price of Alaska back to the Federal government within a decade of 1867! Unfortunately I'm at work and don't have any cites handy, but I did my senior project as a history major under Dr. Stephen Haycox at University of Alaska Anchorage on the fur seal operation and purchase and the numbers are obvious. It is irrelevant in any case, and Should be deleted.

Otherwise seems fine.

Shawn Cromett

Added Discussion of Wildlife

I added a small discussion of Anchorage wildlife, citing the recent urban brown bear study and BBC film crew's interest in the matter. I don't have reliable figures on how many moose or bear are in Anchorage, as everyone has a different number. So I left off any attempt to make a calculation. It also depends on what you include in your definition of Anchorage, since the Muni includes a great deal of true wilderness

This article reads like a tourist advertisement.

Ignoring the blatant lack of citations in nearly every paragraph, this article is marred by poetic adjectives and biased descriptions which are unencyclopedic and devoid of sources. This is a mere sample of numerous sentences which read like a tourist brochure --

"baskets of bright gold triploid marigold drenched with trailing sapphire lobelia."

"The city of Anchorage blooms with vibrant color during the late spring and summer."

"particularly attractive to nature lovers to say nothing of the attractions available just a short distance outside the city"

"Anchorageites exemplify many of the qualities [...] found among Alaskans [...]: independence, friendliness, practical-mindedness"

"gives Anchorage a relatively casual, relaxed atmosphere compared to some other American cities"

"Anchorage has an abundance of nightlife"

Again, those are just a few examples.

Now, I am not contending that any of this information is untrue; however, the lack of citations and the flowery, laudatory wording needs to be amended.

--Flask 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Balto or no?

If the statue of the dog is mistaken for the dog Balto and is in fact just an anonymous dog, why is the image named "statue_of_balto"? 71.116.241.123 00:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Because nobody’s bothered to rename it? — Jéioosh 09:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-Added Venues sub Section

I re-added the venues section as a sub section for the purpose of a link to the new pages for the Egan Center and the new Dena'ina Center. There has been a bit of a revision war on this page but I would like to point out that these city pages are best suited for the reader who is not familiar with the area. Thousands of these people will visit Anchorage as part of a convention or national meeting and information on these facilites should be provided. A large asset of wikipedia is the ability to link between wiki pages, while some info may be provided on another page, it is not redundant to use a small piece of that page as a link between. I wrote this to valide the venues sub section which someone saw fit to delete without explanation, I hope the reason for this section is clear and that it will not be deleted again. I welcome and encourage additions and improvements. --McStyles 22:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?

According to [3] this article contains copyright infringements. 82.135.91.95 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The majority of this Anchorage article seems to be copyrighted material plagiarized from other websites, such as the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce site? Quite disturbing... The following text is from that website... --Flask 09:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The final serious example was Anchorage, Alaska, which appeared to have been written by JeffreyAllen1975. Here the contributions seemed quite genuine; JeffreyAllen1975 made tons of edits each contributing a paragraph at a time. The work seemed to take quite a toll on him; at his user page he noted "I just got burned-out and tired of the online encyclopedia. My time is being taken away from me by being with Wikipedia." He lasted about four months.

Still, something seemed fishy about JeffreyAllen1975, so I decided to investigate further. Currently, the Anchorage page has a tag noting that "The current version of the article or section reads like an advertisement." A bit of Googling revealed why: JeffreyAllen1975's contributions had been copied-and-pasted from other websites, like the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce ("Anchorage's public school system is ranked among the best in the nation. ... The district's average SAT and ACT College entrance exam scores are consistently above the national average and Advanced Placement courses are offered at each of the district's larger high schools.").

I suspect JeffreyAllen1975 didn't know what he was doing; his writing style suggests he's just a kid: "In my free time, I am very proud of my-self by how much I've learned by making good edits on Wikipedia articles." I'm pretty sure he just thought he was helping the project: "Wikipedia is like the real encyclopedia books (A thru Z) that you see in the library, but better." But his plagiarism will still have to be removed.

When I started, just looking at the numbers these seemed to be several cases that strongly contradicted my theory. And had I just stuck to looking at the numbers, I would have believed that to be the case as well. But, once again, investigation shows the picture to be far more interesting: translation, reorganization, and plagiarism.

As noted on the to-do list, remediation of plagiarism is a top priority for this article. Please feel free to help! -- Shunpiker 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

36 Crazyfists not the only signed musical act.

36 Crazyfists is listed under "Notable Residents" as Alaska's only signed musical act. What about Jewel? I would change it but I wanted verification that Jewel is in fact another signed musical act hailing from Alaska. Maybe it could be changed to Anchorage's only signed musical act.--Caline 00:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

- Neither 36 Crazyfists nor Jewel hail from Alaska anymore. Both acts relocated to other states before signing to labels.

Grace Christian the only notable private school?

The paragraph about private education appears to be a thinly-veiled advertisement for Grace Christian School: "Grace Christian School, a K-12 grade community Christian school, offers a rigorous college-preparatory program that emphasizes critical thinking, skill building and character development-within a traditional classroom format. Visit their Web Site at: [16] for more information." I suggest that either the description is changed, or more examples of private schools are added.

A few questions

I was looking at a topo map of the area, & it appears that Anchorage is running of room to grow, since it is surronded by the Chugach State Park. Also, why is there no settlement across the Knik Arm from Anchorage, or no bridge across the Knik Arm? I also noticed that the ave income for women is much higher than men ($63k to $41K). Is that the biggest gap in men to women's income of any US city? Angry Aspie 00:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There’s no expansion of the city across the Knik Arm from Anchorage because it’s too hard to get there by road from Anchorage. It takes up to an hour just to drive to Wasilla, and from there the Knik–Goose Bay Road isn’t exactly a great thoroughfare. Although a water crossing would be viable during the summer months, it isn’t feasible during the winter when the strong tides push sea ice vigorously through the narrow channel. A bridge across the Knik Arm to Point Mackenzie is supposedly “on the way”, and was the subject of much congressional debate when funding for it was part of a US transportation bill this last session. This was one of the two so-called “Bridge to Nowhere” projects, the other being a bridge (actually two bridges) from Revillagigedo Island (the town) to Gravina Island (the airport) in the city of Ketchikan, Alaska.

There are some political problems with expansion of Anchorage across the Arm. For one, the Municipality of Anchorage has no sales tax, whereas the Matanuska-Susitna Borough on the other side has one as its main source of income. Conversely, the Borough has no property tax, whereas the Municipality has a property tax which is its main source of income. Easy travel from one location to the other would encourage people to own property in the Borough and spend money in the Municipality, depriving both governments of tax income. Another issue is that most of the land immediately accessible on the other side of the Arm from Anchorage is already owned, primarily by prominent local politicians. Any bridge construction would drive prices quite high, lining the pockets of the politicians at the expense of the locals. — Jéioosh 09:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the Mat-Su Borough has property taxes just the same as Anchorage. —akghetto ^talk 05:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Geography Section Consistency

Can someone please correct the geography section to make it consistent with general geography sections on city pages? This one doesn't even list the physical size of the city. Please, let's keep all of this consistent with other city pages. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

State house representation

I do not understand this sentence: "Anchorage sends 12 representatives to the 40-member Alaska House of Representatives and 4 senators to the 20-member senate, making up nearly half of both houses." It seems like this suggests that, in fact, Anchorage has significantly less than half of the House of Representatives, and 1/5th of the Senate, not "nearly one half" in both houses. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this sentence?69.94.192.147 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Metropolitan Area"?

The article's preamble says that Anchorage has 2/5 of the state's population (meaning the Anchorage municipality--Anchorage, Girdwood, Eagle River--but that its "Metropolitan Area" holds over 50%. This number needs a citation and I would like to know what definition of "Metropolitan Area" is being used here, and which communities outside of the Municipality count as part of Anchorage's "Metropolitan Area." 66.58.219.109 00:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! New user here, so bear with me...

I live in Anchorage, and when I first saw this, it was just as surprising to me as well! So I checked out the U.S. Census Bureau's website some years ago, and found that they started defining an "Anchorage-Mat-Su Metropolitan Statistical Area" in 2005, whose population is the sum of residents in both the Municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough to the north. (I cannot post the citation now, but it is in there.) This does make some sense for regional economy-reporting reasons due to the thousands of commuters we get every day from Palmer, Wasilla, and beyond. The Anchorage Daily News often gives us statistics on jobs and growth for both regions combined, and if this statistical reporting method helps better provide information consistent with Wikipedia's goals for the article, the figure should probably stay, albeit with some notation.

However, and this is from my 16 years of experience living here, I have to strongly emphasize that people living in various cities in the region, even towns in the Municipality like Eagle River, Chugiak, etc. strictly maintain a separate identity from the urbanized "Anchorage Bowl" itself. Lots of people I know who live in these towns moved there from Anchorage with the sole purpose of getting away from Anchorage in the first place :) , seemingly to find a more "genuine Alaska." So, I wouldn't go rushing to write an "Anchorage-Mat-Su MSA" article just yet, although the Mat-Su is the fastest-growing region in Alaska, and the growth pattern mirrors many Outside major cities' style of suburban expansion. So, depending on if you're looking to provide information useful to an economist or entrepreneur, or portraying the local beliefs of hometown-identity, there would be different interpretations of a "Metropolitan Area." I hope this clarified the issue some.

--Ak49north 08:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Map of Anchorage, AK MSA

Okay, I found the Census page about the Anchorage MSA: Anchorage, AK Metro Area - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006.

The map of the MSA showing the MOA and Mat-Su Borough is on the right; this is from the Census Bureau's website. The Fairbanks North Star Borough can be seen to the north, which the Census Bureau also considers its own MSA despite its small population (approx. 85,000).

--Ak49north 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, it's nearly universal to use the Federal MSAs, not what people consider their local identity to be, when considering demographics on Wikipedia.69.94.192.147 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nightlife

The "Nightlife" section appears to be focused too much on highlighting the attributes of certain bars. ("Great service", "big screen TV", etc). Do we really need to list the individual clubs? If we do can we find a way to be more NPOV about it? -Will Beback 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What Happened?

All I have to say is that this article looked MUCH better and cleaner 3 months ago, when I don't know what happened. Do we really need the list of neighborhoods in Anchorage in the main article? Nicholas.tan 16:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

climate number wrong

i live in anchorage and in the summer BeckBoy Ak 03:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)it rarely if ever gets to 80 degrees. litteraly almost never.

You're right. The range given for highs in the summer is 55 to 80, a range so large that it is meaningless (as an aside, the highs in Houston in December are usually between 22 and 85; for St. Louis in December highs are usually between -5 and 76). I meant to do a partial rewrite of it yesterday but got distracted 3 times! Thanks for reminding us (me). I'll get to it soon. Ufwuct 06:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway. The table is in Fahrenheit only. Someone should also add the Celcius numbers for the rest of the world.

Anchorage bigger in area than Rhode Island and Delaware combined?

That's what the intro says, but the info box puts Anchorage's area at around 1961 sq. mi. while Delaware alone is over 2400 sq. mi. Can someone justify the bigger than both claim before I remove it? - Jeff Worthington 20:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks suspect to me, too. -- Shunpiker 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fact-checked and updated: Anchorage (1,961 sq. mi.) is larger than Rhode Island (1,545 sq. mi.) but not Delaware (2,489 sq. mi.) -- Shunpiker 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Contiguous v. continental

Revising another user's uncivil comment: Remember that "continental US" includes Alaska but "contiguous US" does not. Calliopejen1 03:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable former residents?

None or almost none of the listed notable residents currently reside in Anchorage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.63.25.48 (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an independent city

I removed this "Category:Independent cities in the United States", because, according to the Alaska article, a city-borough is legally a borough, which would mean,that it is the opposite of an independent city, thanks Iamanadam (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The City of Anchorage was created around 1920. The Greater Anchorage Area Borough encompassed a much larger area and enveloped the City when it came into existence in the early 1960s. The voters of each elected to "unify" them around 1970. I worked for the City in the late 60's, for the GAAB in 1971. Need to research the dates. Unification created a new entity with a municipal charter; it's name was "Anchorage" and, for some reason, the government is called "The Municipality of Anchorage." I served on its commissions focused on land use. //Don K. (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Volcanic ash date incorrect

The history section states that the latest volcanic ash fall in Anc. was in '85. I was born in '86 and I definitely remember an ash fall, maybe '90, give or take a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.163.40.213 (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos are a bit one sided

It seems to me that all the photos I ever see of Anchorage are taken from the water. It might be nice to have a different view. The following photo was taken a few days ago during a spell of extreme cold, which helped produce this rather beautiful shot, taken from the mountains. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anchorage_Alaska_and_Sleeping_Lady.JPG Zaereth (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added this photo to the climate section, as it seems to fit best there.Zaereth (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Discovery"

The history section doesn't seem to go back very far. Is there a Paleolithic Neolithic history to the region of Anchorage? Is there any truth to the rumor that Anchorage was first mapped by Captain James Cook? If so, what were the circumstances?

I'll be working to find sources for answers to the above questions and adding them into the article. —  X  S  G  14:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, these are good questions. I've never heard of fossiles being found in this area, but not sure why. Perhaps the sandy, gravel filled ground in this earthquake prone area doesn't preserve fossiles well. As for the Cook story, Captain Cook mapped the shoreline of the area, but not the townsite itself. The story goes that he entered Turnagain Arm, (back then it was deep enough to sail down), looking for a passage through. Frustrated when he found it was a dead end and had to turn around again, he named the arm "Turnagain", but felt that area would be the perfect site for a town, and so called it "Portage". A town never really developed at Portage, however, but rather, a town developed at a site near the mouth of the arm, at Ship Creek, where Cook had dropped anchor. Therefore, this town was called "Anchorage". I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I don't think there were any native inhabitants that ever lived in the Ship Creek area, but lived, (and still live), in nearby villages such as Eklutna. These natives are called the Chugach Indians. I hope that helps with your search. Zaereth (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Natives occupied the "Anchorage" area for a long time before Europeans came on the scene in the 18th century. When I served as the Tribal Administrator of the Native Village of Eklutna, I learned there had been eight villages in the area that became the Municipality of Anchorage. No Russian, English or other explorers did more than visit briefly until the construction of the Alaska Railroad around 1914 created a transportation corridor near the coastline of Cook Inlet. Ship Creek provided the most suitable place for ships to offload construction men and materiel. Anchorage was a construction camp, a tent town, that became a community in the most logical place between the ends of the Alaska Railroad -- Seward and Fairbanks. My mother was born in Anchorage in 1918; I served as a member of its Planning & Zoning Commission in the '70s, then the '90s. I was a real estate analyst and advisor before I retired. When time permits, I'll do my best to improve this article. //Don K. (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Better map?

Considering 25% of Americans can't locate Alaska on a map - this map shows Alaska attached to Mexico and as I wish that was the case, not geographically accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.141.254 (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My kids are the 4th generation of their family to live in Anchorage. In elementary school, they were confused that it took five hours to fly to Hawaii when the map shows we're a small state located next to their large islands. Furthermore, the kids can't understand why it's so warm in Hawaii and so cold in Alaska when most maps show both states are below and to the left of Southern California. As a result, this whole "global warming" issue is very confusing to the children of Alaska. Proper maps are not as common as we wish. //Don K. (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Geographic Coordinates is Missing

The geographical coordinates for this city is missing. How do we get the information back on the page. I see the info in the editing section, but it doesn't show up on the page, as it does in the Fairbanks article, for example. It was there in the past.Larry G (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I believe I fixed it. I re-added the information. - Larry G (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mudflat deaths

For the last sentence in the geography section I can not find a reference. The source I provided says they both died before the water covered their heads, but no confirmation as to why. I think it's a good bet that temperature is the cause, but if anyone can provide a source it'd be helpful. (I was witness to the tragic 1988 death, and I believe this information is very essential to newcomers and tourists.) Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My experience as a commercial fisherman in Cook Inlet leads me to believe the probable cause of death was hypothermia, though it may only have caused unconsciousness before drowning occurred. The glacial river water is very cold and dominates upper Cook Inlet. I doubt water temperatures ever rise ten degrees (F) above freezing. If you're in the water, it's an emergency and death is imminent. //Don K. (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'm a third generation Anchorage resident myself. I've been in that water, and you lose all muscle coordination in seconds, so I have no doubt that the statement is true. If you can come up with an actual source to verify this and the other information you've provided, I think it would be a great improvement for the article. (The info on the native villages seems particularly interesting to me, since the only ones I can think of nearby are Eklutna and Tyonek.) Zaereth (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page. GTBacchus^(talk) 02:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Anchorage, Alaska → Anchorage — —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathpianist93 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as no reason has been given why the naming convention guideline should not be followed. Dpmuk (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support:

Clearly the primary topic for that title, and the most important city by this name. --- 华钢琴49 (TALK) 14:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the move. I'm unaware of any other city using this name, and find no conflicting articles. Either way is fine with me, although we should probably keep "Anchorage, Alaska" as a redirect page. Zaereth (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• well that's what happens when articles are moved. old article title is a re-direct. and also, since this is a major city on the US national scale, we should wait for more discussion. I checked through the archives for a similar move discussion, and there was none. ---华钢琴49 (TALK)

I forgot to give a reason in the template, but I copied my reasoning from an above section. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 13:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Actually there are 2 smaller places in the USA called Anchorage, see the disambiguation page, although this place is clearly primary. According to Wikipedia naming conventions we should follow the AP Style guideline, which is that even if a place in the USA is the primary meaning it should still take the form "Name, State", except for a list of 31 major cities which does not include Anchorage. I am open to persuasion that we might change this, but this should be discussed at the talk page for the relevant naming convention. PatGallacher (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Violation of the naming convention as pointed out above and it is not the primary use per Anchorage (disambiguation) since the anchorage for watercraft is the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the primary meaning of anchorage, is where you anchor. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Anchorage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Anchorage (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have twisted intertwined edit histories of merges and splits. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support If the unqualified name redirects here, then the article should be at the simpler name. There is no point in adding an unnecessary dismabiguator when the unqualified name redirects already. --Polaron | Talk 14:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment it should not redirect here. It should be a dab page. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Is there consensus for that? Perhaps a move request for that is in order then? If that goes through, then this request is moot. --Polaron | Talk 14:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• The dab page is set up saying that. American and British cites are not primary uses by default thought at times we sometimes try and make it appear that they are. And yes, I think the dab page should be moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Population Claim seems incorrect

Re the claim: "the city constitutes more than 40 percent of the state's total population; only New York has a higher percentage of residents who live in the state's largest city."; seems to be (in a very technical sense) incorrect. Honolulu is legally incorporated as a consolidated city–county with a population (as of the 2000 census) of 876,156 comprising 72% of the state of Hawaii's population (1,211,537 in the 2000 census). 64.81.8.162 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

1975

Oh what a year, i wonder why is isint mentoned in Alaskas Wiki? Oh probably bcause is is the year that marijuana was legal.. oh thats why from 1970 -1980 th largest growth ever in Alaska occured, Because everybody wanted to go thier to get stoned! what do yah no! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.249.42 (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC) <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>

File:Whale Wall Anchorage.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Whale Wall Anchorage.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Whale Wall Anchorage.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

20 Years of Missing History

If anyone did notice, the history section ended at the 1980s, which is not a time that a typical history heading from Wikipedia should end. Where's the part of history between 1980-2000? There must be something to write about, the gay rights, the marijuana law, etc. In my opinion, the quality of the article will not promote until the mistake is fixed. PortalandPortal2Rocks (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Anchorage has not done a very good job of presenting its history in general. It's almost as if Johnny's Girl revealed that some folks would prefer that certain things be left unmentioned. For years and years, just about every history of Anchorage mentioned, and pretty much only mentioned:

• The tent city
• What an overbearing, controlling asshole Otto Ohlson was
• The earthquake

The fact that a search turns up no mention of Pete Zamarello on Wikipedia should be indication enough that there's still a lot of catching up to do.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

True. There are some good books about Anchorage but, with most, the history ends during the mid-80s. City for Empire: An Anchorage History, 1914-1941 is a great pre-WWII book. Even Historic Anchorage, written in 2001, only documents the history to 1987. Perhaps that part of history is still too recent, or, perhaps, there just hasn't been that much going on. I mean, we got some new roads, and widened many others. Built some new houses. Lowes hardware came, quickly followed by Home Depot. K-Mart came and left. The "City of lights" campaign was soon followed by the "City of turn-off-those-lights-because-we-can't-afford-them" campaign. They started building round-abouts and ... oh yeah, an Olive Garden recently opened. (Still haven't been there.) They're still hem-hawing over the Knik Arm Bridge. In short, nothing much has really happened that would interest anybody but the locals. However, I suppose that a good place to start looking for information to add would be the newspaper archives. Zaereth (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Land area and other city stats

According to the article "Largest_US_cities", Anchorage has more than twice the land area of any other US city, with Jacksonville a distant second. I think that bears mention somewhere?

On that note, there is a discrepancy between the square mi/km on this page and the "largest" article above, but both quote the USCB as the source. census.gov agrees with the above, for the year 2010. Are these city/state/nation statistics farmed from somewhere, and do they ever get updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trep26 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason Anchorage is so large is because the municipality has taken over the entire borough, all the way from the Knik River Bridge in the north to Portage Creek in the south. (A borough is something similar to a county, only much larger.) This includes any communities therein, like Eklutna, Peter's Creek, Chugiak, Eagle River, Rainbow, Bird, Girdwood, and Portage. (Not sure if the military base is included, but I doubt it. There are still many people living in these towns, including friends of mine, who have no electricity, natural gas, or running water.) Anchorage Proper is not nearly as large, extending from Muldoon Road in the north to Potter's Marsh in the south. It probably bears mention somewhere, but I think it might be possibly a little misleading unless we explain all of it.

The area of the Municipality is not likely to change much in the future, because it already covers the entire borough, but is not densely populated. The discrepancy appears to be from the math. In the Largest US cities article, it gives only the land area (1704 sq.mi.). In this article, the water area (lakes and ponds) have been added to the land area, for a total area (1961 sq.mi.). Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Boroughs, as originally incorporated, did not include military installations. This was for the purpose of allowing the military to maintain control over their own schools (you may have seen references to Nick Begich as superintendent of Fort Richardson schools). That changed after the Alaska Department of Education underwent an overhaul in 1975. Obviously, Alaska's unique local government structure confuses just about everyone not familiar with it. The only problem is, many editors attempt to portray communities and local governments in Alaska on Wikipedia in terms of what they are familiar with in their own state. The fact that Anchorage's city limits contain a considerable amount of wilderness should not be construed to make it appear as if the urban area (the "Anchorage bowl") is the city but the wilderness isn't. Now that I think about it, this even confuses locals. When the Anchorage Police Department sought to expand its service area (jurisdiction) boundaries roughly twenty years ago, Assemblyman John Wood offered a proposal to make police an areawide power in Anchorage. People largely failed to grasp that this meant APD would have to provide service to the entire Municipality if need be, even to such remote and out-of-the-way locations as Lake George and Portage Glacier. Thankfully, that proposal didn't go very far. Another thing which comes to mind. "Consolidated city-borough" is a common term on Wikipedia to refer to a municipality such as Anchorage. However, under Alaska law, consolidation and unification are legally distinct. Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka and Wrangell are unified municipalities. Haines, Skagway and Yakutat are consolidated municipalities.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange "averages"

"Average daytime summer temperatures range from approximately 55 to 78 °F (13 to 26 °C); average daytime winter temperatures are about 5 to 30 °F (−15 to −1.1 °C)."

I don't know quite what to make of this. The average LOW for January is only 11, so what does it mean to say the average daytime temperature is from "5 to 30"? How was this "average" calculated? Are these actually just usual temperatures, rather than "averages"? (An average seems to imply a mathematical formula for calculating, but these seem to be just someone's impression of the usual temperature range.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneCallahan (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That is strange indeed. There seems to be some confusion about what "average" means, because an average cannot, by nature, have a range. According to the source cited, averging the years between 1981 and 2010, the average low for January is 11 degree F, and the average high is 22. The overall average (including highs and lows) is 16.6 F. That the numbers do not come close to matching the source is a clear indicator that something is wrong, but, to top it off, there is no variable in the source for daytime/nighttime averages. This should be corrected to match the source, but I can't get to it right now. I'll try when I get back, unless someone else wants to. Zaereth (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Structure

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, you never know on WP what some people might be upset by, but I certainly don't see any reason to object to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Photos

I was in Anchorage last week for almost 4 days. In between falling and badly bruising my ankle before I left, and pouring down rain the last couple of days before I came back, I managed to get around to quite a few places and take photos. The major stumbling block now is having the time to sort through the camera, cleaning up anything which may require cleaning up, and uploading them. As is the case with a lot of Alaska, the photos currently on Commons are far too weighted towards tourist photos, which don't show a whole lot of town.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

2014 update: My various woes which have led to my lacking the free time necessary to take on even more tasks have been chronicled elsewhere. Let's just say that when I do get around to it, there's gonna be a lot of photos to tackle, but it should be pretty rewarding in the end. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Notable people section

I did not see a Notable People section for Anchorage. Am I missing it, or is there a link somewhere? I did not want to create one becase I thought I must be overlooking it. I wanted to add Steve Smith (wide receiver, born 1985), reference NFL Enterprises LLC. Thanks!--Fraulein451 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are two problems. The first problem is size. I counted a total of 376 entries within the Category:People from Anchorage, Alaska tree. That doesn't include many hundreds more notable people associated with Anchorage who lack articles. The second problem is context. One of Wikipedia's serious faults is that editors have chosen to take "from" to mean "born and(/or) raised" and little else. The name you picked, Steve Smith, pretty well illustrates that. The body of the article begins: "Smith was born in Anchorage, Alaska. He played at Taft High School in the San Fernando Valley". So how is Smith's notability really at all related to Anchorage, unlike, say, Mario Chalmers or Mao Tosi (who were star athletes at Bartlett and East, respectively)?

For comparison of what not to do, look at Soldotna, Alaska#Notable people. From appearance's sake, that list is dominated by modern-day pseudo-celebrities (some whose notability is iffy at best) who were born at Central Peninsula Hospital but otherwise have little or no connection to Soldotna. At the same time, it offers the appearance that we're avoiding acknowledging notable people whose notability is very much intertwined with Soldotna's history. An even more glaring example would be Prince of Wales Island (Alaska)#Notable ex-residents. The first (and for a while, only) entry is Holly Madison, who spent a few years of her childhood in Craig, and is notable for being Hugh Hefner's girlfriend and appearing on a reality television show. OTOH, no mention of Charles August Sulzer, whose notability mostly centers around his activities as a resident of POWI.

For a city the size of Anchorage, I would support a standalone list. I will not support a list which is limited to the notion of "born and raised" being a sole or primary measure of inclusion in the list, however. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Alaska City?

I just tried my luck and searched if there is a "Alaska City", but got (Redirected from Alaska City, Alaska). I wonder why is that, since there is no mention about that in the article. Quite strange. 82.141.126.28 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I've re-targeted that redirect to a more helpful location. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked and noticed that the redir was created by Merovingian (talk · contribs). That user also created a redir for the Juneau article which was also called into question. In that case, there was a faint reference to back up the notion that "Fliptown" may have been considered an early name for Juneau. I stand by my opinion that it could be taken as a derogatory reference to Juneau's long-standing Filipino community. Anyway, in this case, I would tend to believe that Merovingian may have come across a reference to the name, but only created the redir without taking the additional time to explain it in the body of the article (or even in the more appropriate history article). Like Juneau, Anchorage had a variety of preliminary names before settling on its permanent name. I've never come across "Alaska City", however; mostly what I've seen are variations involving "Anchorage", "Knik" and "Ship Creek". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Anchorage, Alaska

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Form of government

The government of the city is, as far as I can tell, a strong-mayor setup rather than council-manager. However I won't change this if somebody can prove otherwise. 216.137.192.89 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the mayor is the chief executive of the municipality. There is also a manager, which is the equivalent of what the Fairbanks and Kenai Peninsula boroughs call a "chief of staff" (both of those boroughs are also administered by the mayor). I've been consulting the Alaska Municipal Officials Directory lately as there's a current effort to get List of cities in Alaska to FL status. All it says is that Anchorage does not have a manager form of government, even though it lists an official with the title of "Municipal Manager". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Anchorage, Alaska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080208234039/http://www.birdcreekrfc.com:80/ to http://www.birdcreekrfc.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090924013255/http://www.fbi.gov:80/ucr/cius2008/data/table_78_ak.html to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_78_ak.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201221735/http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/436196.html to http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/436196.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Anchorage, Alaska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/quakes/Alaska_1964_earthquake.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1964_03_28.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://alaska.org/driving/turnagain-arm-drive.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=planning.anchorage5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019191704/http://climate.umn.edu:80/cawap/mpr/jargon.htm to http://climate.umn.edu/cawap/mpr/jargon.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avo.alaska.edu/archives/spurreos/spurreos.php
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305164937/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130815140430/http://www.mla.org/cgi-shl/docstudio/docs.pl?map_data_results to http://www.mla.org/cgi-shl/docstudio/docs.pl?map_data_results
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adn.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alaskastar.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anchoragepress.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenorthernlight.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Photos again

I had a recent discussion with Zaereth and Beeblebrox on the latter's talk page about once again seeing a shift in photos on this article. There's probably many things I could pick apart, but right now, I really only wanted to discuss one of them, File:Grizzlies on offense at Fairbanks at Alaska 2008-03-06.jpg. No question it's a quality photo, but it doesn't exactly depict Anchorage. For one, the Alaska Wild was a bit short-lived, lasting less than five years. It's arguable whether the team ever reflected life in Anchorage. For another, the photo's description offers hints that the game actually took place at the Carlson Center in Fairbanks. Its placement in the article gives off a faint whiff of "See, we're just like everywhere else, we have a football team". I'm partial to this photo to replace it. It shows Anchorage, it shows the Iditarod start on Fourth Avenue, but I'm partial to it mainly because it shows Paul Ellering ("TELL 'EM, PAUL!!!!"). I had a question, though. We have our own dog races where I live, so I must admit that I don't pay as close attention to the Iditarod as perhaps I should. Is that Rachael Scdoris standing on the sled next to Ellering? If so, it would add to the encyclopedic value, but it could also be one of his handlers driving while he walks along. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit I did revert someone who tried to remove the Alaska Wild photo, but that was only because they just did it, with no edit sumarry or other explanation of why. I make such a deliberate effort to ignore team sports that I hadn't even realized they were gone until someone changed the caption to reflect that. I would fully support changing it to the photo suggest by RK. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Iditarod photo is much better. Some of the new photos just added may serve as placeholders until better ones come along. However, there are many that are very dark or difficult to see, or they are simply photos of random places or vehicles with no real connection to the text in the article. (ie: Photos of intersections where all you can see is the back of a truck and some power lines, a garden with a few trees and some flowers, random fire engines or news vehicles off in the background, scenes that show more grass and reeds than skyline, etc...) I always try to be careful when uploading photos to make sure that they have some relevance to the text and that they are absolutely the best view/lighting/angle that I can get. (Lighting, distance, angle and all that can be very tricky, so sometimes hundreds of shots from lots of different vantage points, camera settings, and other conditions are needed just to get that one good photo.) I have a concern in many articles like this, that they may end up becoming a repository for every photo a person may have that's even remotely related to the subject. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that a photo of the iconic Iditarod is a much better representation of life in Anchorage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The most recent edits show indications of at least observance of the concerns we're discussing. However, I think we should still address the fact that Dinker022089 has made scores of edits to this article in recent months, most of which drastically alter long-standing content, with no edit summaries and no participation in any discussion. According to WP:AK/PP, this article received nearly 45,000 page views in August. It's NEVER a good idea to try and turn well-visited articles into venues for pushing your own photographs.

Having said that, some of these photographs would be more useful (though not necessarily in this article) if they were cropped to eliminate unnecessary background or sun glare and to put more emphasis on the central subject. The photo at right could be trimmed very slightly on the sides and the bottom (it may be helpful to not eliminate landmarks such as ACPA and Holy Family), but mostly on top so as to show some but not all of that deep blue sky. It would put a lot more emphasis on the two skyscrapers, one of which is presumably the point of the caption accompanying the photo in the article.

Speaking of that photo, a followup to the discussion over on Beeb's talk page. I haven't been to Anchorage in over two years: for one, I ran out of reasons to go. For another, I tend to wind up a lot in parts of town where people are more likely to be shot for no reason — you know, such as the one whose mention was removed from the article in one of Dinker's recent edits. At my age, I have more reason for concern about what I need to do to live a long life. Anyway, I see from the photo that the (Lind-Dudley/Roosevelt Hotel/)Inlet Inn has indeed been torn down. The remainder of that half-block was torn down years before. During the 1990s and 2000s, a number of buildings were proposed in downtown upwards to the 24 and 25-story range, none of which were built. 188 Northern Lights and the JL Tower were announced amongst the initial wave and built in Midtown, though neither approach that kind of height. The vacant half-block you see in the photo was announced to be the Augustine Energy Center. Kitty- corner along Fifth Avenue, across from ACPA, the space between the two bank buildings (601 W. 5th and 425 G) was slated to be something called the "Purple Tower". With my cynicism, I figured that some Trump-wannabe real estate developers were looking for something else to conquer after overbuilding Belltown in Seattle. There are many Alaskans who believe that Anchorage will never see buildings of that height, usually contending that such would be setting Anchorage up for The Next Great Earthquake Disaster. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the photo above is fairly decent. Nothing is sharply in focus, but it's not bad for a thumb. Objects in the foreground help provide good depth of field, but the excess sky above doesn't enhance the view any, so I would probably trim about 1/5 to 1/4 off the top. Zaereth (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done better late than never. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)