Talk:Sports in Alaska/Archive 1

List/categorify
I think this would be better as a list or a category, since it is a group of associated topics, but not all one sport. Thoughts anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

2013 redux
I still think this article is pretty poor. It still isn't even divided into sections, it is almost entirely about team sports Anchorage (which to honest is something most of the rest of the state does not follow or care about) and well, I just think it would work better as a list. The article on Anchorage already has a section on sport, the rest of this mess could just be converted to links and we could retitle the article to reflect its new status as a list. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ except for the rename. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2014 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. I think if someone wants to just up and move this, they're more than welcome to. Red Slash 17:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

After having a discussion with myself here over the course of the last eight years, this article has just been remade from the hot mess it was to a list. So, I feel like maybe a rename is in order, but "List of sports in Alaska" just doesn't sound right and "List of sporting venues, events, and teams in Alaska" is too clunky. That's where I'm at, anybody got any ideas? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment it currently seems to work well enough as a title. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * update As this article no longer carries references, and is not a disambiguation page or a set index, it should therefore be called Index of sports in Alaska, and function as an WP:INDEX or Outline of sports in Alaska and function as an WP:OUTLINE -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a question: let's say I restored the references that were removed when this was converted to a list. Would we then no longer be subject to the rules you are citing? And, if it's not too much to ask could you explain in a more precise way exactly where you are getting these rules you are citing? I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that it must be one of those two things. I looked at both of the links you provided and neither of them seem to mandate the changes you describe (in fact the INDEX link appears to have no connection whatsoever to this discussion, so I assume that was an error. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Regular list articles require references per MOS:LIST, WP:SAL and WP:V; as list articles are regular articles, they're just not prose articles. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don 't think those pages say what you seem to think they say. They say that list articles are subject to our content policies. That's fine. They also say to apply them with common sense. Now, as we all know what is "common sense" is sometimes highly subjective but in this case I would think that it is logical that a list of internal links to articles that do have references does not need to have references itself.


 * Also, I have still not seen a page that mandates that we must identify this article as an index or an outline and you didn't address that at all in this response, so I'm assuming that point is conceded and you as unaware as I am of any such policy.


 * Frankly, this type of situation is exactly what discourages people from working on content. Before a few days ago I was the only person who had commented on this page since 2008. Then I made edits which undeniably inproved the article, making it easier to understand and far more comprehensive than it was. And because I made those improvements we are now having this pointless debate about references for internal links and obscure guidelines about outlines and lists and whatever. References are required for any material that is llikely to be challenged. If anyone can identify any such material in this article, feel free to add a tag to it. Otherwise I don't see any point in continuing this ridiculous conversation. I care about results, not slavish obedience to every possible editing guideline. I am happy with these results. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If this page is to not include references, it can't be a regular list article, so that's why I said it should be an Outline or an Index.
 * I don't see why logged in users can create articles without references, if I get criticized for creating the same sort of list article, missing references, going by what EditPatrollers/AFCpatrollers have said to me, this article should contain references. And this article is not verifiable if it doesn't contain referencing, thus failing WP:V. All material is subject to challenge if it isn't referenced (or that's what EditPatrollers seem to do, therefore this article should have references, even if a logged in user made the changes) It's pretty simple if we just have every article contain referencing. Non articles would not necessarily contain referencing.
 * I will re-add the unreferenced banner if you feel this conversation is going nowhere. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And what will that accomplish? What portions of the article do you believe need referencing? Do you dispute any part of what is on the page, anything at all, or is this just tagging for the sake of it? Beeblebrox (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In my interpretation of why this requirement exists, references should be internal to each page, so that they can be found without searching a different article, as different articles are edited separately, any reference on a separate page could be removed by editor action. The target page could be renamed, merged away and then removed, or otherwise lost, therefore the referencing for any entry on a list can become unreferenced without a history search on move logs and then page histories, and if the target becomes deleted, only an admin could then access those references. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for some outside input on this subject at Village pump (policy). Hopefully that will help resolve this apparent impasse. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:LISTN requires that references should exist to establish the notability of the list as a list. So for a list like this, there should be a reliable source listing sports in Alaska. Then the manual of style requires clear selection criteria. I don't think it's said anywhere explicitly, but it would make sense if the selection criteria were similar to those in the sources for the list. All items in the list should meet those criteria. Any whose membership is likely to be challenged should have a citation to prove that they belong. In this list, the stated part of the criteria is that the entries have to be venues, events or teams based in Alaska; the unstated part is that they be notable. For the latter a blue link is usually considered adequate. For most or all of the items on this list, it is fairly obvious they meet the selection criteria, so there isn't really any need for individual citations. However, if the notability of this list ever gets challenged, it will need those LISTN citations. I always prefer to be proactive and add them before anyone proposes deletion. It saves everyone's time. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This still discusses sports in Alaska, and it could be fleshed out with stuff about the Anchorage Bucs, the Barrow high school football team, Iditarod, various Eskimo sports, etc.  I can only think of one other title that people might commonly use to describe this subject, "Sport in Alaska", and that's clearly not appropriate in US English.  Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.