Talk:Anchorage, Alaska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Anchorage, Alaska:

Help is needed with the following in order to improve not only this article, but the overall encyclopedic coverage of Anchorage:

New articles

We need the help of the Wikipedia community on improving this article and related articles/pages.

Priority 1 (top)

Climate classification[edit]

@Snowcountryomas: Could you explain how the climate is Cfc (or Cwc)? The average high and low in January, the coldest month, are -5.2 and -11.4 °C. The average is -8.3 °C (= (-5.2 + -11.4) / 2). This is below 0 °C or even -3 °C, but the coldest month in a C climate has to be above 0 or -3 °C. So the climate is D, not C. — Eru·tuon 19:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Transitional oceanic and subtropical climates typically don't strictly follow Köppen’s textbook definition, which does not account for maritime driven deviation. Although Anchorage lies in the transitional zone between subpolar oceanic and subarctic, it leans more toward oceanic due to El Nino being the primary determinant of winter temperatures. Average winter highs vary annually from 10oF to 55oF, hence not a true oceanic or subarctic climate. In the recent decade however, winter averages have been shifting more toward the range that would fall under subtropical in the Köppen system.Snowcountryomas (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Snowcountryomas: It's not winter highs that count as far as the Koeppen system is concerned, it's the average temperature of the coldest month. You need to find a station in Anchorage where through some range of years the average temperature of the coldest month has been above freezing (or above -3 °C in a different version of the system), because it's very misleading when climate data in the article does not support the climate classification. I checked the average monthly temperature data for the Anchorage International Airport and all the years since 2000 have had a month below freezing and even below -3 °C: 2000, 14.76 °F; 2001, 10.77 °F; 2002, 21.29 °F; 2003, 16.75 °F; 2004, 9.65 °F; 2005, 16.83 °F; 2006, 10.58 °F; 2007, 14.32 °F; 2008, 13.37 °F; 2009, 12.97 °F; 2010, 11.16 °F; 2011, 14.83 °F; 2012, 2.87 °F; 2013, 15.73 °F; 2014, 19.25 °F; 2015, 20.37 °F; 2016, 16.03 °F; 2017, 13.65 °F; 2018, 18.95 °F. Because all of the coldest-month averages were below the cut-off point, that station qualifies as a "D" type climate, not "C". — Eru·tuon 17:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
If it helps, according the Municipality of Anchorage, here, the classification for Anchorage is Dfc. Zaereth (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

As I've received no response, I'm going to change the climate to Dsc, which is what Module:Climate yields for the temperatures in the first weather box. It's s (dry summer) because the driest month in the high-sun half of the year (11.9 mm in April) is less than 30 mm and less than one third of the wettest low-sun month (51.8 mm in October). That's one case where the Koeppen system gives a weird result: the wettest month (August) is actually in summer and the high-sun half of the year is a bit wetter than the low-sun half. — Eru·tuon 00:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snowcountryomas: You've reverted me, I've reverted you. Please respond here rather than reverting again. The two sets of temperature and precipitation statistics in the article both fulfill the criteria for Dsc. Do you have a set of statistics for Anchorage that fulfills the criteria for Cfc? — Eru·tuon 16:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, a slow edit-war is still an edit war, so before this escalates... I don't question either of your expertise in the subject, but for those of us who haven't the slightest clue about the Koppen system this all appears to be based on original research. The old saying goes, "There are three types of lies: little white lies, bold-face lies, and statistics," meaning that stats not only have absolutely no bearing on individual cases, but are extremely open to interpretation. What I think would look much better and less like OR is to find sources that actually say what the Koppen classification for Anchorage is, like the one I provided above. Albeit a primary source, it is certainly a reliable one, and if anyone should know I'd think it would be the Muni of Anchorage. However, from a quick google search I see others that say Dsc, and if a better one than the Muni can be found, then that's route I'd recommend taking, rather than using personal interpretations. Then is become a question of which source is most reliable, which is what the argument should be about. (So far, I haven't seen any that start with "C".) Zaereth (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zaereth: Determination of the Koeppen climate type is based on formulas, so there's no room for personal interpretation as long as you define which formula you're using on which dataset. It's therefore a routine calculation (WP:CALC) like unit conversion done by {{convert}}. In this case, there isn't a set of formulas mentioned in Köppen climate classification that would yield the climate classification Cfc for any of the datasets in this article.
I'm frustrated that the other editor hasn't responded yet, but it would probably be best if I didn't do any more reversion. I do agree that it looks like my word against his or hers, since I'm relying on my personal calculations and on Module:Climate, which I wrote (and which might still be buggy). I should request input from editors in WikiProject Meteorology. — Eru·tuon 21:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I should probably mention that another formula for the Cw or Dw climates (dry winter temperate or continental) might yield Dwc for the data in the article rather than Dsc. [Edit: That is, the formula mentioned by Köppen climate classification in which Cw and Dw are defined as having 70% or more of average annual precipitation in the high-sun half of the year. But the formula for Cs or Ds would still apply, and I'm not sure which takes precedence.] — Eru·tuon 22:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

M.C. Peel et al specifically note the gray area surrounding the second precipitation regime letter of the classification for Anchorage and other parts of extreme northwest North America; the fact the paper was written before 2010 (and the release of the latest 1981–2010 normals) is irrelevant because rainfall still peaked in the 1971–2000 normals at PANC. Weatherbase, however, unambiguously lists Anchorage as Dsc, based on 1981–2010 normals at PANC. Since the Municipality already lists Anchorage as Dfc, I think a compromise can already be written, noting the subarctic temperature regime but also the ambiguity with precipitation. Suggestions for for a first letter of C are baseless.

On another note, @Snowcountryomas:, this is the second time within two weeks that you've reverted editors without explanation. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. An oceanic climate requires a minimum temperature of 0C in the coldest month, which Anchorage misses by miles.

The similar edit war at Fairbanks, Alaska leads me to believe this will continue off-and-on ... he hasnt explained himself there either. There's also Climate of Anchorage. I only discovered all of this because I've been adding climate tables for various cities and sought help with what I thought at first was a glitch. Snowcountry, if youre reading this, please explain your motives. Soap 19:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted Snowcountryomas, yet again, and it looks like they've been temporarily blocked for edit warring. I also added the muni source to the sentence, in hopes it will encourage them to 1.) find a better source or 2.) give up and move on.
It might be worth mentioning, however (if anyone has a source), that the weather stats are gathered at Point Woronzof, which is as close to the water as you can get (thus has the warmest temps). Temperatures get cooler the farther away from the water you get, and can vary from 10 to 20 degrees between the Point and Muldoon Rd. There is also vast changes in topography, from coastal mudflats to taiga and spruce bog, to alpine tundra, and temps can be vastly lower and wind and rainfall vastly higher on the Hillside than in the lower elevations, as the mountains provide a natural barrier to incoming moisture and weather from the Inlet. (And that's just Anchorage proper. Go down Turnagain Arm and it can be drizzling in town but sunny and calm in Rainbow, windy as hell in Bird, sunny in Girdwood, and pouring rain in Portage, as if each fjord has its own little weather pattern.) Zaereth (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I notice that there's quite a cluster of stations in the Anchorage area on the Desert Research Institute's page. Perhaps on Climate of Anchorage we could have even more than the three stations we already have. Soap 18:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I passed through last week. It was rainy as hell in Eagle River, beutiful and sunny in midtown, then so windy my van was basically a giant sail I had to steer against going down toward Girdwood, and then nice and calm again by Portage. I would note that Snowcountryomas is now indef blocked and has socked at least once to evade that block so we can just count them out of our future considerations on this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2018[edit]

The following is a closed 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: not moved. WP:SNOW close. While the nomination was likely made in good faith, for any move involving WP:USPLACE to have any chance of succeeding, a discussion should take place on the talk page of the guideline, not on an article talk page. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Anchorage, AlaskaAnchorage – Consistent with Climate of Anchorage192.107.120.90 (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). DBigXray 14:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: there appears to be more than one Anchorage, see here Would like to get Consensus before a move.--DBigXray 14:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It is redundant but USPLACE would probably say otherwise, which is deemed common usage, we didn't move Colorado Springs, Colorado so it doesn't seem logical to move this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and Ignore All Rules. The target has redirected here for years and is more natural. Instruction creep is unhelpful and USPLACE is not some divine command. Timrollpickering 16:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is more than one Anchorage in the US, and even if there wasn't, it's not a unique name (such as Fargo). It's a name derived from a common word ("a place to drop your anchor", from the German verankernrung). We're not the US Wikipedia but the English Wikipedia, and articles should be titled and written to be understandable to a global audience. Zaereth (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE. (Also to the original IP: when making a technical request, please first check to see if there are establish naming conventions that apply.) ╠╣uw [talk] 18:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe the DAB page should be moved to the base name, surely Anchorage (maritime) is common but views [[1]] overwhelmingly point to this city, if this was done (like what was pointed out here) then this move would be moot. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • No. What parts of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT do you not understand? --В²C 20:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      • If the DAB was moved to the base name then the unnecessary disambiguation argument would be moot per WP:PRECISE because it would then require disambiguation (for example we can't move Manchester, New Hampshire to Manchester), but it is not certainly the PT (PT#2), however we don't generally allow redundant disambiguation but users argue that the state is part of the name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
        • The most likely topic being sought by anyone searching with “Anchorage” is this city. No one can seriously challenge this point. That means it’s the primary topic, by definition. That means Anchorage needs to be the title of this article, or be a redirect to it. In some contexts ‘’’Anchorage, Alaska’’’ is indeed the name of the city, but arguably the more natural and certainly more concise name is just Anchorage. The only reason the longer name is used here is stubborn adherence to a guideline which contradicts the conventions used to title most of our other articles. It’s really stupid. Sigh. —В²C 06:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
          • "More concise"? No, a concise title is both short and conveys information about the subject. "Anchorage, Alaska" is the concise title. There's nothing broken here. Omnedon (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:IAR to WP:USPLACE per WP:CONSISTENCY (with titles of articles about cities all over the world) and WP:CONCISE - special case for US cities is unwarranted. So what if many are ambiguous and most require disambiguation anyway? This one is not ambiguous with other city names, and is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC with other uses of the title. That's why these proposals in these cases keep coming up. Why not just fix them? Seriously. --В²C 20:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE. B2C, there's nothing broken. Omnedon (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:USPLACE is a very good consensus line long agreed, matching usage, not the least because the APlist reflects and influences usage. Recommend slapping or RM-banning the small number of editors continually taking pot shots seeking to destabilise consensus. Take it up in the proper place instead, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    • As near as I can tell it’s always someone who is just going by what is the approach taken by WP for most other article titles. That certainly seems to be the case here. I bet it hasn’t been the same person proposing these RMs in any two of the last 100 of them. You can’t seriously blame or punish anyone for doing that. And as long as the USPLACE guideline remains out of step, these proposals will continue. Guaranteed. That’s not a threat (I’m not making any of them). It’s a prediction. Easy to fix, but the same dozen or so usual suspects refuse and show up Opposing each time “per USPLACE”. Much like another bunch held Yoghurt hostage for so many years and through so many RMs. Oh well. —В²C 05:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
      • The IP is someone we know, not logged in. The request is superficially simple and inept, but I call it disruption, scattergun disruption, a sneaky attempt to create the appearance of lack of stability. If they have not already participated at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), they are well aware of it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The original request is poorly reasoned. Changing the name of the main article on a subject to make it consistent with a subtopic article is backwards logic. I also don’t see any benefit to the encyclopedia from changing this name, so I guess count me as opposed to moving it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Published reference works do not use the comma-state format. See Merriam-Webster, Britannica, and Columbia. The FAQ blames a bot from years ago, as well as AP dateline style. Neither of these are good reasons to continue doing it. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Britanica uses “Anchorage<subtitle>ALASKA, UNITED STATES”. This is basically the same thing, a small style variation, but including country as well, as if “Alaska” needs introduction as belonging to the United States. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
We have will "Alaska" in the opening regardless of what happens to the title. That's no different than what Merriam-Webster and Columbia do. Online Britannica has a subtitle on every article, while the printed version didn't have them at all. That this subtitle happens to address the comma-state issue is incidental. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
In the opening phrase? Not sure why you are linking to m-w, which doesn’t even mention the city? Haven’t met Columbia before, but ok. I prefer to look at reliable independent sources currently used as references. I don’t think Britanica’s subtitles should be written off, there serve just like Wikipedia’s parenthetical or comma disambiguation, and is a good way to achieve consistency. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Britannica doesn't use subtitles for disambiguation. But, yeah, they are like our disambiguators in that they are words attached to the title that are not about titling. I use Britannica and Columbia because they are the references mentioned first in WP:WIAN. Merriam-Webster is given further down. The reason I use it is because it is recommended first by the Chicago Manual of Style, which is the external style guide listed first in WP:MOS. Here is the Merriam Webster entry, which you apparently overlooked: Definition of 'Anchorage' municipality in south central Alaska at the head of Cook Inlet population 291,826 NOTE: Anchorage is by far Alaska's most populous city. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC) The opening phrase "municipality in south central Alaska" places Anchorage in Alaska.
Subtitles are not about titling? This is a very very odd thing to say. Subtitles are always considered part of the title, and they are used because the main title is inadequate. Why do people want supershort titles? Are they influences by headlinese? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The article title should tell the reader the name of the subject. Period. If you try to make the title do more than that, you risk confusing the reader with respect to the central task. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Anchorage, Alaska is the commonname of the subject. It is consistent with US city name style and a simple APstyle rule that nicely merges the national style to international style (Anchorage, Alaska, is not a well known international city), it is concise, it is immediately recognizable (unlike the naked "Anchorage"). So you are a title minimalist? Period? Why? What reasonable reader is confused by ", Alaska"? It's not like "Alaska" is a word with other meanings, unlike "anchorage". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The AP rule you're talking about is for newspaper datelines. We don't have datelines or anything equivalent.
So the reference works I linked to above are just wrong? They are all recommended by our guidelines, you know. Here is what WP:COMMONNAME actually says: "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The AP Stylebook convention I am talking about is the one linked from WP:USPLACE. Datelines? Do I need to work out why you mention datelines? No, the reference works are not wrong, very odd question. Indeed, other reputable reference works may be helpful. Britannica has titled with an Alaska subtitle. Anchorage, Alaska is very frequently found in use in introductory contexts. Wikipedia titles frequently are separated from the article and serve to introduce. This is all historically contentious because cities often have local preference for thinking they are uniquely named, and as a result Wikipedia established consensus for a very sensible guideline, WP:USPLACE. Some US cities are world-wide famous and will astonish no one anywhere, but most are not, are usually comma disambiguated even in the US, even locally, and consistency is important, and these titling battles on individual pages are disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
If you look at the reference section of the guideline you link to, it says, "Stylebook, section D: datelines." Sadly, the link doesn't work. But I have my own copy the AP Stylebook, so I can you what it says: "A dateline should tell the reader that the AP obtained the basic information for the story in the datelined city." In short, it is a concept irrelevant to Wikipedia. Mentioning the state early on is not the same thing as using the comma-state format. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • As someone who has been editing and watching this article for a long time I have to say it feels very much like this argument has little to do with Anchorage and is part of some larger debate. We haven’t had this many editors on this talk page.... probably ever, and it seems like most of you are playing “dueling policies” and ignoring the actual language of the initial request (which was to make the move in order that this article conform with the title of an article that was spun off from it). I would suggest that rather than arguing over this one case, perhaps the underlying rules being debated here be discussed at a proper policy RFC? Here’s an essay I wrote about how to approach larger issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Beeblebrox that this seems to be a pawn in some larger issue of naming conventions. The best argument I've seen for the move is Ignore All Rules, which in itself is a complete logical fallacy. Article stats are also a skewed source of info too on their own. (Like the old saying goes, there are three types of lies: little white lies, bold face lies, and statistics). What I do know is that, 90% of the time, when I'm talking on the phone or the internet to people from both the lower 48 and around the world, and I tell them I live in Anchorage, I get this "deer in the headlights" long pause, and I then have to say, "Anchorage, Alaska". Then it's like, "Ohhhh. Alaska! What's it like living in igloos with ice bears and penguins everywhere?" These are the people we write for, not the well-versed few but the general audience, who are not necessarily stupid, but having no background info at all about our subjects.
Beyond that, I'd say if it ain't broke don't fix it, but if it's a policy change that people are looking for, then this is the wrong way of going about it (also a logical fallacy). Zaereth (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE. If it's a policy change you're looking for, this is the wrong place for it. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • That’s not how it works. See: Change the guideline first?. —В²C 22:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, it seems this is a good case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The current name is consistent with the style that's used for almost every single U.S. city in just about every external style guide. If this move occurs, where would the line be drawn for a long series of moves similar to these? As mentioned by Innotata below, "most communities/cities in the US are referred to along with their state's names a great deal, and some big or important cities are exceptions and overwhelming primary topics". Per Zaereth above, "We're not the US Wikipedia but the English Wikipedia, and articles should be titled and written to be understandable to a global audience". Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. This is in the grey area of the US naming convention's very reasonable general principles - most communities/cities in the US are referred to along with their state's names a great deal, and some big or important cities are exceptions and overwhelming primary topics. Anchorage is on the edge as far as its importance as Zareth alluded to. So surely it's fair to bring up regardless of whether naming conventions and practice should lean on the AP, and I (mostly) agree with Born2cycle - guidelines reflect practice. I'm just not convinced the city is the primary topic from an encyclopedic point of view to enough of a degree to not have Anchorage be the disambiguation. Maritime anchorages are a major topic regardless of page hits (which we always have to remember are not everything) and there are some others. —innotata 01:35, 17 September 2018 (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.

B2C: "Easy to fix, but the same dozen or so usual suspects refuse and show up Opposing each time “per USPLACE”. Much like another bunch held Yoghurt hostage for so many years and through so many RMs." This comment assumes bad faith. No one is holding anything hostage here, and "usual suspects" is not appreciated coming from an editor such as yourself who has such a single-minded focus on one particular aspect of Wikipedia. You often link to your own personal essays; referring to WP:USPLACE has a similar function. It is well-established, consistently applied, and has been thoroughly discussed over many years. And as for "easy to fix" -- there's nothing to fix. Omnedon (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The RMs exist as a place for editors to express our style preferences. I intended to continue to argue for improvements in Wikipedia naming practices -- and I hope B2C does the same. Perhaps one day Wikipedia will adopt The Chicago Manual of Style or some other coherent style system. In the meantime, I don't feel the need to be validated by "winning" RMs or other discussions. Being right is enough for me. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
All RM-regulars' style preferences are well-enough known. Consensus requires compromise. Wikipedia guidelines exist to avoid repeating the same battles endlessly until one side gives up from repetition-exhaustion. The guidelines are supported by centralised discussions, and there is one still live, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Proposal_to_eliminate_comma-state_from_unambiguous_U.S._state_capitals. What is the purpose of these remote location skirmishes, if not guerrilla disruption to destabilise consensus? I repeat my allegation, the nominator of this RM discussion, (talk · contribs) is someone we know, not logged in, in violation of WP:SOCK. People who take these WP:USPLACE-denying disrupting move proposals seriously, I ask them to consider whether they are feeding a troll. I mean, look at the IP's contributions, and then look at the quality of the IP's request for an uncontroversial technical rename, and tell me it was done in good faith? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Larry Sanger[edit]

I am surprised the list of notable people does not include Larry Sanger, given that according to the article on Larry Sanger, he grew up in Anchorage, Alaska. Vorbee (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see that he might not qualify. Having just looked at the page on Larry Sanger, I see it says he was born in Bellevue, Washington. Vorbee (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel like it’s always a bit vague hoe to list who is “from” somewhere. Did they have to be born there, grow up there, live there as an adult? The WP:MOS may have more information somewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Or we could use common sense. Let the record reflect that the topic of notable people in this article was previously discussed, now at Talk:Anchorage, Alaska/Archive 1#Notable people section. Aggressively archiving unresolved discussions may very well have the effect of hiding them (plus there's the fact that the archive bot is further screwing up an already screwed-up chronology of discussions, but that's another matter). I believe I attempted to argue for relevancy to the context of the topic listed at the top of the page, in this case Anchorage. Making a big deal out of Larry Sanger says that we're more interested in relevance to Wikipedia itself than relevance to any particular topic Wikipedia covers.
To reiterate my point from the previous discussion, this really needs to be a separate list, as there are literally hundreds and hundreds of notable people with ties to Anchorage. Giving undue weight to where someone is born makes contextual irrelevancy easy. As seen in the previous discussion, someone argued for the inclusion of Steve Smith (wide receiver, born 1985), whose only apparent tie to Anchorage is that he was born there. Take a look at the Palmer and Soldotna articles, communities which are home to a hospital serving a vast geographic region and whose sections are unnaturally weighted towards people who were born and/or died there, rather than people who are or were important to the community's history or renown to outsiders. Because a number of Wikipedians felt the need to strap a rocket onto the back of Emily Johnson, we're giving undue weight to her in the Soldotna article merely because she was born there, when other sources make it clear that she was really from nearby Clam Gulch. In that same part of Alaska, we somewhat confuse the fact that Loren Leman was born in a Los Angeles suburb with his family's history in Ninilchik. His grandmother's obituary in Alaska described her as a fifth-generation Alaskan and that his great-grandfather was the founder and namesake of Cooper Landing. You'd rather give weight to Pomona, California? Maybe that's relevant to an actual Pomona native such as Tom Waits, but Marion Leman was a resident of Ninilchik who traveled to Southern California to give birth, as Ninilchik was far from the center of the universe in the days before the Sterling Highway. As for Anchorage, the same argument applies. The existence of the Alaska Native Medical Center as well as a military hospital means that many people were born in Anchorage whose ties to Anchorage are pretty much limited to that. Bert Stedman was born in Anchorage to a family with multiple generations of history in Southeast Alaska, where he himself has lived most of his life.
Then there's the other side of the coin as far as contextual relevancy is concerned. For example, the list currently contains Andre Marrou. Marrou's notability is entirely centered on the events in his life between 1982 and 1992, when he was first a resident of Homer before moving to the Las Vegas Valley in Nevada. He spent four years in Anchorage many years before that, like many new Alaskans who first come to Anchorage then move to smaller communities. Then there's names not on that list and evidently not under consideration. An oral history project started by the Alaska Bar Association in 1982 has led to works being published in recent years on Alaska legal history, including a book published a few years ago by Epicenter Press. Those materials reveal that George Barnes Grigsby was celebrated as the grand old man of the Anchorage legal community long before either Wendell Kay or Ed Boyko held such a distinction. We reduce that to a footnote while placing weight on the fact that he served in Congress for a cup of coffee or two, when in reality his Congressional tenure was itself merely a footnote to the controversial tenure of James Wickersham and the multiple controversial elections held during the early history of the Territory of Alaska. This place is closing, so I have to leave, but I hope that I was able to satisfactorily address this issue. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Where a person is born and where they are from are two different things. My mom was born in Montana. She lived there for three years before moving to Anchorage in 1937, and lived here ever since. She'd give you a very dirty look if you called her a Montanan. This info is highly relevant to articles about the people, but very irrelevant to articles about the places, unless that person is somehow directly tied to the notability of the place. I could see listing a few of the most famous residents, like Don Simpson or Ted Nugent, but most of these people (including Sanger) are really unknown to most of the population, so it's like, what's the point? Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move concerning this page[edit]

Please see Talk:Anchorage (disambiguation) for a requested move involving this article. Calidum 20:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)