Talk:Barrow, Alaska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Trivia was wrong[edit]

Barrow has a "damp" law, not a "bone dry" law. I live here (Barrow), I know.

You have to refine the misconception from Flying Wild Alaska, Floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.34.11 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

There are two ongoing edit wars. The first is over the external links, and the second is over the tagging of the popular culture section. This is disruptive, and it looks to me as if there are ownership issues here. No one owns this article. And content disputes are, by definition, not vandalism, so please stop characterizing them as such.

Please discuss the changes rationally here before reverting any more, otherwise I would not be surprised to see this article receive full protection for edit waring, and rather soon. And then the article will be in a state unwanted by someone. — Becksguy (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Floyd, you and the other RL residents of Utqiaġvik , Alaska are going to have to resign yourself to the fact that several comic books and a movie have referred to the town. Clearly, no one is going to think Barrow is a place that Vampires vacation in - any more than people expect to see the Blues Brothers in my city of Chicago (or vampires for that matter, as per White Wolf Games' book, Chicago By Night. While it is understandable that you would take umbrage at the insinuation, your argument is with the writers of the comic and the makers of the film, not the editors who are adding it because of its notable usage outside of a Chamber of Commerce brochure. As the information is cited, please stop edit-warring the trivia tag in. You are incorrect to utilize it here, and the inherent conflict of interest should pretty much make it clear that you cannot speak neutrally to the statements. Leave it be. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
For many, the issue is not that there's a vampire novel set in Barrow, stuff happens, but the gross inaccuracies, like that once the sun goes down, the town plunges into pitch black darkness from mid-November until around Groundhog Day. The truth is, even without the sun, the twilight makes it almost like there's a small amount of sunlight. At least that's what I think the problems would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.61.43 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Mayor is not current[edit]

Need to update the mayor. Her name is not there. 198.123.56.217 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

"Beginning on around May 11 or 12 the sun remains above the horizon the entire day, there is a increasing amount of twilight each day, and on the summer solstice (around June 21 or June 22), civil twilight in Barrow lasts for more than 3 hours and the phenomenon known as the midnight sun is observed." -- How can there be any twilight in the summer if the sun is up all night long? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that this issue has (finally!) been resolved. I'm removing the contradiction tag. Thanks, whoever you are! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barrow, 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:

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

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 12:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Barrow, 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:

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

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 12:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Move to change name of article to "Utqiagvik, Alaska" following newly approved ordinance[edit]

http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Barrow-voters-narrowly-approve-ordinance-to-rename-city-to-Utqiagvik-396998551.html

BARROW, Alaska (KTUU) - Voters in Barrow have narrowly approved an ordinance to rename the city Utqiaġvik, according to final results from the city clerk’s office.

Following this change, I believe the article should be re-titled and names adjusted throughout the article. Azotochtli (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not – An article subject's common name trumps its official name every time, an issue the community seems to have trouble coming to grips with judging from the wildly inconsistent attitude I've seen exhibited towards that over the years. Recent past instances of eradicating English names in favor of indigenous names based merely on press releases, news stories or similar announcements with little or no discussion was bad enough. Please note that relevant policy/guidelines for this English-language encyclopedia cover common usage across the breadth of English-language sources, not just basing decisions on cherry-picking one particular source which may have been a trending topic on one particular day. If you're really concerned about indigenous languages, it would help to point out that ik.wiki, the Inupiat-language encyclopedia, has been in piss-poor shape for quite some time now. I'm not the one with the expertise to do something about it, and when I've brought it to the attention of those who may be able to help, have been met mostly with excuses and/or lip service. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be changed. It IS the common name of the community, and has been for centuries. Barrow is far more recent, and the recent vote is reverting back to the common name for the community. The official name is the common name. People should respect the will of the community to call their community by its real name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naulagmi (talkcontribs) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you should really read WP:AT. Even glancing at it for a few seconds would tell you that this runs totally afoul of that policy. The policy covers recognition in sources, not recognition by a small subset of people particular to the article subject. Once again, an article subject's common name trumps its official name every time. As you can see by the redlink, we don't even have a redirect entitled Metlakatla Indian Community, let alone are considering calling Metlakatla, Alaska by that name. Secondly, the story in the source provided mentions a rather pertinent aspect near the very bottom. I realize that many folks these days lack the proper attention span and therefore may have missed it, so I'll repeat it here: "The ordinance is now on the desk of Lt. Governor Byron Mallott, who has 45 days to approve the name of Alaska’s northernmost city. Once that’s completed the city can begin the process of changing signage and maps to reflect the new name." This isn't even official yet, so there's also WP:CRYSTAL to take into account. I very much doubt that Mallott would reject this, but there's always that possibility. There's also the aspect of how far this will be recognized. 27 months ago, Anchorage Daily News was changed to Alaska Dispatch News almost immediately following the announcement of the pending name change, despite the fact that the name "Anchorage Daily News" had been in use since at least the 1950s. To this day, people still refer to the newspaper as the "Anchorage Daily News". If I go to the airport and see that Alaska Airlines has "Utqiaġvik" rather than "Barrow" listed on its arrivals / departures board, I may have reason to believe that this is being taken seriously by people other than local residents and perhaps also state government. The message we're sending with this is that we're not here to be an encyclopedic reflection so much as we're here to be a part of a social media strategy for article subjects, among other negative messages. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@VonWoland:@Kmoksy:In the interest of discussing this instead of engaging in move warring, would you please explain why you moved this while a move discussion was ongoing and no consensus had been reached, as can be seen above? Once again, please read WP:AT, which is the operative policy regarding this issue. Whenever I've said something in the past which others interpreted as applying IAR to established policy because I may not have necessarily agreed with that policy, I've been called on the carpet about it. I don't see how this is any different. Boldly moving the article like this reveals numerous problems. The biggest problem is that it suggests that our primary purpose is to blindly respond to yesterday's headlines and to provide a venue for advocacy on issues. If you bothered to look beyond the headline, you would have seen that this doesn't become official until December 1. That is mentioned in the very first sentence of the story. Are you assuming that this needs to be done now because people will have forgotten about it in another month? That's been the case in countless other instances where we reflect headlines and trending topics without regard to actual happenings when the two don't necessarily occur at the same time. Furthermore, like with any name change, it will take quite some time for it to sink in among the general public, as I mentioned above in the case of the ADN. The story indicated that the percentage of Iñupiat residing in the community exceeds the percentage by which the question passed by at least several percentage points. That says that no clear consensus exists in the real world, just as no clear consensus had been established here beforehand as is customarily expected. All this is important in terms of delineating the difference between an encyclopedia which is supposed to trade in facts and a news site which peddles headlines "while they're hot" and doesn't necessarily follow up to factual happenings at the appropriate time. Regardless of all that, WP:AT and specifically WP:COMMONNAME still applies whether the name change were to take effect immediately or in another month. I don't like repeating myself, but I suppose it's important to reiterate that common names trump official names every time. A clear indication of this topic's common name can be found in the simplest Google search:

  • Barrow, Alaska – 5,000,000 hits without quotes surrounding search string, 414,000 hits with quotes surrounding search string
  • Utqiagvik, Alaska – 10,200 hits without quotes surrounding search string, 648 hits with quotes surrounding search string
  • Utqiaġvik, Alaska – 5,230 without quotes surrounding search sting, 112 hits with quotes surrounding search string

Methinks you would have a better chance of walking to the North Pole from Barrow Utqiaġvik ? than you would in overcoming a chasm like that. This is all too reminiscent of past moves from English names to indigenous names merely based on announcements, press releases and the like without regard for official or common recognition or even common sense. The main difference here is that this article is a little higher profile than many others which have been moved in like fashion, so it needed a more thorough discussion first before any thoughts of moving occurred. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

alaKSaalaSKa ["Kmoksy moved page Utqiaġvik, Alaksa to Utqiaġvik, Alaska"] --Kmoksy (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding the point. You're still a party to something which lacks not only consensus, but really a leg to stand on, as I've already pointed out. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists doesn't explicitly mention page moves. However, the principle of that page still applies in that other folks have gotten away in the past with moving pages under the same reasoning with little to no discussion or consensus, which leads to a further lack of discussion or consensus in other cases because folks start to believe that this is the way things work. Part of being neutral and encyclopedic involves not caving in to the agendas of the article subject or those related to it, which can be summed up in one of the above rationales in favor of the move. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Change it back - you jumped the gun on this one. Legally it is still Barrow, so set it back ASAP. The name should not be changed again until after Governor Byron Mallott approves the name change. The state is the legal authority that approves the name of a city, and until the governor authorizes it, legally it is still Barrow. For American city names in Wikipedia, we are suppose to use the legal name in the format of "City, State" for the Wikipedia article name. The 3 main sources that should be used for name references is GNIS / IRS Census / US Post Office, but their databases will lag after a name changes. • SbmeirowTalk • 04:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep as Barrow. The city has been known as that since before there was a written Iñupiaq language. Activist (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

While the article itself should clearly be moved to Utqiagvik, someone was clearly overzealous in doing a find-replace in the article. Historical references to the city from 1850-2016 or so should still say "Barrow" IMO, at least if that was the word used at the time - it's weirdly bizarre to see, say, that an Agents of SHIELD episode released surely before the name change should say "Utqiagvik". (Unless they actually used that phrase for some reason.) SnowFire (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It is now the official name of the community (as of December 1st), and statewide media is now referring the the community as Utqiagvik in their news articles. (Alaska Dispatch News, Alaska Public Media). Seems to be the common name now used in government, media and people of Utqiagvik themselves. Time to move wikipedia page to Utqiagvik? --Naulagmi (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved. I moved it to Utqiaġvik on Dec. 1 once the name change became official but someone reverted me. I explained the situation to them and gave them the chance to self-revert as a courtesy, but they have so far failed to do so. 28bytes (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@28bytes: If you could please wait a little longer, I would like to review the lengthy Denali name change discussions. Also I think we should have a requested move discussion as this issue seems very similar to the Bangalore/Bengaluru situation, where consensus remains to keep the old name, two years after the official change. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 05:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, please review those, and let us know your thoughts. I think you will find the Denali situation more relevant, both culturally and geographically. Bangalore/Bengaluru really has little similarity other than "place with a Wikipedia naming dispute." 28bytes (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Change it. The current title has the unfortunate honor of being both racist and wrong. This is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.131.80 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC) 58.7.131.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The only thing these shadowy advocates have going for them is that "Utqiaġvik" is favored in current media style guides and therefore a factor in gaming search results in favor. Still, numerous news stories since the change became official have not only shown no rigid consistency in the use of Utqiaġvik versus Barrow, but this discussion has conveniently avoided acknowledging the ongoing court case regarding the use of Utqiaġvik versus "Ukpeaġvik" (see here). I've seen no news that the case has been resolved. This follow-up story, the top story of a Sunday edition, affirms my earlier contention that there's an attempt to force consensus here on the encyclopedia where none exists in the real world. In practical terms, I'm around Iñupiat every day of my life (my last two housemates were Iñupiaq) and there is no traction for this whatsoever among the rank and file. Someone who performs music at the churches I attend talked about the name change very briefly to the congregation one Sunday. Apart from that, I don't hear anything but "Barrow". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Utqiaġvik is currently officially and commonly used by the City, Borough, State of Alaska and by all Alaskan, national and international media. See here, here, here here, here, here, here, here and here. Your talk about Iñupiat only using "Barrow" is completely anecdotal; nearly all the Iñupiat I know all now use Utqiaġvik. Neither of our personal anecdotal stories of what we "hear" people say can be considered valid evidence for what the commonly used name is. The only real "poll" we have is the actual vote, in which Utqiaġvik won. You write that Wikipedia is not supposed to work in advocacy, however you seem to be advocating "Barrow" over "Utqiaġvik" based on a certain political agenda, when the State of Alaska, the City of Utqiaġvik, the North Slope Borough, and all state, national and international media are referring to Utqiaġvik as its common name, Utqiaġvik. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient. Vote to move the page to Utqiaġvik. --134.87.158.22 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)134.87.158.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This is getting ridiculous. 134.87.158.22, you are absolutely correct, the name change has been official for almost two months, and has been widely accepted by the independent media. There is no legitimate policy basis for continuing to use the old name, so I am moving it to the new name, which should have been done long ago. 28bytes (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll tell you what's ridiculous. It's these IPs and SPAs who have come here expressly to policy-shop and cherry-pick sources and take us away from reflecting human knowledge because they're more interested in trying to influence it. I'm looking at WP:AT right now. The first section, WP:CRITERIA, begins with "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject". The second section, WP:COMMONNAME, elaborates on that by stating "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". Nowhere in any of that does it refer to giving weight to one particular subset of reliable sources at one particular point in time, which is exactly what I see reflected in all the linkspam they've provided. Even the subsection WP:NAMECHANGES and the passage "we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced" says nothing about giving "extra weight" to one particular subset of sources, which is what news stories are. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Allowing a style guide change on the part of the media to prevail here means that we're really nothing more than another media outlet. There is a difference between a media outlet and an encyclopedia, namely with respect to the bigger picture.
Reference the Google hits towards the beginning of this thread. Three months later, the majority of that being after this has taken effect, the number of Google hits for "Barrow" has increased more than two-dozen-fold compared to "Utqiaġvik", whether with or without the diacritic. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that there are no reliable sources whatsoever within those 5,000,000+ links? Or do you honestly expect folks to believe that such is irrelevant and whatever's in the news today controls the direction of our coverage? Because "whatever's in the news today" is certainly at the very core of what's driving this. Who cares that it took this tanik to point out that "Kuukpik = Colville River" after the article had existed for slightly more than a decade (see here), or that ik.wiki is still in a deplorable state despite seeing non-bot-related editing activity within recent weeks. They're latching onto this because it's "popular" and because they have the media on their side. They also appear to have an WP:INVOLVED admin on their side, judging from the comment "Yes, it should be moved" made on December 6. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree 100% with User:RadioKAOS. If Bangalore, a city with 1,996 times the population of Barrow and much more well known around the world, is still commonly being referred to as "Bangalore" despite the official name change to "Bengaluru" over 2 years ago, there is no way Barrow is all of a sudden being called "Utqiagvik" – even more obscure and difficult to pronounce than "Bengaluru" for most English-speakers – a mere two months after the name change. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 08:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, doing a Google News search for Barrow for the last month, even using the search term "Barrow", the stories with the most hits mostly use Utqiagvik. Some exceptions are an article about the Never Alone game, which would make sense to use Barrow, because the game was produced when the city was named Barrow. I found three articles (here, here and here) that refer to the Barrow sports teams. (This also would make sense since the high school is still called Barrow High School). There is one an article from WaPo that uses Barrow in the title rather than Utqiagvik, but mentions the official name later on. These are the exceptions to the Utqiagvik tendency that I could find. There are actually more hits for Barrow in total, but this is because virtually every article uses Utqiagvik (formerly known as Barrow) in the article. I really don't think the Bangaluru example is relevant in Alaska. I would take the Denali name change as a more relevant example. --134.87.159.153 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I feel the Bangalore/Bengaluru example is perfectly relevant. Regarding Denali, I understand that the mountain was widely known as "Denali" not just by many Alaskans, but also by climbers and others around the world. This is per reliable sources. I find no source indicating that "Utqiagvik" is preferred to "Barrow." In the first place, I don't think many English-speakers the world over even know about Barrow, let alone its new official name. The situation is undoubtedly different for the highest mountain in North America. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 22:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, you are mistaken about Denali. The mountain was known as Denali to Alaskans, but rarely did tourists or out-of-staters refer to the mountain as Denali. Many visitors or climbers coming to Alaska did take up the term Denali after being informed of the true name when visiting Alaska. Much like Denali, Utqiagvik is a regionalism gaining wider credence after it became official. -134.87.159.153 (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What I said is based on what I read here. You say, "Much like Denali, Utqiagvik is a regionalism gaining wider credence after it became official." Looking at some non-Alaskan sources, that doesn't appear to be the case, and I doubt it has gained wider credence only two months after the name change. I feel we just need to be patient and wait for more sources, as I explain further in the below RM discussion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 04:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @RadioKAOS: I'd urge patience as well. As RadioKAOS notes, there is a court case brought by UIC, the local Native corporation, challenging the name change. The name "Ukpeaġvik" (or less frequently, "Ukpiagvik") is one I've heard referred to for 25 years, and referred to the downtown area as being "the place to hunt snowy owls," an Iñupiaq name that puts birders off, of course. In the summertime, the owls nest not in town, but rather heavily in the tundra along the gas well road somewhat southeast of Browerville. The Presbyterian church, with the original place name, "Utqiaġvik" also spells it, alternatively, "Utkeaġvik," and the Utkeaġvik Church Manse (the dark colored building in the foreground), constructed in 1929 and on the National Register of Historic Places, has an article about it on Wikipedia The vote to change the name was apparently not well publicized and only prevailed by about six votes. The city mayor, Fannie Suvlu, is a Native speaker of the language and had an "Iñupiaq word of the day" segment on the local radio station, KBRW, for many years. The KTOO article, [1] regarding the change, picked up by AP I think, had numerous misspellings of English words, as well as the novel rendition "Utkqiaġvik" (sic) so I wouldn't put much stock in it. IMHO there are lots more pressing issues to be addressed in Wikipedia. Activist (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah, lastly, "Denali," is also just one of many native language (i.e. Ahtna, Koyukon, etc., Athabascan dialects) names for the mountain but one which is greatly favored over McKinley. See Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute. Activist (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Barrow, 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:

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

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 13:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2017[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: Moved. The previous move was made without discussion, so I have reverted that per request at WP:RMTR. If anyone wants to go ahead and propose a move to Utqiaġvik, they are welcome to do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)



Utqiaġvik, AlaskaBarrow, Alaska – Per WP:COMMONNAME. I will repeat my argument from above: If Bangalore, a city with 1,996 times the population of Barrow and much more well known around the world, is still commonly being referred to as "Bangalore" despite the official name change to "Bengaluru" over 2 years ago, there is no way Barrow is all of a sudden being called "Utqiagvik" – an even more obscure and difficult-to-pronounce name than "Bengaluru" for most English-speakers – a mere two months after the name change. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 23:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I also encourage contributors to this discussion to read RadioKAOS's comments above, starting with "See WP:NOTADVOCACY..." and "I'll tell you what's..." — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 16:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You really need to drop the stick about this Bangalore nonsense. I am very sorry that the consensus of the Bangalore move discussions have not resulted in that article being moved to Bengaluru, but the proper way to challenge that consensus is to start a discussion Talk:Bangalore, not try to force entirely unrelated articles to use the wrong name to set an example. 28bytes (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe you are being WP:INVOLVED. "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." In my opinion, your WP:G6 deletions are rash and improper. It is not "uncontroversial maintenance" when editors have raised concerns about moving the page.
That aside, I see absolutely no difference between Bangalore/Bengaluru and Barrow/Utqiagvik. Ten move discussions have kept the article at Bangalore all these years. I think we need to have patience here. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 17:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep it at Utqiaġvik, per WP:COMMONNAME. Alaska Daily News and other media that cover the area have switched to Utqiaġvik. The name change is official and the sources Wikipedia relies on are now using the official name. 28bytes (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but current state of the article cannot stand. Similar to the Bangalore/Bengaluru situation, Barrow/Utqiaġvik is a city known by two names. The article should reflect this by providing both names and pronunciations in the lede, but should otherwise refer to it by whatever its common name is. The current state of titling the article as Utqiaġvik but otherwise referring to the city as Barrow isn't acceptable as a long-term solution.  ONR  (talk)  00:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Good point, Old Naval Rooftops. I have fixed the lede section to match the article title, but will hold off on additional changes until after the move discussion is complete. 28bytes (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral, for now, leaning Oppose, due to lack of evidence favoring either side, much less the proposal itself. We need evidence of usage in recent reliable sources; period. --В²C 01:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, noting lack of driving evidence, of this being largely a preference. The proposal is contrary to a decades old trend to reverse the renaming of things with non-English sounding names with crude Anglicisations, or simply renames after British politicians very tenuously connected to the place (as in this case). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2017 (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.

Requested move 30 January 2017[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 (for now). (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 11:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


Barrow, AlaskaUtqiaġvik, Alaska – Official name change discussed previously here and here above. —  AjaxSmack  03:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • I oppose this move without evidence of a widespread shift in common usage. Note WP:OFFICIALNAMES AjaxSmack  03:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose move... for now. Barrow is the common name at this point, due to a lack of long-term media coverage of the name "Utqiaġvik". Because the official renaming was so recent, there hasn't been time for the media to settle on one name or the other.  ONR  (talk)  03:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my commentary in the previous RM discussion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 06:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose again while we are still calling Menorca by the British name "Minorca" despite it haven been taken back by Spain in 1802, despite all travel agents and Lonely Planet calling the island Menorca, I don't understand the urgency here. Wait for the name to be in common use, as Menorca became in English in the 1990s. Sorry not being petty, there is a point here. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The name Utqiaġvik is new official name and in the Iñupiaq language. Utqiaġvik Utqiaġvigmiut taisuugaat, Naluaġmiut Barrow (the Barrow people call “Utqiaġvik”, the White people call it “Barrow”). --Kmoksy (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Such a move requires evidence of usage of the new name in current reliable English sources. Absent such evidence, I must oppose. --В²C 23:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support With a redirect from Barrow, Alaska AusLondonder (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Until there's evidence that most people have switched to referring to it by that name (especially given most people probably know of it from 30 Days of Night). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Barrow, 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barrow, 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)