Jump to content

Talk:Sports in Alaska/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

 Done 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. (non-admin closure) 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)

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#Listed items, 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 [citation needed] 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 Wikipedia: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.

References

Moved from User talk:70.50.151.11

Just letting you know i reverted your tagging of this article as unreferenced. As an article that is nothing but a list of links to other articles it doesn't really need references, and in fact they were deliberately removed when it was converted into a list. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

— Moved from my talk page -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Regular lists need references. If this should not contain references, then it should not be a regular list. I will therefore tag it as a set index. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Other options would include converting this to an WP:INDEX or a table of contents page, WP:OUTLINE, WP:books; -- other types of lists that don't include referencing. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've also removed that tag. It said "This article includes a list of related items that share the same name (or similar names). If an internal link incorrectly led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article." that didn't really make sense. I don't see a problem here other than adherence to arcane rules. There's not actually anything wrong with the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
with the title "Sports in Alaska" the article should be a prose article talking about sport in Alaska: history , popularity of different types, difficulties, development of leagues and venues etc. If it is merely going to be a list without prose, then it should be renamed to reflect what it actually is, an index or outline or list. I personally think a prose article on sport in Alaska would be a great asset to Wikipedia and be extremely fascinating. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It used to be a prose article, but unfortunately not a very good one. In fact it was terrible. It was unformatted, sentences were strung together seemingly at random, and it focussed almost entirely on team sports in Anchorage, which are paid scant attention by anyone who doesn't happen to live there. After it seemed clear that nobody was going to fix it I converted it to a list. It was only after I did that that anyone else showed the slightest interest in it. My feeling is that with about thirty articles on specific topics relating to sport in Alaska we have covered the subject reasonably well without an omnibus article on the subject.
Although it is possible that someday somebody with more of an interest in sports may come along and make it into a decent prose article I felt that after waiting eight years for that person to come along I would just go ahead and make it a list rather than continue to wait for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I dont have any problems with it being moved to a Outline or List or whatever. A quick search resulted in lots of hits for "Sport fishing" and "Olympic mountains" so bringing it up to prose article form would require more work and expertise and access to sources than I have or am willing to commit to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to make my own list - of observations:

  1. The article was poorly sourced before it was converted to a list.
  2. The conversion to a list serves some subjects better than others. It may make sense to just list all the venues, for example, but I think the treatment of cross-country skiing was better as a coherent paragraph. The trail system in Chugash State Park is now listed under "Events".
  3. There are several articles or redirects to sections with names like Sports in California. A couple are basically lists, but most are prose. There is not a single article with a name like List of sports in MyState.
  4. A more accurate name for the current list would be List of sport venues, teams and events in Alaska.
  5. There are ways a prose article could be broadened. For example, there is the fascinating subject of Inuit sports in Alaska (see Arctic Winter Games and this link which has a nice description of Inuit sports. I can tell you from personal experience they are worth seeing.

On the whole, I think that it would be better to go back to the prose version of this article and improve it. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's not perfect, but it is better than it has been since the day it was created on 2008. I gave up on waiting for someone else to do something and just listified it. If you are volunteering to turn it back to a prose article and improve it, by all means go ahead. I agree that would be better but writing about sports is frankly not something I have a lot of interest in. Thanks for mentioning the Arctic Winter Games, I added a link to that as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: It's not normally my thing either, but this could make an interesting article. I'll do a little research and see what I get. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

To my mind, the article currently reads as a list article, but one that also makes a number of claims that should be sourced in several cases. If the article is to be treated as a prose article then the claims should be sourced or removed. If the article is to be treated as a list article then I would recommend renaming it to make that more clear, and either removing or sourcing the claims that should be verifiable. The presence of the blue links does not in and of itself obviate the need for sourcing per WP:CIRCULAR. DonIago (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record here are the three refs that were previously in use here [1] [2] [3]. They are all primary sources, the wordpress page of one of the rugby clubs, the official page for the tour of Anchorage, and Anchorage department of parks and recreation. Not a lot was lost when I removed them, but the actual full articles linked to here would presumably have many more refs for any statements that are disputed, and this is generally considered the paper of record or events in AK, although their online content only goes back a few years. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  This putative article's lead consists of an assertion (and incidentally the only prose sentence in the article): Alaska is home to a number of sports teams and events,

  A lead paragraph is supposed to summarize the article. There is some question as to whether assertions in the lead require references, but that presumes such assertions are referenced (cited) in the body of the article. That presumption fails here, as the article has no references. But then, neither does it have anything to summarize. (How do you summarize a list?) In fact, the article itself is nothing but an attempt to validate the assertion by means of demonstration; that is, to show that there is a "number" of "sports teams and events" in Alaska by listing them. So these items are not points of possible interest to a virtual tourist collected in a convenient list; they are elements of an argument. They are implicit statements. As such I say they are subject to verification, and require citation.

  But there is a deeper problem. Even if this list was renamed to (say) List of sports teams and venues in Alaska, to then infer that Alaska is home to such teams and venues would constitute synthesis. This is not allowed.

  I don't exclude the possibility that someone could write an article about sports in Alaska that just might be notable (at least to Alaskans), but this is not that article. I don't see this material even as a list. I suggest it be deleted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to say to this. I thought the objections from the IP editor above were ridiculous, but you have managed to surpass them with this absurd premise. I simply chopped the lead down to only its first sentence when it was listified, there was no attempt to turn the list into an argument in support of that sentence. And your point about synthesis goes beyond absurd into the realm of utter lunacy. If you want to see if the linked items are really in Alaska click on the links and see for yourself. If there are any with no relation to Alaska then I have made an error and they should be removed from the list. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, JJ, the lead to a list like this is supposed to contain a description of the list's selection criteria (preferably worded without a self-reference like, "We included here anything that was X but not anything that was also Y" or even "This list includes the following:"). It is not expected to summarize the list. Much like the description at the top of a category page, its purpose is to tell the reader whether this list contains the information that the reader is seeking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  Breeblebox, you seem to not understand the difference between the lead of an article, which can summarize the article, and the "lead" of a list, which (as W understands) should describe the selection criteria. As W also understands, we generally do not (never?) summarize a list. As examples, consider the difference between:
  • Here is a list of U.S. Senators from state X.
  • State X has two Senators, as proven by the following list.
  The objection I see in "Alaska is home to ..." is that it can be read as asserting something, even trying to prove a point. The problem is that it generalizes. If it was simply "home to the following ..." then clearly it is a list. But in making a general statement it relies on the included elements; those links are thus the basis of an assertion.
  The problem arose because in converting from an article to a list you retained the summarization of the article. (So fix it.) The error is not that any element is not an instance of sport in Alaska; the error is in generalizing to assert something about Alaska. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Throwing "so fix it" in there is quite ironic, apparently you failed to notice that what WP:SOFIXIT actually says is that if you see a problem it may be better to fix it yourself than to berate others for failing to do so. Perhaps in your haste to further argue this very silly point you failed to notice that I changed the lead two days before this last comment from you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
And I am so happy for your improvements.
Along the lines of "give a person a fish and you feed him for a day...": in light of your rather rude comments (would you care the retract the distinctly uncivil "beyond absurd into the realm of lunacy"?) I think it was necessary for you to understand why the lead needed improvement. If I had just jumped in, that would have been unilateral action possibly provoking an edit war. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I will not retract it as your argument was predicated on the idea that someone formulated the lead and then constructed the list to "prove it". That is provably false and as well as being a backhanded accusation that the entire article was made in bad faith, when all I have done is to improve it. And your latest remark seems to assume bad again by suggesting I would have edit warred with you if you had edited the article yourself. So, there was no need for your attempted "lesson" as you were wrong to begin with. The only fish needed here is this one

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox: your statement that a point of mine went "beyond absurd into the realm of utter lunacy" (edit of 24 Feb., and including your "tinfoil hat" comment) is entirely uncalled for, and amounts to a personal attack. I ask you to retract it, and to apologize for your hostile and uncivil behavior. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The comment was in reference to your argument not you as an individual. And your argument was a load of nonsense based on assumptions of bad faith and imaginary conspiracies, so no, I won't be retracting it no matter how many times you ask. Please don't ping me again, I am done with this article and have no interest in arguing these points any further. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: All lists require in line citations for verifiability of inclusion in said list. Blue links to not count and readers should not have to click through to discover the reference. From WP:Verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately." (Bold text is my emphasis). Many times consensus has been reached to read that this means inclusion in a list requires citations inline on the list page. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's say I take that same policy segment and I add emphasis where I think it is needed: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately." As I've said before if anyone would care to actually look at the article and add [citation needed] to any material they feel actually needs a reference for inclusion in the list they are more than welcome to do so. I'm not going to go through all these articles and pull their references to use over here just because a rule, interpreted a certain way, might require it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done DonIago (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, this very discussion is such a challenge requiring sourcing...what do you gain by denying that? Is it really so important that the tag declaring this page needs more citations be removed? The page could only benefit from alerting an editor that this type of work needs to be done. It appears you've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that we don't just compile completely unsourced lists. That isn't a hidden or rarely cited policy. I could find you all types of Wikipedia guidelines that say we need in-line citations where content appears. Sports in Alaska are not exactly a "sky is blue" category that doesn't need referencing becasue most adults likely know it. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources: "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations."
The tagged items in this list provide some instructive illustrations for WP:CIRCULAR. Tour of Anchorage has a notability tag; Great Alaska Shootout has no references; Sadler's Ultra Challenge only had a dead link. On the other hand, the people who busy themselves with tagging should remember WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and at least make a token effort to find the citations themselves. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I am not claiming the article is perfect and above reproach. I am claiming that it is in a much better state than it was before it was converted into a list. If anyone would like to make further improvements to it they are obviously more than welcome to do so, but I think I'm pretty much done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sports_in_Alaska/Archive_1&oldid=1137199301"