I don't think this rename is correct. Should we contact the Borough and tell them we don't like their name? I have shifted my thought on using boroughs, counties and parishes. I don't believe all of them should be created as stubs, but they do make good place holders for smaller communities keeping the main region article from getting cluttered and it seems that a lot of Wikitravelers like them as well. And, I don't think we should rename them. I think the question here is, Does North Slope cover the same area as North Slope Borough? -- Tom Holland (xltel) 22:47, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
You know what? I don't care whether it covers exactly the same area as the borough, because Alaska's borough system does not offer a useful model for a travel guide. Any agency that produces a "borough" that looks like this:  obviously doesn't care about whether it makes any sense to the traveler; they're just trying to give the US Census Bureau some buckets to dump people into. And as for telling them we don't like their name, I would be more than happy to place that phone call to the person who named "Unorganized Borough", one of the state's biggest. But I didn't rename the North Slope Borough; I just removed a designation that is not normally used in reference to this area; "North Slope" is the common name for this region, and "North Slope Borough" is not; this is no different from taking "The People's Republic of" off China.
Yes, you're right in observing that some Wikitravelers like using counties... often because it's easier than actually understanding the region they're carving up from afar; they can just use Wikipedia as their travel guide and create a soulless bureacratic hierarchy rather than one that puts the traveler first. I know that counties don't work very well for dividing up the regions around where I live (one fairly important city has a county line running through the middle of it, and a few counties around here don't have anything larger than a small town in them). So I'm not one of the people who likes that particular crutch. - Todd VerBeek 23:36, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
Sorry Todd, I guess I was misunderstood. I was not talking about Alaska's Unorganized Borough, which has no government or organization. I agree that all the area left over in Alaska and collected together for census does not make a good region. I was talking about North Slope Borough. It does make a pretty good region. I am just not sure the name should be changed. The official link on the region goes to North Slope Borough, but the page is named North Slope. I also think we should be concerned about the area a region covers. My point is for this region using the Borough boundary is good for this region. I guess we could leave the name as is and indicate in the article the area covers the same area as the Borough. Is there anyone closely familiar with Alaska that can comment on this? -- Tom Holland (xltel) 00:14, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
Not wanting to be a bureacrat, but Wikitravel:Article naming conventions suggest that North Slope is probably a better name than North Slope Borough as it is shorter. If local people call the place North Slope then that should be the name. The word city is generally dropped from the name of most cities wothout causing confusion. However, I think the word county is often kept, especially when refering to an artificial region created for bureacratic or administrative purposes. If a place is commonly known by two or more names then we probably should have (at least) redirects fromn all of those names to the base article. It might be worth having separate article if the names are very different or do not quite cover the same areas. -- Huttite 01:08, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
My main point was that "North Slope" is the more common name; they named the borough after the region. My point in referring to the Unorganized Borough was to point out that the line-drawers aren't necessarily right. And I was coming off a slew of pages where someone had created lists of counties with links for them all to be created as articles, so I was rather cranky about the subject; apologies for my strident tone. - Todd VerBeek 11:02, 28 July 2006 (EDT)