YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!


From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Why do we have an article about bears, which is a double redirect? Why do we need articles about whales, fish, foxes, and eagles? -phma 22:36, 31 Jan 2004 (EST)

Why shouldnt there be articles about wildlife which are key reasons for visiting alaska?

Uh, according to our goals and article policy, none of these things should be articles. Now if someone whanted to make an itinerary about seeing one of these animals in Alaska, that might be a possibility. Majnoona 23:39, 31 Jan 2004 (EST)

Just wondering if there should be another region to cover in between Central_(Alaska) (listed as around Fairbanks) and South-Central_(Alaska) which incorporates Ancorage southward. Thinking of where places like Denali / Talkeenta should go. I'm leaning more towards Central and perhaps making Denali a seperate region. - Arcae 06:40, 7 Feb 2005 (EST)

I'd vote no...Southcentral Alaska is officially considered to be everything south of the Alaska Range and Interior Alaska is everything north of it. That would put Talkeetna in Southcentral and Denali, er, right on the border, I guess. (I'd place Denali in Interior.)
Note that the terms "Southcentral" and "Interior" are the official ones as designated by the State of Alaska. Cluth 20:28, 28 Apr 2005 (EDT)


Much of the section on getting in and getting around was copied from the Transportation section I wrote for the Wikipedia WikiPedia:Alaska article. I copied it directly from the history page that shows what I edited. Based on reading other discussion pages on WikiTravel, this appears to be legal and complies with both the GFDL and the CC Attribution-ShareAlike license. I also added some original information.

Much of the material is from that which I posted on Wikipedia's Alaska page. When copying it, I removed the Wiki links as most were not applicable here. As time allows, I'll study the article database of related articles to see what types of Wiki links you guys here on WikiTravel like, and then I'll go back through and Wikify the appropriate ones...unless someone beats me to it.

Cluth 20:14, 28 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Great contributions, thanks! The rule of thumb is that place names should be linked the first time they are mentioned, but nothing else — unless it's a travel topic that happens to have an article. Jpatokal 20:41, 28 Apr 2005 (EDT)
OK, so I'll go back in and wikify the city names like Homer, Palmer, etc. (My original article had a bunch of links to things like the Alaska Marine Highway System, the Iditarod, etc. (Surprisingly, the Wikipedia has a pretty extensive Alaska article collection! Most places ignore us...) I noticed that the Anchorage article is titled simply "Anchorage," presumably because we are the most famous Anchorage (there is an Anchorage, KY US, but how can there be when they're landlocked? :-) ). However, should I link other city names--especially to uncreated articles--as, say, "Palmer (Alaska)" (which is the format I've seen elsewhere on WikiTravel? How about towns with decidedly unique names, like Talkeetna? Should I link it as "Talkeetna (Alaska)" just to preserve consistency? Cluth 03:23, 29 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Edit Wars...Sort Of[edit]

I've noticed some adding and deleting in the External Links section with some comments about some being commercially oriented. (I'm not speaking of the recent spaming by There are a couple that I believe do fit with Wikitravel's external links policy. Might I clarify three links that I'd like to add or add back in, pending no objections:

- This is the Alaska Travel Industry Association's Web page. The Alaska Travel Industry Association was created by the State of Alaska to promote the tourist industry. It also serves as the travel industry's lobby. While the site ends in .com, it's not a commercial organization--as I said, it was created by the state government.

- This is the Anchorage Convention & Visitors Bureau's site. It's a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting travel and tourism to Anchorage. They also create the most annoying TV/radio ads possible (picture animated moose singing "Wild! Wild about Anchorage! Wild about Anchoraaaaaaaage!" over and over while dancing New York, New York...), but that's beside the point.

- This is a nonprofit organization that prints good free guidebooks and produces a TV channel featured in many hotels. The site features tips on things to see and restaurant reviews done by local residents (primarily bellhops/concierges and other local down-in-the-gutter tourist industry folks), lending a very honest and knowledgeable feel.

- The Anchorage Daily News is the primary newspaper for the state. They also operate While it is a commercial site, it's operated by a journalistic organization and might be useful.

Cluth 04:31, 31 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Under the external links policy, the first link above can be put into Alaska#External links, the second can be put into Anchorage#External links (not the Alaska article), and the third and fourth should not be added. "Useful" and "Non-profit" are not exceptions to the policy. -- Colin 09:46, 31 Aug 2005 (EDT)


Draft Alaska regions map

I am a big anti-fan of articles with names such as "North (Somewhere)". With rare exception, no one actually called these places "North"; they call them "North Somewhere" or "Northern Somewhere". And the region names for Alaska are inconsistent, which is another pet peeve. Along those lines, I'd like to rename a few of the region articles for Alaska as follows:

Objections? - Todd VerBeek 22:58, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

I vote yea. Same could be done for Arizona and several other places as well. -- Ryan 23:07, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
Arizona's gonna be more work. But Alaska's been done. - Todd VerBeek 21:21, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

I've tried to work these into a regions map (see right), but have come up short with a "leftover region." So, frigid climate experts, where should the borders actually lie? And are there other cities/towns/public lands/labels that I should include?

And by the way, seeing this discussion, I like Interior Alaska a lot better than Central Alaska, since it's after all not in the center of the state. --Peter Talk 06:17, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Leftover region should be included in SW Alaska. Interior Alaska is generally forests, while Arctic is generally tundra. Interior Alaska should be much larger, extending west much more and a little further north. When the map is at full size, there is a thin white line between the Yukon River and the Norton Sound, use that as the western boundary of the Interior Alaska. On the north, the thin white line running east out of the Gates of the Artic NP is a bit too far north. Draw a straight line running East from the point where the Dalton Hwy enters the GotA NP to use as the northern boundary. Another boundary which could be fixed is the eastern boundary of South-Central Alaska, there's a little corner between the "l" in "Southcentral" and the Hwy 1 symbol...the eastern boundary should keep going straight south from there. "Anchoridge" is spelled "Anchorage". A few towns which could be added are (by importance to tourists): Sitka (SW), Nome (Interior), Valdez (SC), Talkeetna (SC), Delta Junction (Interior), Circle (Interior), North Pole (Intrerior), & Kotzebue (Arctic). AHeneen 15:07, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
Great! I've made these changes. I left off North Pole, since it's basically a part of Fairbanks (from a geographical perspective at least). And I'm not positive I got the eastern Southcentral border correct—with regards to where it falls on the coastline. Anyway, I'll introduce this to the article now. --Peter Talk 03:07, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

I like the regions as listed above, but would like to mention that the light green on the map, which is representing Southeastern Alaska, also includes a huge section of Southcentral Alaska. The description of Southeastern Alaska as the panhandle is correct, but the map doesn't agree. I think, Peter, if you change it close to the point where the corner of Canada comes closest to the ocean and if you follow the borough boundary lines there, it will be accurate. AlaskanAtHeart 10:02, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

Would it work to just move the "Valdez-Cordova" borough into Southcentral? That way we'd stick to a clear boundary. (Also, lest you think I've lost interest, I won't be around until September, so the map change will have to wait until then!) --Peter Talk 19:06, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

The other subject I wanted to bring up here is the discussion on using boroughs for breakdowns of the larger regions. I have two questions/comments regarding their use. If we use boroughs as subregions, is there any reason we cannot further breakdown the boroughs into smaller areas -- such as islands, in the Aleutians East Borough? If we don't use boroughs, I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define some areas. I could say the Tanana Valley or Matanuska Valley is a subregion, but being able to define the boundaries of these would be a fairly impossible task. Alaska is a huge mass of land with largely undefined areas. So I would be interested in hearing other suggestions on how to define subregional areas. AlaskanAtHeart 10:04, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

I've changed the map (although you may need to refresh your browser window to see the updated map). We absolutely can break down the regions into smaller areas. Islands that don't have more than one city/town, though, usually work better with just a small city template. For larger regions w/o clearly defined boundaries, we don't necessarily need an exact line in the dirt—if we can define a region by the geographical features and cities/towns contained within it, that's good enough. --Peter Talk 03:06, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

Volcano threat over?[edit]

User:AHeneen removed the volcano warning threat box, stating in the edit summary that the threat is over. However, according to the Alaska Volcano Observatory, [1] the threat isn't over--the volcano is still at orange alert, and the AVO is still being staffed 24 hours per day with active observations of the unstable lava dome. If that lava dome collapses, volatile ash emissions are extremely likely.

It may seem like it's over (especially to us locals, who haven't seen anything in the last couple of months and may feel like the AVO is crying wolf), but the threat is very much still alive

Should we post the warning box back up? Cluth 23:54, 6 June 2009 (EDT)


The eats section is very opionated.... I happen to like fried fish. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

It's supposed to be opinionated. I'm glad that you like fried fish, but it's still unfortunate that fish served so close to a major source is not able to be prepared well in a variety of ways. LtPowers 09:10, 2 February 2010 (EST)

By car[edit]

The section entiltled "By car" says

  "If an immigration issue prevents you from entering Canada, you may not enter Alaska 
  by car from the contiguous US."

This is not necessarily true, as one can take one's car on the Alaska Marine Highway from Bellingham, Washiington and not touch Canadan soil. Their website says:

  "After June 1, 2009 all U.S. citizens travelling through Canada will be required to show 
  their passport. Driver's licenses or birth certificates alone may no longer be accepted
  as proof of citizenship. Traveling onboard an AMHS vessel between Bellingham, Washington 
  and Ketchikan, Alaska these rules and restrictions do not apply, although the vessel
  travels through Canadian waters."  [2]

So instead of saying "you may not enter Alaska by car", it could say "to travel by car, from the contiguous US, you must use the Alaskan Marine Hightway to enter and leave by ferry via Bellingham, Washington".

--- [email protected]