Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sports in Alaska: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:58, 24 February 2014 editJ. Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions19,647 edits →References: Unreferenced, and synthesis.← Previous edit Revision as of 23:42, 24 February 2014 edit undoBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators113,450 edits →References: let me go get my tinfoil hat and see if that helps me see it your way...Next edit →
Line 66: Line 66:


  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. ~ ] (]) 19:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)   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. ~ ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:42, 24 February 2014

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAlaska Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska
LowThis redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSports
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

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

It has been proposed in this section that Sports in Alaska be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log

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 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)

I have asked for some outside input on this subject at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Hopefully that will help resolve this apparent impasse. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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)
Categories: