Talk:Skagway, Alaska/Archive 1

Archive 1

Help editing

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

Footnotes and Clarification Needed Regarding Proposed Juneau Highway

This bit does not have footnotes/endnotes with links to Skagway parties opposing the highway, and it is somewhat confusing:

Skagway is vehemently opposed to the proposed road out of Juneau. Although National Park Service regulations prohibit the road from continuing all the way to Skagway, a majority of residents see the long road and commuter ferries as a boon to their transportation interests, as well as making the trip to Juneau more complicated and dangerous.

It might be better to change this part (or break it into two statements) to read that the longer road and ferries are preferable to the additional congestion and development the new road would create, /in spite of the fact/ that the current route is more complicated to follow and more dangerous. Initially I was confused by the ambiguous wording of the statement, and thought the message was an entirely different one. User:kylesobrien 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually have no idea what this is talking about - what road out of Juneau? - but I'm quite certain a town cannot have an opinion. "A majority of Skagway residents" would be more appropriate, but it's more important to clarify what road proposal is being talked about here. -Etoile 23:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is biased and opionated. To say that the people of Skagway (also the residents of Haines and Juneau who are opposed) who are opposed to the proposed road are irrational is ignorant and a flasehood. The proposed road would cost an estimated 300 million dollars, pass through over 30 avalanche paths, disrupt important stellar sea lion habitat, and impare the integrity of the roadless remote recreation area that is the Lynn Cannal. I feel that this portion of the article is biased and unfair. Tranquilaki (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Up to Date Photograph Needed DESPERATELY

Someone PLEASE insert a modern photograph of Skagway. The current photograph is from the 1970's, and the area shown has completely changed for the better. Jeff Soapy Smith 16:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not quite the same as a real photo insertion, but I've added the Alaska DCA refs template (not used on any other articles before now), which includes a link to a photo library with some pictures from the 90s ... that's the 1990s and the 1890s. The pictures aren't all that fantastic, but they're better than nothing. —Zero Gravitas 08:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

-Thank you. I am in contact with the city, to furnish some photos, but they are in their busy season right now, and do not have the time. I would like to see an up to date photograph replace that one on the article. Soapy 15:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been one year since I first posted for someone to find some better photographs. I am not knowledgeable with this on Wikipedia.

The photographs currently posted are from the 1970s. The Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park has beautifully restored many of the Broadway buildings and the city and local businesses have done the same. Skagway retains it's gold rush look through state and federal ordinances. The town looks so much better today than it did in the 1970s...Please won't someone find some photographs that at least date from the 1980s or 90s. Soapy 16:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just took a couple of shots from the end of the Broadway dock looking into town. I won't get to view them full-size until I get home in a week, but hopefully at least one will come out well and I'm happy to upload it to the Commons. -Etoile 00:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Etoile: Very nice photo of Skagway. Do you have any other "in Town" shots that you would be willing to add? Soapy 20:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice to editors

Skagway voters have approved the creation of a borough for the city. The article should probably reflect this once the voting is certified. [1] --Merovingian (T, C, E) 23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Category of National Historical Parks

Skagway is not a national historical park. Why is it being put into the category with all those national historical parks? Twice yet. Backspace (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The entire city is a part of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park.Jeff Smith (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me where you got that information. According to our own Wikipedia article and the National Park Service's website, the park has only a total of 13,191 acres, not even five percent of the area of Municipality of Skagway Borough's 452.442 square miles. Backspace (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Boy, someone seems to have goofed there! No way the Skagway Borough encompasses 452.4 square miles! The town itself is only about 12 blocks long and half as wide. The KGNHP covers area in Washington, and Alaska. Skagway is a major unit of the KGNHP and therefore the category needs to remain.Jeff Smith (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember that we are talking about the Borough now, and not the urban town. Just as in Juneau or Sitka or even Anchorage, these borough/cities are really counties in every sense, with huge empty areas without a soul to be seen for miles (even more so than down in the Lower 48). The dinky little urban area of Skagway may be considered by many or most to be the "city" of Skagway, but officially the "City and Borough" are considered to be unified. The official website of Skagway says that the Borough has 455 square miles (a little past the halfway point on the first page), very close to our Census Bureau figures. Backspace (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the official website of Skagway you will see that the municipality of Skagway is 8,429 acres which is a mere 1.5% of your original figure. Skagway is not only a major part of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park but is a major "UNIT" of the Park. The category in question, "National Historical Park" definitely belongs here. Jeff Smith (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It shows me that the borough/municipality owns just 1.5% of the land and that the federal government owns the vast majority of the land in the borough. This is nothing radically different from most other boroughs in the state or the whole state itself, which is overwhelmingly federally owned territory. That does not reduce the size of the state, however. The federal government owns a huge percent of many states, including Alaska and Nevada. Alaska itself has many huge National Parks, and the largest National Forest in the country (Tongass National Forest), all owned by the federal government. This does not reduce the size of Alaska or any other state or any of their component counties. Backspace (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Little America?

I may be wrong, but I'd imagine that the "Little America" alluded to in the Three Stooges quote is not the place in Wyoming but the former Antarctic Base. Perhaps we should change the link? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)