Talk:Chesapeake Bay/Archive 1

Archive 1

Area of the bay

We have the size of the watershed, but how many square miles is the bay? --Palnatoke 07:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

4,479 mi², including major tributaries. Added that info and other measurements to article. Carter 11:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization errors

Watch out for these, I found several cases where the common noun "bay" was capitalized as "Bay". Only proper nouns such as "Chesapeake Bay" should be capitalized. I fixed as many as I could find but there may be some more left, please fix any you find. -Jeff ^(talk) 03:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In Maryland, "the Bay" is used far more often than saying out "the Chesapeake Bay". It is used as a proper noun and perhaps Wikipedia should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.87.204.2 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"The" Chesapeake Bay?

2006

Is the word "the" really needed? I realize people use the word "the" for placenames like the Gulf of Mexico, or the Atlantic Ocean, or often for rivers, like the Mississippi River. But I can't recall it being used for Chesapeake Bay, or other inlets, bays, like Puget Sound, Albemarle Sound, Hudson Bay, San Francisco Bay, etc. The phrase "the Chesapeake Bay" sounds odd to me, but I'm not from the area -- is it really the common usage there? Pfly 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's common usage around here.-Jeff ^(talk) 17:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a hurry before and couldn't make my post more detailed. While some may refer to the bay as simply "Chesapeake Bay", it's more commonly known as "the Chesapeake Bay" in the area of the bay itself. I think it's best to stick with the local usage the same as how American English is used in US-related topics and British English is used in Commonwealth-related topics.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. I just wondered since I edited out one of the "the"s a few days ago, but you changed it back. I've no problem with the usage, carry on! :-) ..it still sounds a bit odd to my ears, but not as odd as Bay of Green Bay... Pfly 02:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm the "The" usage. And frequently to locals it's just "The Bay".--J Clear 22:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely "The Bay" or "The Chesapeake Bay" or even just "The Chesapeake" if you are from around here. Trust me that if you came here and kept saying "Chesapeake Bay" locals would know know you weren't from here (likewise, if you try to correct them not to say "the", it would not go over very well!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.92.60 (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

2010

I know I'm coming along years after this issue seems to have been settled, but I think a distinction needs to be made in the article between local usage and usage among Americans in general. Although it may be true that among locals Chesapeake Bay is "almost always preceded by the article the," that is not true among Americans in general. I grew up in Tennessee, and I never heard anybody call it "the Chesapeake Bay." Admittedly we didn't talk about it as much as people who live near it would, but we studied it in school, where our textbooks called it simply Chesapeake Bay. This is the kind of thing that needs more reliable attribution than simply "that's how we say it around here." If someone can supply an authoritative source that supports the "almost always" claim as applying to Americans in general, then I will eat my words and drop out of the discussion. But for now I'm going to add a phrase attributing that usage to locals, removing the implication that it reflects general American usage. I have already requested a citation supporting the claim, which I will leave in place for now.--Jim10701 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If people in Omaha leave off the article, I don't see that anyone should care. I suppose we could drop the claim, but the article's usage should reflect that of the bay area locality. Mangoe (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll also point out that the USGS page on the bay universally refers to it as "the Chesapeake Bay". [1] Mangoe (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office also refers to it as "the Chesapeake Bay" or "the Bay", see for example http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/features/climate. — Diiscool (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding to that, NOAA and USGS are reliable sources and we should follow their lead. (As an anecdote, I live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and I can vouch that it is "the Chesapeake Bay".) — Diiscool (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

2011

the article's usage should reflect that of the bay area locality. Like hell it should. If that was the standard by which we wrote Wikipedia, there'd be a lot of strange-sounding articles. The standard is clearly laid out in WP:UE, that we use whatever is most commonly reflected in reliable sources.

For now, strange though the inclusion of "the" sounds to my midwestern ears, I must grant that U.S. Geological Survey is a very powerful source supporting inclusion of the "the". But it is not the only such source, and I consider the question to be an open one. I have no plans to hunt down other sources to counter it, but I just did not want to allow the canard that local usage is our standard to go by. (And, if I am wrong about this, I don't mind being shown the facts. But this certainly flies in the face of everything I've seen in the last four years.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

From WP:NAME:general intelligibility is valuable . . . nor does Wikipedia necessarily follow the majority or plurality of local English usage against the consensus of the rest of the English-speaking world. Now this is specifically referring to article titles, but whatever name is used in the title should, logically, be the name used throughout the article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Need to clarify something before I look like an idiot. I do recognize that the fact that "the" is left out of the article's title does not establish the need to take out the "the"s throughout the article's text. "The", as used in English, obviously brings up special considerations (I wonder how that do it at es.wikipedia?). My point was not that the title means that the "the"s have to be removed from the text; my point was simply that it seems logical to me that if local usage does not dictate the title of articles, neither should it dictate usage within the text. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I assumed the use of "the" was not considered part of the proper name but more like "the Gulf of Mexico" (ie, not "The Gulf of Mexico"). Compare the page name Gulf of Mexico and the use of "the" in the text. Cases where "the" is part of the proper name, unlike "the Chesapeake Bay", as far as I know, would be things like The Bronx and The Volcano. Right? Pfly (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It has long been my belief that usage generally varies with the generic term. For example, with "oceans" and "gulfs", the use of "the" appears to be standard, but with "bays" it is not. So, for example,

• I swam in the Atlantic Ocean when I was 14 years old, not I swam in Atlantic Ocean when I was 14 years old, and
• I enjoyed swimming in the Gulf of Aqaba until I was detained by Israeli security, not, I enjoyed swimming in Gulf of Aqaba until I was detained by Israeli security, BUT
• I nearly died of hypothermia when I swam in Hudson Bay, not I nearly died of hypothermia when I swam in the Hudson Bay.

But this is my impression. I could be wrong. And right or wrong, there are always unique exceptions, and this could be one. But I've never heard it anywhere else except here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Me too, but let me add another: "I was keelhauled by the Spanish Armada in the Bay of Biscay." Pfly (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It does appear that perhaps, at least with gulfs and bays, the placement of the proper name may be the determining factor. I would also say "the Bay of Bengal", I think because it is "Bay of x", and not "x Bay". But it doesn't appear to work with oceans. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Look it's a cultural thing and culture doesn't have to be logical. It's "The" Chesapeake Bay and that's what everyone in Maryland and Virginia calls it, so get over it. It is also disrespectful and culturally intolerant to "force" an outside language usage on an entire region of 13 million people. You can be 1,000 percent sure that Wikipedia does not support any such nonsense either. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel

The article stated that the bridge tunnel connected to Norfolk. The bridge tunnel article along with my personal knowledge contradicts this. I've never actually edited an article before but I went ahead and did it, if I should have done things differently please someone let me know.Tmckeage 23:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems good i wonder if the orginonal research nazi will revert you becuase u used your personal knowledge.ALso we encourage you to join wikipedia(dont worry were not a cult)(ForeverDEAD 01:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Average depth

This seems to be a problem. I have found at least four different values, all of them given by reasonably good sources. The two best numbers appear to be 21 feet (including tributaries) and 30 feet (possibly the main section only); I've also see figures of 6/6.5 meters and 25 feet.

I think we're going to have to qualify the numbers given. It's hard to imagine that these are particularly precise numbers anyway. Mangoe (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a look, but didn't see any from USGS or NOAA, which would be among the few reliable sources. Bear in mind that most of the numbers are copied from some unspecified location (very few people have measured the Bay ;-) Tedickey (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone after three sources which I think should be considered reasonably reliable. Part of the problem is that it's not at all clear who is the originator of any of the numbers. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Right (but I don't have an improvement at hand). There are many quotes for 7/21, but I found none that told the source of any of the quotes. Given that situation, all you can do is tell where you got the number, in case someone can find a more reliable source. (Even a quote from USGS or NOAA might be unreliable, depending on the actual source ;-) Tedickey (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two general problems with statistics for The Chesapeake Bay: 1) the multi-jurisdictional nature of Bay waters: there are often statistics for A) the part of The Chesapeake that lies in Maryland waters, B) the part of The Chesapeake that lies in Virginia waters, and C) Federal or otherwise overall statistics for all of The Chesapeake's waters. As a rule, the Maryland part of the Bay is more shallow, with some exceptions.

So you have to look at which governing region is providing the statistics. And whether they apply to state waters, and if so which state, or if the stats apply to the Bay as a whole.

2) Tidal determinations: some averages are done based on average depth at high tide and other studies are giving averages based on averages at low tide. The year of the study also matters, as over time, increased development in the Bay watershed has greatly increased sediment runoff washing into the Bay from it's many tributaries, which is also filling in (changing the depth of) some areas.

107.218.9.122 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Meteor

I think it's worth noting the discovery in 1995 that Chesapeake Bay may have been formed in part due to a meteor impact [2]. Big T (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Chesapeake Bay was not formed in part by the impact. The impact may have predisposed the rivers to flow in that location, ultimately (about 34.5 million years later) forming the bay. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It was an asteroid or a comet; not a meteor. And I disagree; I think it did form the bay. I'm currently 11 years old in 6th grade, and our science teacher has an article about what evidence shows. --Superstomper96 (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I am not American and I would like some guide as to how to pronounce Chesapeake? --Gak (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Accent on the first syllable (chess-ah-peek). Tedickey (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

More accurately, it is pronounced "CHESS-uh-peek".... It's definitely not "ah" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.92.60 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Algonquians in Mississippi

The Algonquians topic indicates that they were widespread - but Northern in the current sense. Nothing about Mississippi comes to light. Sipi could be (a) a borrowed word, (b) some outpost of Algonquians, or (c) pure coincidence. A scholarly source would help. Tedickey (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Mississippi most likely refers to the river in Algonquin, considering it has the sepi suffix without any other suffix after it. The river stretches well into the north.-Jeff ^(talk) 16:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Mississippi River topic (the footnote points to Mississippi) says the root is from Ojibwa language, which in turn is said to be Algonquian. The footnote should point to the topic that provides the info. Tedickey (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Alligators and Sharks?

Just wondering if sharks or alligators occur in the Bay? I figure that there almost definitely has to be sharks in there since it is at least some degree of brackish or saltwater in most parts and even the bull shark can potentially go into its fresh water parts. About the alligators, I figure that it's really not that far from the alligator's natural occurring range and alligators are in-fact much hardier creatures than most people realize, in addition to the warmer winters we've supposedly been having. I don't really think a gator would wonder that far out of gator territory (which as I said before isn't really that terribly far) on it's own accord but I would not be surprised if idiots have released gators and those gators could somehow find each other (and if they are opposite sexes) that they could survive and make a small breeding pocket. Any info on this or am I way out in left field with this question? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. I have lived on the Chesapeake my whole life and small sharks are quite common in the lower bay (as are jellyfish, horseshoe crabs, and other nautical creatures). However, I have never seen a gator here firsthand, or heard of any being spotted. This is not to say there aren't a few, but I would have to say that if there are, they were released after being pets. If you are wondering if it's something you should worry about as far as swimming here, etc, I would say absolutely not! lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.92.60 (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sharks, yes. As far as alligators, this is a question with interesting ramifications, as this blog post shows. While released or wandering wild alligators can survive over winter in many habitats of the Bay, the low numbers and marginality of breeding habitat makes it very unlikely that they have established a breeding population. Right now the closest known breeding populations are in N. Carolina, but it's not hard to imagine them expanding their range into the James River subbasin before too many years, especially with climate change. Bardobro (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Update--that link seems to be dead. Try this instead: [3]--Bardobro (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Alligators: There have been rare but definitely confirmed sightings of alligators in the lower Potomac. These could be rare long-distance migrator's from neighboring Southern states, or pets that have been released in the wild. The historical evidence suggests that there were alligators in the lower Chesapeake in recent centuries, but that is not confirmed. Maryland and Virginia can get very cold spells in winter, despite their "humid subtropical" designations. This might kill off any introduced or migratory alligators that might occasionally establish temporary footholds in the region. Not all area winters are bitter, however, so some alligators might survive in the region for a few years. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sharks:Sharks are known to visit the Bay but attacks on humans are extremely rare. One reason might be the enormous abundance of food that gives the sharks plenty to bite, instead of people. This might change, though, as fisheries continue to decline and the sharks get hungrier. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

History section...

...needs a serious working over. It's such a huge topic I wouldn't know where to start; maybe needs to be a summary referring to many separate articles. And is the focus of this article the Bay itself, or the entire drainage basin/watershed? Bardobro (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Susquehanna article gives age of river as ~300 Ma. This article says river valley formed 35 Ma as result of extra-terrestrial impact. The large apparent discrepancy needs clarification. Jhall251 (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Chesapeake Bay (8 votes, stays until April 1)

Nominated 12:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC); needs 2 more vote by April 1 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

1. Bardobro (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes, I think this one could work well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
3. (Iuio (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
4. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
5. cmadler (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
6. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
7. --Aude (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
8. -- DanielKlotz (talk • contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• I believe Chesapeake Bay should be a USCOTM because of the historical, ecological, and economic importance of the Bay and its tributaries to the United States. This was already tagged as nominated for USCOTM, but there is nothing on this page. Bardobro (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• I must say, having a look at the article, there is a lot of scope for expansion in the history, ecology, and noting things such as nearby towns and tributaries etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Especially this history; I can easily imagine a History of Chesapeake Bay article. cmadler (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• First of all, I agree with the above comments--History of Chesapeake Bay should already exist. And Chesapeake Bay itself is not only worthy of the efforts to get it to FA status, I can't think of even five geographic articles more worthy. Additionally, I would like this article to get a larger, more diverse, audience reviewing it. (In particular, I have questions about the insistence of locals that the definite article is mandatory with any usage; I would like to see if this position is tenable for an encyclopedia, not of Maryland, but of the entire English-speaking world.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's plausible that locals do use the definite article. A similar case that comes to mind is Ohio State University, which many alumni insist should always be "the Ohio State University". cmadler (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Would be happy to help out with this. Should have access to numerous library resources on the topic. --Aude (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

massive (sic)

Superlatives always require a reliable source. Terms such as "massive", which are at best colloquial, and use a secondary meaning are not encyclopedic. TEDickey (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"the Chesapeake Bay"

Which is correct in sentences/names: "... of the Chesapeake Bay" or just "... of Chesapeake Bay" ? Why? Where from? Hmains (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

See above: "The" Chesapeake Bay? —Diiscool (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Units in the hydrology section

In hydrology where they are listing the salinity, they are using ppt (as in parts per thousand). This is a deprecated term as ppt now generally refers to parts per trillion. To remove ambiguity, the ppt should be change to per mil (‰) or it should be converted to percent (%).

KW 73.213.29.16 (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed claim about largest estuary in North America

I just removed the following claim from the lede paragraph:

It is the largest estuary in North America.

The estuary of Saint Lawrence is certainly in North America and is much larger than the Chesapeake Bay; sources there and in related articles say it is the largest estuary in the world.

Perhaps the sentence in the lede here was supposed to say "United States" instead of "North America," but the source does say "North America," and that seems clearly incorrect. —Bkell (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The article on estuaries states, "The most widely accepted definition is: "a semi-enclosed coastal body of water, which has a free connection with the open sea, and within which sea water is measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage"." How much of the St. Lawrence Estuary is there a measurable amount of sea water diluted in the freshwater? The mixing area, which defines the estuary, may be smaller than the total area. Where does the St. Lawrence River become an estuary and where does it become the Gulf of St. Lawrence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Marylander (talk • contribs) 14:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Location

I removed the statement about the Chesapeake Bay being in the District of Columbia. That is incorrect, as the Bay is nowhere near the District. The District is in the watershed / drainage basin, but that is all. The same is true for Delaware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Marylander (talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I made a conforming change to the infobox and short description. Carter (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)