Talk:Discovery Bay, Washington

Merge proposal
This page and Port Discovery, Washington seem to cover the same general topics. Why not merge the settlement, history, and town info here, and make a separate page about the bay called Port Discovery (Washington)? Pfly (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, a page on the bay called Discovery Bay (Washington) -- this name is apparently more official than Port Discovery. I'll get to this eventually if no one else does. Pfly (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Discovery Bay is the name of the Bay, and also of a community at the foot of the bay. Port Discovery is an historical name referring to a settlement on the bay, where the first sawmill on the west coast was located (I believe that is the claim; but perhaps the first sawmill in the Puget Sound area). Port Discovery no longer exists as such except as an historical map reference. The various placenames and locations are distinct of course. My thought would be that Port Discovery should continue to exist, dealing only with the historical use of that name, and having a 'main article' link to the Discovery Bay article.Spinality (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea.. maybe my merge proposal is messed up. My atlas of Washington shows the waterbody as named Port Discovery, and George Vancouver apparently called it that too. So I figured that was its name, but I guess not. My main reason for thinking a separate page for the waterbody would be good is that it was historically significant -- being used by the Spanish and British explorers in the late 1700s as a base of operations. But I probably won't get around to working on this for a while. Nice to know someone else sees this page though! Pfly (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the water body is Discovery Bay. See for example noaa.gov. The little spit called "Contractor's Point" is the location of Port Discovery, named by Vancouver. (That name shows up as a dot on some atlases and GPS maps, by the way.) I do believe that Vancouver also named the bay Discovery Bay, but that may have come later. At any rate, the name Port Discovery is really only significant historically. Ideally somebody will look through the Vancouver documents and come up with a better sourced description of historical usage. Shall we remove the merge proposal template until a better-formed plan is hatched? At the least, it would make sense to remove duplicate material from the various pages, and be sure they reference each other. Spinality (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been reading through Vancouver-related documents, which is how I ended up looking into this page in the first place! Currently I'm reading through a book that summarizes and quotes from Vancouver's journal and log, and his officers, etc. Throughout the book the waterbody is called Port Discovery. So I just looked up the naming and found -- "The island at the entrance was given the name of Protection Island by Vancouver, from its position across the access to the harbour, to which he gave the name of Port Discovery." Interestingly, even though he wasn't yet aware of the Spanish name already given, it was also "Port" -- Puerto de la Bodega y Quadra. The Washington mapbook I have, by Benchmark Maps, labels the waterbody Port Discovery -- apparently incorrectly. Anyway, that's my excuse! Sure, let's remove or fix the tags. I'll try to get to it shortly, if not interrupted by toddlers... Oh also, this book goes into some detail about just where Vancouver anchored in Discovery Bay, saying it is not known for certain, but was probably "off Carr Point". I don't know about Contractor's Point, or much about the area at all really, just a bit of early history. Pfly (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oop, and just found that the USGS gives several variant names, including Port Discovery -- -- apparently a variant with relatively recent usage, if I read the page right. Pfly (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, missed your comments above before making my addition below. Well, this seems pretty definitive in terms of Vancouver's use of the name. Apparently the name Port Discovery then went through some later evolutions. I am fairly sure it referred to a significant community in its own right from approximately 1858-1970 – the bay's seaport. Discovery Bay played an important role in W.W.II, when many warships were located here or transitioned through here (see for example USS Washington (ACR-11) and USS Lassen (AE-3)), on the way to the Pacific; and I believe that their shore location was referred to as Port Discovery. I will see if the local historical society has a better chronology of naming. Spinality (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm guessing it was similar to Port Townsend, Port Orchard, etc, where the Vancouver-named waterbody gave its name to the port city. It seems a strange thing to have named bays "Port". Both the Spanish and British explorers did it around here. I stumbled on an online atlas of Jefferson County from 1952, where the bay is called both Port Discovery and Port Discovery Bay, oddly, on this map and that map. Interesting website for old maps, there's a bunch of old maps of the region there. Pfly (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after some thought, here's an idea. I don't know when (or even if) I'd get around to doing this, but thought I'd write it out here anyway, as an idea and reminder in case I forget. There are several pages about communities and former communities on the bay, such as Gardiner, Washington, Diamond Point, Washington, Cape George, Washington, and the two I've put merge tags on, Port Discovery, Washington, and Discovery Bay, Washington. Keep all these focused on the communities and make a new page specifically for the waterbody, moving some of the bay info from these pages to the new page. I think there is enough about the bay itself to warrant its own page -- especially historical info about the early exploration of the region and the use of the bay as an important anchorage and base of operations. Wikipedia page name conventions don't require waterbodies to use the ", Washington" ending used for settlements. Waterbody page names are just the name, as in Puget Sound, Port Orchard, etc. But there are a number of Discovery Bays, so something extra would need to be done for the page name. One possibility is Discovery Bay (Washington). This is perhaps the most correct form for Wikipedia. But I'm not sure I like its confusing similarity to Discovery Bay, Washington. I just looked through a bunch of old maps and it appears that the waterbody was known as Port Discovery for most of recorded history, and also as Port Discovery Bay. So I'm thinking a decent page name for the bay might be Port Discovery Bay. The page could explain the several variant names and that, although not the official USGS sanctioned name, Port Discovery Bay is at least harder to confuse with the settlements of Port Discovery and Discovery Bay.

Anyway, that is my idea. It's quite possible I won't get around to doing it, but there it is anyway. I'll remove the merge tags. This talk page rather covers the whole thing now, I think. Pfly (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good summary. I like the basic concept (separating communities from hydrogeographic features, and relating the articles more strongly); though I am not sure about the names Port Discovery or Port Discovery Bay for the water body. In my visits to the local historical societies (I live on Discovery Bay), and my review of local historical documents, these names haven't struck me as typical (though I could be wrong). My impression is that Port Discovery has always referred to an (important) historical location on Discovery Bay, and that maps showing Port Discovery were talking about that location, in the way that names like Port Arthur or Port Moresby acquired a regional sense. But again I could be wrong about Port Discovery. I will try to check out local resources for historical nomenclature, and post the results here. In the meantime, the above summary covers the issues well. Spinality (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few more details. This map historicmapworks.com shows Carr Point to be what is now called Contractor Point, [correction:] which was the site of the Mastick mill built in 1858 ; this was NOT the site of the Mastick mill, which of course was at Mill Point, which is the next spit further south on the bay. The Mill Point settlement was the earliest major settlement on the Bay. [end of correction] The Mastick mill was described in the late 1800s as having been erected in 1858-9 "at Port Discovery" and was apparently referred to as the "Port Discovery Mill." See History of the Pacific States of North America (Hubert Howe Bancroft, William Nemos, Henry Lebbeus Oak, Frances Fuller Victor, Alfred Bates), A.L. Bancroft, 1890; it cites Morse's Wash. Ter. (presumably Morse's Guide to the Notes on the history and resources of Washington Territory furnished to H.H. Bancroft, ca. 1880), and also Portland Oregonian, 29 May 1875. Spinality (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC) [updated with information that I (duh) already knew very well; I don't know why I keep getting myself confused about this. :) I have corrected the facts based on local Historical Society information, printed sources, and discussion with long-time residents at these locations. Proper citations are still needed but at least the facts should be correct! Spinality (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)]

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Discovery Bay, Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327001842/http://www.nps.gov:80/history/history/online_books/explorers/sitee32.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/explorers/sitee32.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Foot vs head?
Why does this page use the term "foot" to denote the area furthest from the mouth? Isn't "head" the correct term? Clyde McQueen (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)