Talk:Puget Sound/Archive 1

We need to Clean up Puget Sound
Cleaning up Puget Sound is one of the biggest political topics in Western Washington. How can we provide information about this effort and the debate in a balanced manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadlupkes (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 January 2005 (UTC)

School project?
I'm convinced this article has become the target of a school project of some sort. One of the students emailed me earlier when she was caught in a range block stating that she needed to edit the page for her class. As such, over the past few days many people have added text and links that are, in many cases, poorly formatted. Hopefully someone can clean this up now or when the "project" is over. CryptoDerk 19:35, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

This page is a target of a class project: http://www.washington.edu/oue/ucourses/ I've been trying to keep things somewhat sane, but 150 additions are a little unruly. All entries are due by May 27 at which point I'll attempt to do some editing work to collect all the edits into something cohesive. Jeff Hughes 00:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK. You might want to check out and/or list this at School and university projects.  CryptoDerk 00:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Page cleanup?
Someone appears to have defaced the page. Please clean it up, or revert it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.183.195 (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The pronunciation guide uses pew-jit but is the ew like the ew in new or like in few?Cameron Nedland 02:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Response - Sean Demerchant 18:50 4 June 2006 (PDT)

The pronunciation is like pew as in a pew in a a church. Hence pyü is likely more precise while pew is nonetheless accurate and precise.

The get part of Puget is typically pronounced more closely to jet than jit by locals and in general the e in Puget is nearly silent.

I'd like to know how "Whulge" was pronounced. whulj, or whul-jay, or what? Jerry Kindall 06:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest Portal
I don't know if there is one, but if not, there should be - and if there is, this should be added to it. The Northwest is a unique region unto itself, and Puget Sound is the US hub. FireWeed 18:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to discover that there is no WikiProject for Washington state, while WikiProject Oregon and WikiProject British Columbia are thriving. There's even an WikiProject EasternWA, but none for WA in general. Alas, starting up a wikiproject is too much work for little old me. Pfly 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone over there would help start this one up. --Lukobe 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

IPA for Lushootseed Words
For the sake of accuracy in pronunciation, it would look better to provide the IPA for the original Lushootseed for 'Puget Sound', or even for the Chinook Jargon equivalent if it differs from the English. "Whulge" looks a bit unprofessional... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekiclutch (talk • contribs) 04:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Map?
This article could do with a map that gives the reader a good idea of where on earth this place is, similar to the map images in the Iceland and Paris articles. 85.224.199.128 20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Delineation, Admiralty Inlet, etc
I just changed some claims about the northern boundary of Puget Sound and the status of Admiralty Inlet. The page had said: "Today Admiralty Inlet refers only to the strait between Whidbey Island and Point No Point on the Kitsap Peninsula. But on a modern nautical chart, Admiralty Inlet is a distinct body of water from the Puget Sound.  The northern border of the Puget Sound on the East is formed by Possession Sound, which separates Whidbey Island from Everett." ...this is incorrect, according to the USGS. Admiralty Inlet is part of Puget Sound, as is Possession Sound. The boundary of Puget Sound as defined by the USGS is a line from Point Wilson to Point Partridge on Whidbey Island, as well as Deception Pass and the Swinomish Channel. This is clear on the USGS GNIS pages and. Pfly (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Split article?
This page is confusingly about two quite different things, Puget Sound and the Puget Sound Region. The first is the waterbody, the second is the land, cities, people, etc, around it. The article jumps back and forth between the two topics in a confusing way. The intro is about the waterbody with the last sentence mentioning the Seattle metropolitan area. The sections jump back and forth -- "Name" is about the waterbody, "History" is about the region, "Geology" is about the waterbody, "Geography" is about the region, "Counties of the Puget Sound region", "Urban centers", "Satellite cities", and "Other principal cities" are about the region. The "Wildlife" section is about nothing except the geoduck. Finally the page ends with the "Washington" template, which lists and links "Puget Sound" as a "region", along with such regions as the Inland Empire. The article is confusing when it lists the "principal cities" of Puget Sound and most of them are not even on the sound. Then there are sentences like: "Since 1995, Puget Sound has been recognized as an American Viticultural Area." That sounds bizarre if you are thinking about Puget Sound as a body of water.

Both topics, the waterbody and the region, are significant enough to warrant their own page. Should we make a new page, called "Puget Sound region" or something similar, for the larger land-based geographic & demographic area, and devote this page, "Puget Sound", to the waterbody? I'll do the work of splitting, unless there are objections. Thoughts? Pfly (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The article begins with the waterway, but wanders far from it, and sometimes back... Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed liddlebigguy (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed &#8734;&#9788;Geaugagrrl (T) / (C) 16:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree: the topics do warrant their own articles. I'll see whether I can set aside the time to do it in the next few days. --  momoricks   talk  01:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I had the time to do it back in April when I wrote that. Now I don't. But when, sometime in the future, I have more time, I'll do the split unless there's serious opposition to the idea. It may be a while though. Pfly (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The consensus seems clear. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is possible I've been a bit too bold. I've initiated the split, creating the new article Puget Sound region.  But now it turns out I'm not really sure how to go about this. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the split. My suggestion is keep the Name and definition, History, Geology and Flora and Fauna sections in this article and move the info in the Geography, Prominent islands and U.S. Navy bases to Puget Sound region. --  momoricks   talk  09:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I Took some information out of each, but there will be some unavoidable overlap. Probably both articles will have a history section, but the waterway's history would be focused on the natural and human history of the maritime feature, while the the region's history will include some of that along with a major focus on the larger area.  Likewise with the islands.  It would be difficult to imagine a comprehensive article about the Puget Sound as a waterway without some discussion of the complicated geography of the gunkholes, bays, passages, islands, and peninsulas.  But the history of, say sawmills would mostly go into the history of the region.  You are welcome to dig in as you see fit, this is going to take some effort to improve both articles. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I will try to help out with improving the articles. I'm impressed, Michael. You know more about the area than me, and I live there! :) --  momoricks   talk  01:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just found out about this split...and while the other article does exist, most of its content, or what shoudl be its content, is still here.....what are the parameters for what should be in which article? See Talk:Puget Sound region, especially capitalizing the R in Region......similar issues apply re Strait of Georgia and other waterbody-regions to the north.Skookum1 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How Deep?
Does anyone know how deep Puget Sound is?? liddlebigguy (talk 17:56 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Average depth: 450 feet, Deepest point: 930 feet (from: ) --Goldman60 (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)