Talk:Discovery Bay, Washington

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why does this page use the term "foot" to denote the area furthest from the mouth? Isn't "head" the correct term? Merriam Webster Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, see 'heads of bays and inlets' Clyde McQueen (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foot vs head?