Talk:Patuxent River

message: Should add information about the Naval Air Station located there.  Has been the home of many Naval test pilots.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 00:49, 23 April 2005  (talk • contribs) Pcdolinger 
Done as /*See also*/ Toddstreat1 00:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Naval Air Station Patuxent River]]

message: Can anybody confirm that the Patuxent River is the deepest river in the world? Pauldarbyiii 13:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the deepest in the world. The Yangtze River may be over 450 feet deep. At the Patuxent's mouth, where the bridge crosses at Solomons Island, 126 feet is one of (the?) deepest spots in the Chesapeake Bay. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And it wouldn't count as deepest river anyway.  River depth records are for actual rivers by geomorphological definition, not tidal estuaries like the Solomons area.DLinth 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deepest River 

message: By the way, Stbalbach, not that I really care much, but I noticed that twice you were motivated to make a single change of that one paragraph about the economic development brought by rec. boating and by the Naval Station out of history and into "environment", which seems out of place to me.  How about we leave it under history?...it provides a much more relevant "modern history" details than just leaving the current history with the building of the reservoirs (half a century or so ago.) DLinth 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm the sentence seems intentionally ambiguous (I didn't write it) but it appears the "impact" that "boating and recreation" has on the "natural settings" is an "environmental concern" - no? Given the context of its placement under the environmental concern section, this seems to make the most sense - more than just history. -- Stbalbach 19:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I did write it, partly due to the suggestion at the top (above.)  The economic impacts of Pax. R. NAS and of rec. boating are a large, increasing part (some would say most important part) of the river's recent history, and talking about their economic impact does not belong under "environment."  Having said that, it could be noted that probably more has been written and discussed over the past 30 years about the Patuxent's environment than any other aspect of the river, so I think it would be fine if you wanted to research and add under "environment" more on that topic, including even perhaps the impact of rec. boating and certainly Pax. R. NAS (!) on the environment of the river.  Might be a good addition.  DLinth 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental concern

message: I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to explain.  (So there's nothing "obvious" about it.)
:Including boating on the main river and the reservoirs, the impact that recreation in natural settings now has on the river's economy is obvious.
If no one rewrites and cites it, it should probably be deleted.
Actually, that entire last paragraph would benefit from a rewrite.  Perhaps one sentence discussing the air station, another boating and tourism.
- Zulu Kane (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy and commerce 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Patuxent River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110403122704/http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/dep/downloads/PatuxentProfile.pdf to http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/dep/downloads/PatuxentProfile.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified