Talk:Green Bay (Lake Michigan)

Lakes Mid‑importance

	Lakes portal Green Bay (Lake Michigan) is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wisconsin High‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This is called a back-formation. They always sound this silly for a generation or two... Wetman 21:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was very skeptical that this was the "correct" name, but it's actually referred to in the article on the city. Check this Google search" [1]. Despite that, I think that article on the bay itself could just live at Green Bay. A good example is that of Dukes County, Massachusetts. The official name is County of Dukes County because of a mistake in the 1692 document establishing it, That's what appears on official documents, etc., but almost no one knows that, and it can be mentioned in the article, as opposed to the name, -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:03, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "Bay of Green Bay" is a now a standard colloquialism, and probably the one people use locally to distinguish it from the city. But "Green Bay" is how it appears on all the maps I can find. This is very analogous to the "Island of Rhode Island". In this case, the island cannot live at Rhode Island because this is the article for the state. Fortunately it has an alterate name, Aquidneck Island, allowing for unamabiguous reference. Nevertheless, it was the state that was named for the island, and not vice versa. -- Decumanus 22:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

With TOttenville8's news of Green Bay being a suburb of Auckland, New Zealand, Green Bay should probably be made into a disambig page, with Green Bay, Wisconsin, Bay of Green Bay, and "a suburb of Auckland, New Zealand" all mentioned. And FYI Decumanus, you're partially right. Locally, "Green Bay" always refers to the city, while the bay is usually just referred to as "the bay". --Fo0bar 08:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since nobody complained, I changed Green Bay to a disambig page mentioning what I said I would above. --Fo0bar 07:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposed name: Green Bay (water body)

The current title sounds ridiculous. The name of the thing is "Green Bay." Of course locals call it "the bay." Is there a bay anywhere that locals don't call "the bay"? the problem is compounded by the first sentence repeating the title, giving the impression that the name of this body of water is not, simply, Green Bay, which it is. I propose a move to "Green Bay (water body) or somesuch. The "Bay of Green Bay" sounds like a smaller bay inside of Green Bay. -- DavidH 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled on this page.. the name Bay of Green Bay does sound funny. I've never been to the area and know nothing about local conventions. As to "proper" names, like "County of Dukes County", in Washington State the counties have official names like that too, except without the final County: Pierce County is officially "County of Pierce". In any case, I suspect most everyone who has heard of Green Bay at all thinks of it as Green Bay and in Bay of Green Bay. There are undoubtedly many many Green Bays in the world; the way I like disambiguating rivers and water bodies where it makes sense is with the name of whatever it is attached to / flows into. In this case it would be "Green Bay (Lake Michigan)". Just a suggestion. Pfly 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments -- a google search on "Bay of Green Bay" turns up a lot of hits, it does seem to be widely used. But I'm skeptical about the idea that the bay was "officially" named after the city... source for that? This Green Bay government webpage, http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/geninfo/history_o.html, says the French named it "La Baia Verte", in addition to the name they got from Indians, "La Baie des Puants". George R. Stewart wrote in "Names on the Land", a reliable source for placename origins, that the French called it Baie Verte from earliest times and that the English simply translated the name. In other words, the city is named after the bay, not the other way around. Shall I edit the article to say so? Pfly 02:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it sounds nonsensical is because that's exactly what it is—nonsense, plain and simple. Wikipedia is now being turned into a vehicle for further disseminating this silliness, which is why I have solicited further comment here. Tom e r ^talk 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues here. If you can cite the source, by all means change the article from saying that the bay was named for the city. When Google hits show results for "bay of Green Bay," is "bay" capitalized? In other words, it that really its name, or is it just a way to say that they're not talking about the city? I would guess the latter. As such, it's not a wrong name for this article - it just doesn't follow proper naming convention (I would guess). You might try WP:LAKES or maybe WP:RIVERS for some help on naming. -Freekee 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, the body of water was known as Green Bay. The Dictionary of Wisconsin History calls it Green Bay (body of water), noting:

Green Bay was so called from the fact that voyagers, upon leaving Mackinaw in the early spring before the trees put forth their buds, found the borders of this Bay covered with the finest verdure and vegetation. It was called the Bay of Puans [q.v.], by the early French, and has also been called Menominee Bay.

Now, obviously today it has the designation Bay of Green Bay in some contexts. (A comparable situation is Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, a city, and Geneva Lake, the lake it abuts. Formerly both were known as "Lake Geneva" but as a kind of disambiguation the lake's official name was changed (you of course hear it both ways still).) The primary user of the term may be the NOAA and NWS (compare results for bay.of.green.bay -wikipedia and bay.of.green.bay -wikipedia -forecast). I did search the Geographic Names Information System at the USGS and found that the official name is just "Green Bay", with a long list of (mainly French) cognates, none of them "the Bay of Green Bay". (I hope this is a permalink.) It's also quite obviously just "Green Bay" on the official National Map (accessed through Terraserver). On the other hand, this 1984 article on the origins of the various names of the bay and the area clearly notes that the bay came first, so named as early as the 1760s, but the article itself is titled "Origins of the French and English Names for the Bay of Green Bay" with no explanation of the latter term. This [early map http://www.uwgb.edu/wisfrench/library/maps/jung/jungm2.jpg] is titled "Settlement at Green Bay" but shows only farming claims, the fort, and... the bay named Green Bay.

I think we've established, therefore, that "Bay of Green Bay" is a sufficiently official secondary usage. I don't think there's anything to substantiate the claim that "the bay was named for the city". If anything, the name arose to disambiguate the name of the body of water from that of the city. This could be further researched by e-mailing the appropriate UWGB or WHS departments, but I'm not sure there's a simple answer, although with geographical designations sometimes there is an actual determination by a committee at some point. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to renaming the article Green Bay (water body) since doing so flies in the face of all kinds of naming conventions on Wikipedia, but I think Green Bay (Wisconsin), Green Bay (Wisconsin and Michigan), Green Bay (Lake Michigan) and Green Bay (bay) are all much better choices than Bay of Green Bay, although significant mention of that usage is certainly warranted in the article, regardless of whatever name it ends up under. Categorically tho, I think Bay of Green Bay is a very bad name for the article, especially in light of the fact that no source yet brought forth supports calling the bay by that name... Tom e r ^talk 08:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case my "no source yet brought forth" statement be misinterpreted in light of the 1984 uwgb article's name, I think it should be pointed out that the capitalization there follows standard book/article-naming, which should not, without substantiation, be used as a validation for the naming as "Bay of Green Bay", simply as a disambiguation tool, as mentioned above. Tom e r ^talk 08:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In support of my above assertion, note that the article does not call it "Bay of Green Bay", but only "bay of Green Bay". It is clearly meant as a way to differentiate between the city and the bay, and no assertion is made that the name of the bay is "Bay of Green Bay". Tom e r ^talk 08:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Tomer, on all counts, though I must say that it is possible to keep the current name in the same sense of disambiguation that it was used in the historical sources. We'd just need to change the wording of the opening sentence. That having been said, I prefer either Green Bay (bay) or Green Bay (Lake Michigan). -Freekee 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case this requires a vote somewhere, instead of just going ahead and moving this to Green Bay (Lake Michigan), I'm going to list it at WP:RM. Please participate there. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 08:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move request discussion (2006)

Per the preceding discussion, input has been requested on the move requests page, that this article be moved to Green Bay (Lake Michigan). Please discuss the move here. Tom e r ^talk 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support (Obviously) per my above statements. Tom e r ^talk 08:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems like a reasonable and Wiki-consistent way to do it. --Serge 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. See comment below. Pfly 09:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom (objections below withdrawn). --Dhartung | Talk 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Other than brief statements (i.e., one to three sentences) regarding why you support or oppose this move, please add any additional comments here:

I don't like "Lake Michigan" as a disambiguator. The city is on the lake, as well. The point of the disambiguator here is to distinguish it from the city. I would prefer Green Bay (body of water), Green Bay (bay), and even Bay of Green Bay in that order over the proposed term. (You could say that it's growing on me.) It's not enough for the distinguishing term to be accurate, it should help the reader decide which article they want to look at. No vote yet. --Dhartung | Talk 10:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but I don't think (Lake Michigan) would be a logical disambiguator for the city, and, so, using it for the actual bay seems clear and reasonable. --Serge 22:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The (Lake Michigan) disambiguator is consistent with WP:RIVERS. I understand the kneejerk opposition to it, but I think the chances that someone is going to look for "Green Bay, Lake Michigan" when they're actually looking for the city is rather unlikely. If anything, using the scheme you've outlined, "Green Bay" should be the bay, and the city should be at Green Bay (city) or City of Green Bay. Disambiguating bodies of water by the waters to which they are tributary makes more sense to me than "disambiguating" bay as a "body of water" or worse, as a "bay". Tom e r ^talk 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, there are many other Green Bays in the world (as in the water body sense of the word "bay"); so "Green Bay (water body)" is not specific enough, I think. "Bay of Green Bay" even less so. I think the best way to ensure unique names for water features is either by adding the political units they are in ("Green Bay (Wisconsin)") or the water system they are tributary to ("Green Bay (Lake Michigan)"). Since "Green Bay (Wisconsin)" is easily confused with the city, I'd opt for the latter. It may be that other Greens Bays in the world are not as notable as Green Bay, Wisconsin, but you never know. For people like me, who tend to think of places in physical geographical terms rather than political ones, Green Bay means first the water body and only secondarily the city. When I think "Green Bay", I get an image in my mind of the shape of the bay of Green Bay. I've never been to the city and know very little about it, but the bay is quite distinctive looking on maps. As an outsider to the Green Bay region, I don't want to rock the boat, but perhaps the perspective of an outsider is worth something maybe. Nevertheless, at the risk of running over local practice, I'd support "Green Bay (Lake Michigan)", for whatever it is worth. Still, I don't mind "Bay of Green Bay", although it sounds a bit silly and apt to become something outsiders get a chuckle out of (ie, "don't Green Bayers realize they are being redundant again?", and such like. A similar odd local name for a waterbody is Chesapeake Bay, which apparently is locally called "The Chesapeake Bay", even though the "The" sounds superfluous and worthy of a chuckle.Pfly 09:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to pile too much on Dhartung, but the use of parentheses for geographical [as opposed to political] disambiguators in WP naming conventions is, by now, quite well-established. Thus, even if one were to use Green Bay (Wisconsin) as opposed to Green Bay, Wisconsin [the comma being the WP:WI-preferred, if not WP:MOS-preferred method of indicating geopolitical units] is quite logical, even if not well-understood by the casual reader. This confusion is already well-handled by the disambig page at Green Bay, however. Tom e r ^talk 09:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tom, well and fairly argued. I still don't like it but if there's consistency with a standard for bodies of water, then it's OK by me. --Dhartung | Talk 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further note, on the above, however, is the fact that Green Bay [the bay!] is not entirely w/in the territorial waters of Wisconsin, which is my primary opposition to its use, and why I mentioned previously that if that course is chosen, Green Bay (Michigan and Wisconsin) would be more appropriate. My obvious preference, however, remains Green Bay (Lake Michigan). Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I think "Green Bay", I get an image in my mind of the shape of a football helmet. ;-) -Freekee 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "it should help the reader decide which article..." If they don't already know which article they want to view, they will be at Green Bay, where the choices will be spelled out. -Freekee 02:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I agree wholeheartedly w/o sounding like a screaming meemee? Tom e r ^talk 08:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Nope. ;-D -Freekee 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposed names

Contemplating my most recent statements, I'm adding this section to this discussion in case anyone has serious proposals for other names for the article. If anyone has other proposals, please make them here in this section so that they're clearly visible as such, and not swallowed up in the melée of the commentary on the specific renaming proposal I've made. Tom e r ^talk 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lakes#Green_Bay_statistics_on_area_are_wrong. Seems to have been fixed in the meantime. -- 签名 _sig at 18:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location within the Upper Peninsula of Michigan

We appear to be dancing around about the location in the UP. I read a map to see it's in the south central, nothing to do with the west or southwest side of the state. Please explain your position. Royal broil 00:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics. I can live with simply "south". It is in the south west part of the UP in that when you are in Menominee or near by and go further west you are no longer in Michigan or further south you are in water. older ≠ wiser 00:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed it to simply "south" in August and you undid to "south west". I agree to your compromise. I love Menominee and I added some of the pictures used in that article! Royal broil 01:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In-article usage discussion (2011)

I completely disagree with the name that is used in this article. I have lived in the Green Bay television market for my entire life, it ALWAYS called "the Bay of Green Bay". Even when I have traveled to Door County, Wisconsin, the locals call it "the Bay of Green Bay" not Green Bay. WP:NAME says "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". Locals will not recognize it as Green Bay. Royalbroil 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Even" when you have traveled to Door County? Is that supposed to be an expedition to a faraway land? Of course in Door County they use "the Bay of Green Bay", Green Bay is a marginal body of water defined by the Door Peninsula. That you have lived in the GB TV market your whole life is the precise reason your opinion should carry so little weight in this discussion. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're responding to a 3.5 year old comment. I see you don't get my point. Royal broil 19:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a long time, but I've engaged in discussions with no comments for nearly two years, and gotten a response. Given that you have been actively editing this stuff, I thought you might read it and reply, and so you have.

And yes, if, after reading my comment, you feel that I don't get your point, you surely must be correct--I guess I don't. Could you try to explain it again? HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had commented that I thought another alternative name should have been used. Obviously I lost this one, yet somehow my life has kept going (sarcasm). I do have a comment about how you are editing articles about object in water systems that flow into this bay. The pipe trick that you're using for this Bay, which isn't well-known to nearly all readers (besides cartographers), is confusing. The city is the primary topic by a wide margin. When I read what you're doing to the articles which wikilink into here, I read (as a reader) that the river is flowing into the city of Green Bay. While that's true, that's not what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that it flows into Lake Michigan at one of its bays. I think that most readers are missing that point since they won't follow the wikilink. Green Bay (the city) is known around the U.S. as the home of the Green Bay Packers (Freekee made that comment too). In other words, context needs to be strongly established since there are other competing uses for the term. It is locally disambiguated by calling it the Bay of Green Bay. I'm not from the city and I recognize that it doesn't have to be disambiguated that way. You clearly oppose the term. As long as the articles clearly state that the term "Green Bay" refers to a Bay and not the city, then I'll be fine. I have been considering bringing up this concern on your talk page, so you tipped my hand. And it's happening at the proper forum. Royal broil 02:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern is clearly valid. Indeed, I've been proceeding cautiously, instead of changing them all at one fell swoop, specifically because of my mild discomfort with the ambiguity created. You're right, I don't favor the localism, but not because there's anything wrong with it, but simply because it is a localism, which I think should be discouraged on Wikipedia. Indeed, I actually don't think (unlike many others, apparently) that "Bay of Green Bay" is an awkward turn of phrase; my personal sentiment rather favors it, actually. But I believe Wikipedia policy discourages its use, so much so, that I actually think that the ambiguity that exists when it is not used is actually more acceptable that the localism.

By proceeding slowly, I've hoped that either a) while reading over the new text, I would be hit by some inspired way to eliminate the ambiguity, or b) that someone else would come along with an idea. You've shown me that at least someone is paying attention, but unfortunately it doesn't appear that, thus far, you are any more inspired than me. I remain open to ideas, and, for the time being, I shall not change any more of the articles using BoGB. (I do think that each article can probably be written individually to eliminate both the localism and the ambiguity, simply by more careful crafting of the sentences. But I'm hoping for a solution that can be generally substituted into all articles currently using BoGB.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why local usage might result in "Bay of Green Bay", but I must say when I first saw that phrase, here on Wikipedia (I'm not from the area nor have ever been), it seemed quite silly in its redundancy--as if the bay's bayness is so strong one needs to say "bay" twice. I imagined a world with a River of the Mississippi River, Canal of the Suez Canal, Ocean of the Pacific Ocean, and so on. Of course I did get why this usage would come about, but it still sounds, to my ears, quite funny. Anyway, just relating my experience. I personally don't care what name is used on Wikipedia, but thought worth pointing out how BoGB might sound a bit silly to outsiders, for whatever that is worth. Pfly (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand how it can sound odd (though I rather like it). But what matters is, according to Wikipedia policy, what is the name generally recognized in most [English language] sources. And yes, I'm willing to count MinneWisonsonian sources as "English" :-) HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(2 edit conflicts) I'm glad that I was able to successfully explain my viewpoint as it took lots of work to make it clear. Perhaps explaining using more words would help a lot. Another approach would be to eliminate the usage altogether. Using a similar scenario, I would rather read text saying that a river empties into Lake Superior instead of reading that it empties into the Keweenaw Bay. I made edits to the Fox River (Wisconsin) and I'd like your opinion. That's the most well-known river to empty into the bay. I assume that you (Pfly) understand the first "Bay" is added to differentiate it from the City of Green Bay and Town of Green Bay. The town versus city of Green Bay is not a mistake - rather a can of worms not worth opening up. Royal broil 05:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it is certainly more succinct than "Green Bay, um, the watery one that is". And I can't think of a reasonable alternative offhand. It still makes me giggle a little though. I'm not a football fan, rather more into things like obscure history, such as the early French explorers of the Great Lakes and upper Mississippi River watershed. I'm also a geographer/cartographer, more interested in natural landforms over human geography, all of which has made me more familiar with the bay of Green Bay than the city (and town, there's a town too? Egads), although I realize most people would likely think of the city first. Anyway, bay of Green Bay, alright! It's catchily catchy! ...er, wait...similar to the "the Chesapeake Bay" thing, shouldn't it be "bay of Green Bay" and not "Bay of Green Bay"? Pfly (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments for RB:

I have commented on your change at Fox River (Wisconsin) on the talk page for that article; to sum it up, I think your edits bring us much closer to a solution.
Per your comment here, if changing the hydrological references to Lake Michigan in all or even some cases is acceptable to a native of the region, then I think it almost goes without saying that to the rest of the world it would also be an acceptable solution.

Cheers, HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a thread at WikiProject Wisconsin, which is one of the most active state WikiProjects. Things are moving in the right direction and I think more input would help us get cleaner wording. What you have proposed at the Fox River article is okay but it could be improved. Royal broil 02:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One quick note: since the bay also borders the UP of Michigan, I added the WP-Michigan template, Michigan geo stub, and category relating to the category:Bays of Michigan to the article itself. Thanks-RFD (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure what y'all are arguing about here, but I'll throw a couple of pennies in... First of all, I don't think "Lake Michigan" as a disambiguator, is going anywhere. See Tomer's comments above, from Nov 2006, regarding consistency with river disamb. Second, regarding the sentence, The Lower Fox ends after flowing through the city of Green Bay and into Lake Michigan through a bay named Green Bay.... I think that's cumbersome. RoyalBroil, you are concerned with creating the impression that that the river flows into the city of Green Bay, rather than the bay itself, but I really don't think this is an issue. There is a certain amount of ambiguity that is cleared up by the fact that you're talking about a body of water that is flowing into another body of water. "The Lower Fox empties into Green Bay." The only people who would be confused by this are ones who have heard of the city, but not the bay, and who don't catch that the word "Bay" in "Green Bay" refers to a kind of body of water that rivers commonly flow into (note that you can always fall back on the destinations of the links, to cover those rare cases where readers just don't get it). Now if the Fox emptied into the city, for some reason, you would have to be clear about it, like saying "The Lower Fox empties into the city of Green Bay." Oh, one other thing... do people really call it "the bay of Green Bay"? -Freekee (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's cumbersome. That's why I'm asking how it could be make more concise without being so cumbersome. In the Fox River article, which is well know for passing through the city of Green Bay, says it flows into Green Bay - then we have a problem. Which Green Bay? I read it as the city. I know that I lost the battle for having the article about the bay named Green Bay (Lake Michigan) instead of Bay of Green Bay. You asked if people call it the Bay of Green Bay. If you would watch Green Bay television or read area newspapers, you would see that it is almost always called the Bay of Green Bay. Here's some reliable sources: University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, National Weather Service, WFRV TV 5 in Green Bay (initials stand for Wisconsin's Fox River Valley). Royal broil 04:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence is cumbersome, not only because of the need for disambiguation, but that there's a lot of information that needs to be conveyed. The river ends in the bay, and also in the city, and then we tack on a note that the bay is connected to Lake Michigan. Do we need all of that info? How about, "The Lower Fox flows into Green Bay at the city of Green Bay"? -Freekee (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Freekee's point is a valid one; namely, that this isn't really a problem. If we say that the Fox empties into Green Bay, no one with an IQ above 70 is going to think that the river is filling up the downtown area of a city, it will be assumed by most everyone that this refers to a body of water, not a city. Accordingly, it's not necessary to do any disambiguatory contortions. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to prove (to me, anyway) that local usage is to refer to the body of water as "the Bay of Green Bay". I've never questioned that, and don't recall anyone else questioning it either. I merely object to allowing local usage dictate our usage on the most widely read encyclopedia on the planet. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the harm in doing a little explanation when it's not clear to everyone by the context? If I'm taking the content to mean something different that its intention, then that means it needs work since others are probably taking it that same wrong way. I wouldn't be arguing the point otherwise since I have better things to do with my life. I don't understand how you can't be seeing that the city is far more well known than the bay. What percentage of Americans know that there's a bay with this name compared to the city with its well known football team in the Super Bowl? Rivers often do flow through cities as many cities developed around water (no one said anything about the downtown filling up with water). I hope that you're not saying that my IQ is less than 70. Royal broil 05:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not questioning your IQ at all. The problem may be (I repeat, may be) your closeness to the subject keeps you from seeing what is clear to those of us not from the area. Do I agree that the city of Green Bay is better known (at least in the US) than the body of water? Absolutely. Yet, despite that fact, there are others here who do not sense the need to disambiguate, because the context makes it clear that the Fox is flowing into a body of water. I was not saying that anyone said anything about downtown filling up with water, I was saying that, absent such a strange statement, the fact that a river is flowing into a Bay and not a city is manifestly clear, except perhaps, to denizens of the area, such as yourself. Rivers flow through towns, not "into" them (unless a levee is topped or breaks, of course!). HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, I looked for other places with similar name issues. I thought Tampa Bay would be one, but didn't realize the city is just Tampa. Didn't find anything with Green Bay's particular traits in this regard (famous city, not very famous bay). There's Key West, the island, and Key West, Florida, the city, but the island itself is rather famous, so. There's Thunder Bay, the city, and Thunder Bay (Ontario landform), the bay. Those two might be fairly close to the Green Bay city and bay type of conundrum (very awkward solution though!). Seeing Thunder Bay, the bay, working without disambiguation, I assumed there were other pages about bays named Green Bay, thus a need to disambiguate. But Green Bay, the disambig page, shows only one other bay of that name listed, and it is a redlink. So a possible solution would be to use Green Bay for the bay and Green Bay, Wisconsin for the city. Naturally people looking for the city will end up at the bay's page, but a hatnote at the top can point them the right way. I can guess the arguments against this idea; I like the simplicity though. Just a thought. Pfly (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, Pfly. Looking at both Kaministiquia River and Current River, it appears that they have adopted the same approach as Royalbroil used here. I would be comfortable with making this the general approach for Green Bay articles, as well. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green Bay (Lake Michigan). 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/20080509143029/http://www.foxriverwatch.com/statistics_green_bay.html to http://www.foxriverwatch.com/statistics_green_bay.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add a geology section

There is only minimal discussion of the geology. Things to answer in that section would include how the bay was created. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]