Talk:Green Bay (Lake Michigan)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Green Bay (Lake Michigan) is part of WikiProject Lakes, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve lake-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is part of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

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)

Contents 1 Proposed name: Green Bay (water body) 2 Move request discussion 2.1 Survey 2.2 Discussion 2.3 Other proposed names

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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. Tomer^talk 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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... Tomer^talk 08:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Tomer^talk 08:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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". Tomer^talk 08:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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, Tomer^talk 08:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move request discussion

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. Tomer^talk 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

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

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• Support per nom (objections below withdrawn).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

[edit] 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)

  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)

  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". Tomer^talk 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  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)

  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. Tomer^talk 09:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  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)

  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, Tomer^talk 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  Can I agree wholeheartedly w/o sounding like a screaming meemee? Tomer^talk 08:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  Hmmm... Nope. ;-D -Freekee 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Tomer^talk 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)