[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Cape Cod

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just how big is Cape Cod?

[edit]

The article says that the area of Cape Cod is 1,033 km². But the article on Barnstable County, Massachusetts says that its land area is 1,024 km². How can this be, when all of Cape Cod is part of Barnstable County? Where did those extra 9 km² come from? --AJD 23:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Duh. Cape Cod is not an island. A canal does not make the cape an island, and if someone so arbitrary could make that so by simple declaration, then I suppose the "bridges" to cape cod over the canal again "knit" the cape back on to the mainland. Silly argument. Cut a 1000 yard wide channel and remove the bridges, and no matter how shallow, I'd accept your POV. Otherwise, accept that your cape is a wonderful natural peninsular shoreline. Most likely this phrase was written by someone with misguided Vinyard envy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.5 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So by that logic when they built the Confederation Bridge to Prince Edward Island did PEI cease to be and Island. Face it most of cape cod is an Island (a land mass surrounded on all sides by water)Seanm9 23:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cape Cod (geographical designation) and Barnstable County (administrative/political designation) cover the same land. Explicitly, all of mainland Massachusetts land separated by the canal, plus the part of Bourne on the other side of the canal, as well as some small nearby islands (not Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket, but anything connected by causeway, perhaps Monomoy Islands and other recently-adjacent land, etc.). I can't find anything that explains the 9 km² difference. Otis/Edwards is definitely part of Barnstable County, the National Seashore and the Elizabeth Islands are too large to account for the difference. Similarly, the recognized Mashpee Wampanoag land is too small (less than 100 acres). Can anyone identify land that is part of Cape Cod, but not Barnstable County? The difference could just be lower or higher tide; measurements are typically mean tide, but large errors are still possible. Also, Cape Cod is eroding at a fast rate, but I don't think it's that fast. I'm inclined to standardize on 1,024 km², as that's the 2000 census figure, which can be easily cited. Any objections? If not, I'll make the changes.
--Gruepig 16:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cape Cod is considered by many to be a "man made island", but above and beyond all else, is simply a "cape" (not big enough to be a "peninsula" like Florida). Whatever definition seems to work, and this is coming from a native (born and raised there, lived there for most of my 31 years). -wikicali00 — Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The 9 sq km difference is trivial and easily explained by the dynamic shoreline. Major storms usually in the winter re-arrange the geography continuously. Islands and barriers beaches are split or joined. Large areas of mud flats are exposed or covered. Fresh water ponds become saline and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skifree47 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all- Not a terribly important point, but you may want to take a look at the definitions of peninsulaand cape. -Eric (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is another problem here with the size of the Cape that is a small problem with the article. Cape Cod is not necessarily synonymous or "coextensive" with Barnstable County. Two of the county's towns (Bourne and Sandwich) both include larger bits of land than nine square kilometers that are on the mainland side of the canal. Does the Cape really end at those two towns' mainland boundaries? Living in Eastham, I don't think so. As soon as I cross the bridge, I am off Cape. It doesn't matter that I'm still in Barnstable County for a minute. There are plenty of businesses in Plymouth and Wareham that call themselves Cape Cod, too. But out here we believe that the Canal defines the boundary of the Cape. This should make Cape Cod's total area less (not more) than the total area of Barnstable County.Peter 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you look @ the Satellite Images you can see that the cape does not in fact start @ the bridges. never did even before the canal was dug. the canal follows 2 rivers one from cape cod bay the other to buzzards bay. they connected to to rivers and widened rivers to make the canal. being in Falmouth I do feel like I am "off cape" when I go over the bridge, but the land in Wareham and Plymouth that is on cape cod is much larger than 9 sq km (3km by 3km). I will add the land areas of all towns listed here on wiki to see what that add up to see if any irregularities arise.
Provincetown = 25.0 km2
Truro = 54.5 km2
Wellfleet = 51.4 km2
Eastham = 36.2 km2
Outer Cape Total = 167.1 km2

Orleans = 36.7 km2
Chatham = 42.0 km2
Brewster = 59.5 km2
Harwich =54.5 km2
Lower Cape Total = 192.7 km2

Dennis = 53.4 km2
Yarmouth = 62.8 km2
Barnstable = 155.5 km2
Mid Cape Total = 271.7 km2

Mashpee = 60.8 km2
Falmouth = 114.6 km2
Sandwich = 111.5 km2
Bourne = 106.0 km2
Upper Cape Total = 392.9 km2

Cape Total = 1024.4 km2
This is Land area and does not include landlocked lakes and ponds which could add to the difference while also excluding most bays and harbors Seanm9 23:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of Bourne, not just the southern 3/4, has always been part of Cape Cod, well before the canal was created, although some locals, I guess, wrongly believe it starts after you cross the canal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.221.32.10 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P-town

[edit]

One cannot deny P-town's gay and lesbian tourist attractions in addition to the whale watching that takes place. I added a blurb covering that. Colby Peterson 16:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whale-watching is a major subsection of the Cape's tourism sector (see the already listed CoC links. The gay tourism is important, but not to the whole Cape (to that end, it is no more important than any other demographic tourism). It should be listed on Provincetown's article because of its special relevance there. FEastman 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Question

[edit]

Why are there two very similar sattelite images of Cape Cod on the page? To the untutored eye, at least, there doesn't seem to be any significant difference between them to justify them both. Just wondering if someone could explain it to me. Billy Shears 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why 2 photos are there but one is an astronaut photo (Spring 1997) and the other is a MISR satellite image from April 13, 2000. One way to tell them apart is cloud locations in one but not the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skifree47 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

External linking wars in this article, particularly among those promoting particular Cape Cod travel and information portals and personal sites, are growing extremely tiresome. There are so many such sites (e.g. capecod.com, capecodtravel.com, ecape.com, capecodtoday.com, capelinks.com etc. etc. etc.) that linking to any particular one is prohibitive.

From the guidelines on Wikipedia:External links:

Occasionally acceptable links [...] Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included. (emphasis added)

The regional Chamber site is the least volatile/advertising-sensitive of these options, and adequate in providing the directory feature. If there is consensus that the Chamber site itself is too controversial or divisive, that too could be eliminated. It is not Wikipedia's role to provide commercial links, even if they are under the guise of "directory assistance." This article should be about the Cape itself, not which advertiser has been here most recently.

CapeCodEph 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CapeCodToday site is an open directory and provides the most extensive info on Cape Cod. The CapeCodTravel site is the local leading tourism guide (print & web) and should also stay (it actually predates the chamber site). They are added for the benefit of WikiPedia visitors seeking relevant info; the "advertising" benefits are marginal as there are never more than a few referals a month from this source. Please leave them on the page. Thank You.BooRadley 16:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true these two sites may be open directories, as previously stated it is impossible to qualify any particlar directory as "the most extensive" or "the leading" source considering how many there are. Contributors from numerous other sites with similar listings would disagree, and choosing one because of contributor persistence, circulation numbers, smallest advertising revenues, or longevity opens a huge can of worms. Furthermore, these sites do not contribute directly to the content of the article, and so are not suitable as references either. I move to have all directory sites removed--Chamber included--if it's going to cause problems. OTHER COMMENTS WELCOME CapeCodEph 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depite this request for comments, the links are back, and I fear this is going to turn into an editing war, with links being removed on a daily basis without much discussion to support (or deny) the edits. There is also a dearth of interest in the discussion, so I'm going to solicit other editors' opinions for policy input. CapeCodEph 05:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a drag that people keep putting commercial site links in this article--and it seem to be done by anonymous editors usually. I agree that it should stop. -Eric (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why were History and Geography removed?

[edit]

The two sections "History" and "Geography" seem to have been lopped off earlier today by a user with only an IP address. SInce there is no explanation, and these are valid sections, I reinstated the immediately previous edit. Perhaps this was a mistake, but it was done in two edits, so I don't know. Tvoz 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod image

[edit]

Why is Mashpee, Massachusetts highlighted in the image of Cape Cod at the top of the article? FEastman 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod’s Borders Based In Fact and Not Supposition

[edit]

As long as there has been a Cape Cod Cannel, there has been a debate over what is Cape Cod and what is not. By definition, a man-made structure can not determine or redefine the physical characteristics of a cape of any kind. One needs to apply a more educated analysis of the facts instead of utilizing personal opinion, arbitrary colloquialisms and the like to truly define where Cape Cod’s boarders lie.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a “Cape” is defined as a, “headland or promontory” (ORIGIN Old French cap, from Latin caput ‘head’). A cape is not to be confused with the word “Peninsula” which is defined as, “a long, narrow piece of land projecting out into a sea or lake”. Hence, a cape may include a peninsula, as “Cape” Cod does, but a peninsula is not a qualifier nor a requisite for a piece of land to be defined a cape.

In the case of Cape Cod, we not only have a distinctive headland that starts well west of the man-made Cape Cod Canal, we have the assistance of geology to define its location. Cape Cod is mainly composed of a sand base as a result of glacial formation (see Geology section for more detail). The geological differences between Cape Cod and other Southeastern Massachusetts communities are stark. Vegetation is a testament to this difference. Pitch Pine, Oak and other species of flora and fauna thrive on the Cape’s sandy promontory and differ greatly from the mainland’s plant life.

As a result of these facts, no encyclopedic definition or discussion of Cape Cod can be complete without including all of the Cape Cod headland and not simply the portion that is encapsulated by a convenient, man-made demarcation line. It is beyond dispute that the towns of Plymouth and Wareham are factually part of Cape Cod. Therefore, all discussion on Cape Cod as a whole in Wikipedia must include mention of these towns. To remove them from the definition and explanation of what and where Cape Cod is, as if they were some foreign world with no attachment, is baseless and clearly founded in unsupported opinion and conjecture.

It is therefore recommended that any edits to this article that fail to recognize all of Cape Cod by including the geographic region from Provincetown to Plymouth and Chatham to Wareham, be immediately struck and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftshore (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if you wanted to make such a major change in the article, it would have been better to come here to talk first, not to just post your stuff - which had numerous grammatical and other errors, by the way - with a warning that no one should edit you. You have no consensus to make your change - and the change is major to a long-standing stable article, so consensus would have been a nice thing to reach for, when you saw that I reverted you a day or two ago. That said, you have some of your facts askew. Plymouth and Wareham were not at all missing from the article. The geologic connection was clearly stated, the history was clearly rendered. But the fact of the matter is that today, "Cape Cod" does not include its geologic past, at least no sources that I've seen do so. Nor did you bother to bring any sources - all you did was write up your vision of what Cape Cod is and post it. "Cape Cod" is now an entity that is defined by the canal, whether or not you like that. The common understanding of the term is "everything on the far side of the bridges". I do not think we should ignore the history at all - and in fact I'd have no problem with that section and/or the geologic section to be expanded if you would like to do that, to bring in sources and citations about how the Cape uswed to be. But at present, until they rename it "Cod Island", "Cape Cod" means something other than what you are saying it means. Yes, the name is no longer correct, but so be it - these things happen. If you want to write a separate article that refers only to the geologic formation of Cape Cod, please do - I don't know if it will survuve as a separate article, but I certainly wouldn't object to it in principle. But distorting this article isn't the way to go. Again, by all means this article should, and did, acknowledge the geologic connection, and that before the canal things were different. But now, the canal exists - for almost a hundred years - and so the reality is that the incorrectly named "Cape Cod" is what most people think it is. I'm reverting your changes to the wording we had for quite a while, and correcting any errors that were introduced, and would be interested to hear if there are other editors with opinions on this. If you get consensus for a change, I'll respect that. But now, it's just you. (I haven't read the other edits that others made yet, but will do so.) Tvoz |talk 22:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I did come in hard didn’t I? Nevertheless, I must strongly differ. Fact does not require consensus. Cape Cod, by definition does include Plymouth and Wareham. A consensus of the populous does not change that fact. The instillation of a man-made waterway does not change that fact.
While admittedly, the changes to this long held myth that Cape Cod begins at a canal were rather extensive, they are, nevertheless, correct. In an effort to make Wikipedia a medium of fact and not opinion, as the ground rules dictate, I really don’t have any choice but to make changes to any incorrect information, with or without a consensus. Truth demands it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftshore (talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, at this point it would be called original research on Wikipedia (see WP:OR) because you provide no sources, no citations, no independent analysis that backs up your edits - just your own viewpoint, which has been called into question by several editors today. I appreciate your apology, but then you turn around and revert to your text again, disregarding the request to discuss. You might want to get more familiar with how Wikipedia works in general. For example: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Please read WP:V. Also, while you're at it, try WP:3RR which you are already in violation of. We are a community of editors who try to work together in creating an encyclopedia - edit warring is not the way we do it; when an editor makes a major change to a standing article that other editors object to, we go back to the original and that editor comes here to the talk page and presents a case, and there is a discussion, and one hopes some kind of consensus is reached. I work on many articles that are about far more contentious subjects than this one - I come to this one to relax! - and even so, there is a tacit understanding among editors that the way to go is to discuss, not bully our edits in. Continual reverting will lead to being blocked - but that is avoidable. There is no emergency here - Cape Cod is not going to implode because we continue to refer to it the way we have been doing. Let's talk about this and see what others think, and then see where we are. (And as a procedural matter, could you please sign your posts on talk pages - just insert 4 tildes like this:~~~~ at the end of your post and it will be signed and date stamped. Makes it easier for other editors to follow. Thanks.) Tvoz |talk 01:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine. We can continue to discuss the topic. The stated purpose of this article is to articulate “the geographic landform” of Cape Cod. It is not about historical modifications to the geographic landform such as the addition of canals, highways and so forth. It is not about personal opinions or popular notions on where one would wish Cape Cod was.
Likewise, it is not the discussion and editing of a biography or historical event that may be left to some interpretation and therefore requires more citation and verification. This is about a geographic land form, plain and simple. There are very clear distinctions between an ocean and a lake, a mountain and a hill a continent and an island and the definition of a cape is very black and white as well.
In the initial discussion, “Cape Cod’s Boarders Based In Fact and Not Supposition” I laid out the exact reasons as to why Cape Cod does not start at the canal and is more than a peninsula. The discussion articulates clearly how a geographic cape is to be determined and what tests we use to establish that fact. It is completely free from opinion and relies strictly on reason which substantiates all and any corrections that have been made to the article.
On the other had, so far each rebuttal and repeated revert by those editors that claim the geographic landform is something other than what it is, are devoid of any substantiation outside of their opinion (and maybe that of others). Instead of clear, factual reason why the Oxford English Dictionary should change its definition of what a “Cape” is, so as to accommodate their quaint but incorrect viewpoints, they carry on about Wikipedia protocol (which they violate) and suggest that consensus, long-standing stability of an article and today’s notion are reasons not to make corrections. So far, not one of the editors that have engaged in constant reverting has given one lucid fact or reason for doing so.
It is a sad statement if simple observation of what fits into the correct definition of a cape represents original research as one editor has suggested. However, unless there is an editor that can intelligently debate the facts set forth in the initial discussion, “Cape Cod’s Boarders Based In Fact and Not Supposition”, there is no reason not to change this article to reflect the truth of this geographic landform.Leftshore 12:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the article, Leftshore, is not "to articulate the geographic landform of Cape Cod". It is to provide facts about Cape Cod, whatever that is. What Cape Cod is is determined by what the people who use the name "Cape Cod" mean by it, regardless of "how a geographic cape is to be determined". In the usage of people who use the term "Cape Cod", to say that Plymouth and Wareham are part of Cape Cod is simply a lie. To put it in your terms, despite the name, Cape Cod is not a geographic cape; it's a peninsula. Likewise, the article on Lake Huron doesn't assume that Lake Michigan is part of Lake Huron, even though, according to "how a geographic [lake] is to be determined", it is part of the same lake. It's simply not part of the region that real people call "Lake Huron". The article does comment briefly on the fact that Michigan and Huron are hydrologically the same lake, but that simply doesn't affect what body of water the name "Lake Huron" refers to. It's the same with Cape Cod—Wareham is simply outside the region that has the name Cape Cod. AJD 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for starters, the first line on the article reads, “This article is about the geographic landform. For other uses, see Cape Cod (disambiguation)” and not “This article is about where many people 'feel' Cape Cod is”. So yes, for the record, this article is all about geographic landform and issues that relate to it.

Secondly, the idea that the name “Cape Cod” is a misnomer and had people really known what they were doing when they named it, they would have been called “Peninsula Cod” is absurd. To say “What Cape Cod is is determined by what the people who use the name "Cape Cod" mean by it” is like saying that because a consensus of people feel 2+2 is 8, it’s now right.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a private web blog. While it is open to all to edit, it is not immune from the truth. Otherwise, it has no value as a resource. It should be the goal of every editor to seek the actual truth as dictated by fact, even when they would much rather cling to the warm fuzzy ideas of their past understandings.

I am using the Oxford English Dictionary and God’s geography to determine the location of Cape Cod. Unfortunately, your argument is still based in opinion and conjecture and denies the simple facts. Leftshore 15:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I have changed the disambiguation line because it was misleading to say this article is about the geologic landform when in fact the article is about the area of Massachusetts known as Cape Cod - its history, geography, tourism, climate, sports, transportation, etc, etc. The disambiguation page shows these other uses for "Cape Cod":
  1. Cape Cod (house), an architectural style.
  2. Cape Cod (essay), an "excursion essay" written by Henry David Thoreau.
  3. Cape Codder (drink), a cocktail made with cranberry juice and vodka.
  4. Cape Cod Potato Chips, a brand of potato chips.
Clearly, this article is about Cape Cod the place, primarily as it is today, and the disambiguation line here was not reflective of the content of the article as the majority of edits rendered it.
(b)I have already explained to you about the distinction between "truth" and "verifiability" - it's an important distinction on Wikipedia, and you don't seem to get it. No one is arguing with you about the definition of the word "cape". No one is arguing whether or not it is true that geologically speaking, at one time Cape Cod was attached to the mainland and parts of what is now mainland were thought of as being a part of Cape Cod. But this article is quite clearly not just a history or geology of Cape Cod - read the article - it is not even primarily that. It is about Cape Cod as it is colloquially known. And that is everything on the other side of the bridges. It is misleading to our readers to pretend that "Cape Cod" includes Plymouth and Wareham. It does not, today, and has not in many, many years. We clearly identify the historic connection, but it's not what this article is about.
(c)With all due respect to both, neither the OED nor God have any relevance here. If this was actually an ongoing controversy in the real world, outside of your personal opinion and those of any other individuals who live in Wareham or Plymouth, then I would expect that there would be a wealth of citations available that discussed and debated this. Or there would be reliable sources that followed your thinking and insisted on considering those off-Cape towns as being on-Cape. Maps. Articles. Guidebooks. Scholarly articles. Books. Reliable sources. But you bring none of that to the table - you invoke your own opinion, and while I respect that you have that opinion, it remains just that. Your opinion. Original Research. Not allowed here. Please try to understand what we are telling you. Tvoz |talk 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there’s nothing like a good debate is there? I think I’ve discovered the challenge we are all facing here and it is grounded in science – Geography to be exact. On one side we are discussing Physical geography which focuses on geography as an earth science. It aims to understand the physical features of the Earth, its lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, pedosphere and global flora and fauna patterns (biosphere). It is provable by fact and is not influenced my opinion.
On the other hand we have Human geography and that is a branch of geography that focuses on the study of patterns and processes that shape human interaction with various environments. It encompasses human, political, cultural, social, and economic aspects. While the major focus of human geography is not the physical landscape of the Earth (see physical geography), it is hardly possible to discuss human geography without referring to the physical landscape on which human activities are being played out, and environmental geography is emerging as a link between the two.
The reality is that, in light of these two spheres of Geography, both sides of this debate are correct and the reason we are failing to come to any common ground on the subject is because we are stuck on the geographical issues described above. Tvoz, I like your new header which reads, “This article is about the area of Massachusetts known as ‘Cape Cod’.” However, I’m going to propose we go a step beyond that. I am going to suggest that we have two articles on Cape Cod – one on Cape Cod’s Physical geography and one on Human geography. To do so would accurately describe both views and resolve this deliberation. It would also allow the user of Wikipedia to get a fuller understanding of the area we are all so clearly in love with – Cape Cod. What say ye?Leftshore 12:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the physical geography of Cape Cod is adequately covered in this article. AJD 13:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that but, if it were "adequately covered", I'm not sure we'd be having this discussionLeftshore 13:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ajd - I think it's covered adequately here too - but if you want to write an article about the historic physical geography of Cape Cod, go ahead. Expect it to be edited just like any article is, and I can't say if it will stand as a separate article or if editors down the road will decide it isn't enough to stand alone from this article, but that will depend on what you and anyone else write there. Really - go ahead and do it. But to be clear: don't change this one - I believe that this article needs to have everything it now has, including the geography section it has, as a part of what anyone would look for when they want a one-stop article about what is commonly understood to be "Cape Cod". So I won't agree to change the title of this article or remove anything from it - but I don't have a problem with adding a "see also" to our geography section that points to a longer disquisition of the historic connection between what is now known as on Cape and off Cape. I recommend that you have citations and make it something more than a copy of this section with your slant on it - but if indeed there is such a wealth of information to be shared about it, please go ahead and do a separate article. Ok? Tvoz |talk 14:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the geography currently offered in this article covers Human geography quite nicely, but based on all of the facts (not opinion) that I have set forth above, it fails miserably from the stand point of Physical geography. The only change I am proposing now is to have this article title note “This article is about the Human geography of Cape Cod. For other uses, see Cape Cod (disambiguation)” and a new article with the title note, “This article is about the Physical geography of Cape Cod. For other uses, see Cape Cod (disambiguation).”

The beauty of using the proper geographic terms is that we have a standardized test as to what is geographic fact and what has become commonly accepted. That would give us an outside compass on what information goes into each article and alleviate much of the debate on where Cape Cod actually is. Leftshore 17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about the human geography of Cape Cod. It's about Cape Cod in general. This article addresses the physical geography of Cape Cod as well. AJD 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is based in opinion not fact. Please try to read the entire discussion before injecting your personal views. Leftshore 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Ajd is correct again -I'm afraid you are the one inserting opinion here. "Human geography" is quite far from a common term and to use it as a disambiguation explanation of this page is wrong. Those are used to clarify, not obfuscate. Really, this conversation has reached its limit - for me anyway - please leave the Cape Cod article the way it is, titled as such, disambiguated as it is, with all of the sections it currently has, with the common sense understanding of what Cape Cod is, intact. If you want to write one that goes into more depth about the physical geography of Cape Cod, and its historic connection, and anything else, please do. When it's up, we'll link to it if that will give our readers additional information than what they get here. But please stop trying to turn this article - which is clearly understood by everyone else to be just what it is - into something else. Good luck with your project, but please stop. Tvoz |talk 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who lives on the Cape, I might offer my own opinion -- the Cape is, de facto, Barnstable County, including the 1/3 of the town of Bourne (and a small chunk of Sandwich) on the north side of the canal and possibly, depending on who you talk to, part of Wareham. While a large chunk of Plymouth might be "part of the Cape" geologically and in terms of local biology, Plymouth has a very distinct identity from Cape Cod, so much so that even people from Massachusetts might be surprised to learn that the Cape was originally part of the Plymouth colony. You certainly don't get too many people who live on this side of the canal claiming that Wareham and Plymouth are part of the Cape, and in fact a trip up route 3 indicates that the scrub pine forest characteristic of Cape life tends to peter out well before the Plymouth Center exits. Haikupoet 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's how I understand it as well, and I think the article is true to that understanding. Tvoz |talk 08:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good thoughts Haikupoet. Thanks! Leftshore 10:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod is an island according to the Cape Cod Commission:
As submitted in a report "Susceptibility to Natural Disaster: Cape Cod encompasses 412.42 square miles (approximately 236,930 acres) and is surrounded by the waters of the Cape Cod Canal, Cape Cod Bay, Atlantic Ocean, Nantucket Sound, and Vineyard Sound. Effectively, Cape Cod is an island connected to the mainland only by two four-lane bridges and a seldom used train bridge."
via http://www.capecodcommission.org/

Is there reason to omit this data in favor of this current sentence in the article?: "It is still identified as a peninsula by geographers, who do not change landform designations based on man-made canal construction."

--Extrabatteries (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouses

[edit]

As a large part of the history of the Cape and a vital part of the history of our country lighthouses are very important. I think that the lighthouses of Cape Cod deserve mentioning. Could someone please add brief history's as well as some pictures (cannot get any without breaking copyrights) for some of the lighthouses of Cape Cod.

Also I believe that the light savers, and some famous shipwrecks of Cape Cod as a large part of its history should be a larger part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.132.135 (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainfall

[edit]

The reason provided to explain why the Cape gets less rainfall than the rest of Massachusetts is 100% wrong. The correct reason is that air-mass thunderstorms are not common over the peninsula in the summer due to maritime air disturbing their organization. And yes, I am a meteorologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gligg (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map request

[edit]

Rather than simply verbally describing the interior features and towns, it would be useful to have a map showing them. -- Beland 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Grollτech (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gut gemacht, Grolltech! Eric talk 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm ashamed to admit that even with a first name like Dieter, I had to use Google Translate on that one... *sigh*
It was fun figuring out how to create {{Location map Cape Cod}}, and then to build upon that to make {{Cape Cod Lighthouses}} and {{Cape Cod overlay map}}. Grollτech (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, man! Now I'm inspired to learn how to overlay a given town like that in the location map. I do GIS for a living, but have done very little map stuff on WP. More vocab for you: ausgezeichnet! (Excellent dictionary here). --Eric talk 21:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hurray, thanks! -- Beland (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

Should this article be merged with Barnstable County, Massachusetts? Pretty much everything you could say about the one, you could say about the other, and yet the two articles are very different. -- Beland 18:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not support a merge: Barnstable County, Massachusetts is an article about a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. Cape Cod is geographic, political, historic, cultural - there is a difference, and I think the encyclopedia can comfortably support both articles, cross-referenced to one another. Tvoz |talk 18:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of a section on sport fishing with links to encyclopedia article from The Fishing Encyclopedia by Ken Schultz

[edit]

Today I added a brief section to the Cape Cod article about sport fishing. The section included internal links and two links to pages on the recently launched site www.gofishn.com. The page son GoFISHn.com contain excerpts from the book, The Fishing Encyclopedia, which is widely considered to be one of the finest comprehensive works on sport fishing. It has never been available online before, and GoFISHn recently published nearly 2000 articles from the work, under a license from the publisher, Wiley. In general, I assume that it's worthwhile to link to a high-quality source like this from Wikipedia, assuming that the context is correct. Please correct me if I am wrong. But perhaps I did not handle the attribution correctly. I'd be grateful for insights on how best to handle this. Or some explanation as to why I might be completely off base. EWDes (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappopriate to copy text, word for word, from another website and paste it into a Wikipedia article. This is likely a copyright violation and exposes Wikipedia to legal action. There are procedures that can be followed to donate copyrighted materials, but this requires the copyright holder to release all claim to the material. A better solution would be for you to summarize the information in your own words, then cite the source material as a reference. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 03:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not copy text word for word from the article. In fact, I did not even come close to doing that. I summarized several hundred words of material in a few sentences. So far you've suggested two issues: One, that I did not follow Wikipedia's linking policy, but you have not explained how I violated that policy. I'm not sure myself that I got that completely right, but based on my reading I think it's fine. I'd appreciate more detailed feedback than what you've had to say so far. Second, you've also suggested that I copied material, which I absolutely did not, and you can see that for yourself, if you want to go to the original source. I'd be grateful for constructive feedback. EWDes (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait a few days to see if anyone else has a point of view on this issue, and unless someone steers me in another direction will re-post the sport fishing section, eliminate the in-text links to the encyclopedia, and replace them with references, as SquidSK suggests. EWDes (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest dropping the sport fishing section, or reducing to a mention. There are many activities that residents and visitors to Cape Cod participate in, such as golfing, boating, bicycling. Compared to other coastal destinations, such as the Florida Keys, fishing is not a dominant recreational activity on Cape Cod.
Also, I would suggest a greater emphasis be placed on the Cape Cod National Seashore, including its history and contributions to preserving the character of the Outer Cape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.192.181 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Weekend

[edit]

Vampire Weekend refers to Cape Cod in two of their songs: Walcot and Cape Cod Kwassa Kwassa. I'm not sure of what to do with that and if it's even noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.119.164 (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norse Exploration

[edit]

I removed ", and called Cape of Keel by early Norse explorers" from the start of the article. Needs citation if true, but all accounts I've heard of Norse explorers only made it to northern Canada. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a citation for that edit. http://books.google.com/books?id=3h-kqoGMVy0C&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=%22Cape+Keel%22&source=bl&ots=WWgMRFKD8S&sig=FtumaAOje_xlVggQ,RIg8N4BojYE&hl=en&ei=7c_9S8zcGpL1_AbSl_miCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Cape%20Keel%22&f=false
But I don't think that reference would need to be in the opening sentence of the article. Maybe somewhere else in the history section. --Extrabatteries (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, nice find. Is there an article about pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact? All I could find was Leif Ericson and Solutrean theory. I think this would be an interesting article. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put the citation needed on the Norse "Promotory of Vineland" in history, and added the Leif Erickson visit from the Bourne Historical Society web page, which mentions it without citation.--User:RD321 — Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Cape

[edit]

I just added alot of new information on The Lower Cape. --Worldviews190 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobska

[edit]

Is there a reason why Nobska Light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobska_Light) isn't listed as a cape lighthouse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.24.6 (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the movies

[edit]

In the movie The Core actress Hilary Swank says "we are dodging diamonds the size of Cape Cod" at the mantle/core interface. it struck me as funny.[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.91.140 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The section entitled "Geography and political divisions" has been hijacked way off course. Three paragraphs that once simply enumerated the towns and their villages have been expanded into mini travel guides, and every time I come across this, it irritates me like nails on a chalkboard:

Bourne is home to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, in the village of Buzzards Bay, along the canal, Massachusetts Military Reservation, Aptucxet Trading Post,[1] the annual Bourne Scallop Festival in September, and, until 1884, was part of Sandwich. Sandwich, the oldest town on Cape Cod, founded in 1637, is home to the Dexter Grist Mill, the historic Hoxie House, Heritage Museums and Gardens, the Sandwich Glass Museum, the Thornton Burgess Museum, the Green Briar Nature Center, a Friends' Meeting House, a U.S. Coast Guard Station, and many quaint inns and motels, restaurants, shops and activities. Mashpee, home of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Native Americans, hosts Mashpee Commons, an outdoor shopping mall, with many boutiques, eateries, movie theaters, and offices, as is the newer South Cape Village, a short way south towards Falmouth, along Route 28; it is also home to New Seabury, an upscale residential golf community along Vineyard Sound, South Cape Beach, the Cape Cod Children's Museum, the Boys & Girls Club of Cape Cod, the Indian Meeting House just off Route 151, and a historic one-room school house near Town Hall, on Great Neck Road North.

This stuff is like Kudzu... if it's allowed to take hold, it'll spread all over the place, as is evidenced by the recent additions to the Mid Cape:

The Mid-Cape area features many beautiful beaches, including warm-water beaches along Nantucket Sound, e.g., Kalmus Beach in Hyannis, which gets its name from one of the inventors of Technicolor, Herbert Kalmus. This popular windsurfing destination was bequeathed to the town of Barnstable by Dr. Kalmus on condition that it not be developed, possibly one of the first instances of open-space preservation in the US. The Mid-Cape is also the commercial and industrial center of the region.

and now the Lower Cape paragraph has gotten it too:

This area is home to the Cape Cod National Seashore, a national park that encompasses much of the Outer Cape, including the entire east-facing coast from Orleans to Provincetown. The Outer Cape is home to some of the most popular beaches in the United States, such as Nauset Light Beach and Coast Guard Beach in Eastham, Race Point Beach in Provincetown, Ballston Beach in Truro, and Skaket Beach in Orleans. The Outer Cape and the beaches in the area have become infamous for their summertime Great White Shark sightings along with numerous other shark species. In the summer of 2012, a tourist was attacked and bitten by a Great White Shark off of Ballston Beach in Truro, and had to be transported to a Boston-area hospital for treatment. He received almost 60 stitches in his leg and had surgery to repair damage. Stephen Leatherman, aka "Dr. Beach", named Coast Guard Beach the 5th best beach in America in 2007.[2] The Outer Cape is the most unpopulated, or "rural" area of Cape Cod outside of Provincetown, which has a small, populated, city-like atmosphere during the summer season. Provincetown has become a major gay & lesbian resort destination – The town is regarded as one of the largest LGBT resort communities in the United States. Provincetown is also renowned for it's historic fishing fleets and Stellwagen Bank, a hugely popular fishing ground, is located only a few miles offshore of Race Point in Provincetown.

References

  1. ^ Aptucxet Trading Post, Bourne Historical Society, Bourne, Cape Cod, MA. Bournehistoricalsociety.org.
  2. ^ Leatherman, Stephen. "DrBeach.org – America's Best Beaches 2007". Dr.Beach.Org. Archived from the original on May 18, 2007. Retrieved June 11, 2007.

Does this bother anyone else? These passages violate Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and some of it also violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. These are policies, not guidelines. Most of this stuff should be taken to Wikivoyage. Very little of it has anything to do with "Geography and political divisions", and I believe the few notable words above are already covered elsewhere. Unless somebody can talk me out of it, this is fair warning that I'm getting my axe sharpened for some spring pruning... Grollτech (talk)

I second that emotion. Let the pruning begin! Eric talk 18:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction on bike trails

[edit]

(Moving this from my user talk page as suggested... -- Beland (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Beland- Thanks for working on the Cape Cod article. I tweaked the bike trails section a bit. The rail trail runs along the boundary of the Seashore (what we call the Nat'l Park here) for its northernmost 2.6 miles, but it isn't really in the Park. So I took out a bit of your description, but we could add a note saying that the trail provides access to the Park if you think that would help. Aside: do you know if there's something like a talkback template where I could put this note on the article talk page while simultaneously alerting you to it? Cheers. Eric talk 21:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS-- move this there if you like! Eric talk 21:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric, Beland: I think I mentioned the Cape Cod Rail Trail connects with trails in the Cape Cod National Seashore because Cape Cod Rail Trail said it connects to the Nauset Bike Trail, which goes into the CCNS. Looking at the map you found, however, it appears they merely pass near each other but do not connect directly. I corrected that article. The map shows the trails in CCNS are disjoint, so the way you left this article seems right. As for the talk page stuff, I checked around and the shiny new {{reply to}} seems like exactly what you're looking for. If it works as promised, we should both get a notification for this very message. I'm adding it to my list of favorite templates! -- Beland (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: Everything looks good, and thanks for the template! Eric talk 21:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth and Wareham

[edit]

I am moving the following unsourced and dubious assertion to the talk page for now:

By some definitions, the Cape and Islands region includes part or all of the adjacent towns of Plymouth and Wareham.[citation needed][1]

  1. ^ The Cape Cod Canal Region Chamber of Commerce includes Wareham, Bourne, and Sandwich.

I say "unsourced" because the cited source does not support the assertion that was made in the text. Specifically, the "Cape and Islands region" is not the same as the "Cape Cod Canal region". —grolltech(talk) 13:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grolltech- I'm sure that at least Plymouth has always been considered as part of the Cape from a geological standpoint, but I can't quote you a source at the moment. I don't think the sentence you removed was well written or placed, but if we found a source for my geological memory, it might be worth mentioning in the section below. From a quick search, I'm guessing that these sources might be point to some answers: USGS data page UMass geo survey USGS surficial geology data page Eric talk 15:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will note, however that the Cape Cod Commission Act (1989) opens with, "The region commonly known as Cape Cod, comprised of Barnstable county, including all geographic areas to the jurisdictional limit of the commonwealth, possesses unique natural, coastal, scientific, historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological, recreational, and other values..." (emphasis added). —grolltech(talk) 22:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as they say, what is commonly known as Cape Cod—implying an acknowledgment of other interpretations. I think of the Cape as everything this side of the canal, but I have long been led to believe that geologists view it otherwise. Eric talk 04:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cape Cod Baseball League, a collegiate summer baseball league, has a team based in Wareham, Massachusetts. Also, historically Cape Cod and Plymouth, Massachusetts are connected through european explorers (example: The Pilgrims landed in various areas on the Cape before settling in Plymouth Colony) --Aidan721 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to accept a geological explanation, but a summer baseball league, not so much. And @Aidan721: if we truly want to talk about the "historical" connection, then you might be interested to know that "Cape Cod" used to refer exclusively to the area that is today known as the Town of Provincetown (formerly, the "Precinct of Cape Cod"). Otherwise, the reason the Pilgrims set sail for Plymouth (as opposed to anywhere else) is that from Provincetown, where they first landed, Plymouth appears as the largest land mass on the horizon. It had nothing to do with modern-day inclusion or exclusion of Plymouth as part of "Cape Cod". —grolltech(talk) 01:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Cape Cod and Islands be merged here into Cape Cod. I think that the content in the Cape Cod and Islands article can easily be explained in the context of Cape Cod, and the Cape Cod and Islands article is a small article and is in need of updating. Merging the article here will give the article more detailed information. For a new name I suggest Cape Cod and Islands. I want to merge the article here at Cape Cod as it is a much larger article than the Cape Cod and Islands. --Aidan721 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposed merger. The CC&I page has no information that this page doesn't have. Aaekia (talk) 9 February 2015

I agree. The Cape and Islands article didn't need to be created. Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard both have robust articles of their own. Eric talk 22:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For a new name I suggest Cape Cod and Islands. So your suggestion is just to move info from Cape Cod article into Cape Cod and Islands? If so, I will oppose to name change from Cape Cod to Cape Cod and Islands since everyone knows Cape Cod as the main island, and I doubt that anyone would care for the Islands. I for one, know Cape Cod as one big island, and 90% of the whole population knows that too.--Mishae (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I missed the initial proposed new name. I disagree with that idea. The Cape Cod article should remain as named. While the peninsula and its island neighbors are often referred to in the same sentence, they do not form an entity that would require an encyclopedia entry. It might be worth a brief mention somewhere in the CC article that "Cape and Islands" is a term often used to describe this part of Massachusetts--that will suffice. Eric talk 01:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of merging. Rracecarr (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cape Cod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cape Cod. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cape Cod. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Few Summer wet days

[edit]

What is this? Cape Cod must have a Csb climate, not a Cfb climate due to the many rainy days in winter and few rainy days during summer. You must be joking by saying that. Koppen is brainless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.55.166 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns, operates Nauset Light?

[edit]

Since 2004 it has been the Park Service (Cape Cod National Seashore) and the Society.

Partnership Agreement signed June, 2004 On May 24, 2004, the long-awaited Partnership Agreement between the Nauset Light Preservation Society and the National Park Service was signed. NLPS president Richard Ryder and Cape Cod National Seashore superintendent Maria Burks affixed their signatures to the agreement. It will be in effect for five years, after which time, the agreement will be subject to renewal. Past presidents Hawkins Conrad and Pam Nobili were among those attending the signing.

Under the agreement, NLPS operates Nauset Light as a private aid to navigation, and is responsible for all utilities, repair and maintenance associated with the tower and the oil house. http://www.nausetlight.org/NLupdate.htm

And https://books.google.ca/books?id=XREuAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT301&lpg=PT301&dq=cape+cod+NLPS&source=bl&ots=LLXqwjVeS9&sig=6-heQnx2Zp50UwRUDe14EL97NjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjap7Owkf3SAhWky4MKHUyfA9YQ6AEIRjAH#v=onepage&q=Nauset%20Light&f=false Peter K Burian (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Peter K Burian (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cape Cod. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cape Cod. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cape Cod. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cape Cod. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime travel section

[edit]

Considering all routes and ferry companies are described it does not fall under WP:NOTTRAVEL. There are no suggestions as to which route is the best. Md2022 (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's sufficient to simply state that there is ferry service between certain ports. No need to elaborate. Ferry companies and vessel names change over time; see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Statements_likely_to_become_outdated. Plus, if a section or sub-section were warranted for travel via water, "Maritime" is not how we name it. Eric talk 14:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transport over water is quite literally defined as maritime transport ( see the wikipedia page Maritime transport). Also, ferry lines and their operators are akin to the rail companies and rail operators of train lines, which are also included. Md2022 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand, please follow the WP:DR guidelines and find new citations and/or find a compromise better than simply deleting the entire section. Due to their infrastructural differences it is only logical for them to be different sections, even if you feel the need to heavily cut content. Md2022 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Md2022, you appear to be reverting other editors' changes merely to get your way. That is not how it works here. See Wikipedia:Edit_warring. Besides restoring what I see as your superfluous ferry transport content, your reverts have also restored errors in your text that I had corrected. And rest assured that I fully comprehend the meaning of "maritime". Eric talk 21:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the excess is trimmed, maritime transport still deserves its own separate category, not only due to technological and logistical differences but for its distinct importance in culture and the economy. I'm sure we can compromise. Md2022 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Md2022 The long-standing heading is appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia usage. Using "Maritime Travel" implies a broad field -- especially for islands that host numerous private boats. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 23:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The heading is entirely new so saying that it is "long standing" is simply wrong. Latest edits include information on use of personal watercraft so your second argument is invalid. Md2022 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cape_Cod&oldid=1214124439"