Talk:Strait

The article states: "The terms strait, channel, passage, sound, and firth can be synonymous and interchangeable, although each is sometimes differentiated with varying senses." However, it never actually outlines what the difference is between a strait and a firth despite writing that the Pentland Firth is "actually a strait". What is the difference between the two? It's confusing to have the first section of the article state that for all intents and purposes the terms are synonomous and then make a point of stating that the Pentland Firth is not a firth but a strait. Blankfrackis (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

What is the potential of this strait and others being used as a source for generating hydroelectricity? With the currents being so powerfull, any size power plant can be constructed to generate electricity sjgckhts,uilimar to a wind mill, but underwater. Because the strait is so large, countries on both sides could build huge hydroelectric plnats at the sides that would potentially prowide power for hundreds of thousands of homes without much environmental impact.

Is the English Channel really a strait? Especially considering that its narrowest part is itself a strait: the Strait of Dover. -- 81.132.225.23 21:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Straits, channels, and passages are names for the same concept: that of a narrow body of water that connects two larger bodies of water and lies between two land masses. In that case, the English channel is a "strait" in a sense. Though it is actually interesting that the narrowest part is also named an as an actual strait. --seav 22:41, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nadyes (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Is a "hole" in the nautical sense the same as a strait? For example, Woods Hole and others along the Elizabeth Islands. —Ben FrantzDale 22:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would it be considered appropriate to add a section on the common mistake of using "straight" instead of its homophone, "strait"? One sees this frequently on the Web and elsewhere, e.g. "the Straights of Gibraltar". (Though not directly on topic, one also sees this in "straight-jacket" for "strait-jacket", and "straight-laced" for "strait-laced", meaning "morally strict or prudish"; in each case, the word is derived from "strait" as meaning "narrow or confined", as in the "strait" body of water.)

Also, it might be worth mentioning that "strait" is often used in the plural, such as "Straits of Gibraltar". Is this usage common only in the US? -- Unimaginative Username 22:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This page is heavily focused on straits within the current and former British Empire. I would argue that the Straits of Messina (Scylla and Charybdis, for crying out loud!) have far more cultural, historical, and economic importance than the Pentland Firth. Not to mention the geopolitically crucial Taiwan Strait, the Bonifacio strait between Corsica and Sardinia, the Torres Strait between Australia and New Guinea, the Mona Passage between Puerto Rico and Hispaniola, and the Tsugaru Strait between Hokkaido and Honshu.

This isn't even Anglo-centrism, it's downright silliness. Unless you're an Orcadian, a Brit should certainly think of Messina, Bosphorus, Gibraltar and Øresund before Pentland Firth. Goffmog (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually goes to that wikipedia's article for the city Detroit. I went to fix it, but cannot seem to find the correct article. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is a shockingly poor article. It reads like something blustered up in the exam hall by an ill-prepared junior high schoolchild, with a few odd random facts strung together with some irrelevancies in no particular sequence. Please scrap it and invite a literate geographer to compile something more becoming of an encyclopaedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.176.243 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's not how Wikipedia works; the standing "invitation" is already in place, and has been for over a decade. What content exists at any article is only what has so far been donated (in terms of time and effort) by whoever had sufficient time and interest to bother. If you can do better, then bother to do it. But if you can't bother to do that, then you have no moral high ground to trash-talk the contribution of whoever *did* take the time and effort to bother. So, rather than making you seem superior to others, your comment above just showed an instance of cluelessness on your part. All experts (literate geographers included) are constantly free to volunteer to improve any Wikipedia article that badly needs content development. If they don't do that, it isn't at all the fault of Wikimedia or of any junior high student who may have written the existing coverage. There's no fault (culpability) involved, except maybe on the part of experts who don't bother to volunteer. If you yourself can do better, then do it, or don't bother, but either way, there's no legitimate way for you to trash-talk what's here, nor the volunteers who wrote it. — ¾-10 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply