|WikiProject Alaska||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
32 foot limitation
The 32-foot length of commercial drift gillnet boats in Bristol Bay has nothing to do with the depth of Bristol Bay waters, shoals, etc. Larger vessels such as a Bering Sea crab boats (90 - 110') are used to transport salmon from the fishing boats to the processing operations (canneries or processing ships). Commercial fishermen in Bristol Bay know that a longer (not deeper) boat would be advantageous in Bristol Bay; this length limitation is routinely contested at Alaska Board of Fisheries meetings.
The 32-foot length limit was imposed in 1951 as a compromise when lifting the ban on motorized fishing boats in Bristol Bay. Prior to that year, only sailboats were allowed in the Bristol Bay commercial drift salmon fishery.
You can verify with Alaska Dept. Fish & Game staff, Univ. of Alaska professor Gunnar Knapp, Univ. of Washington professor Ray Hilborn, et al.
Since this section is wrong and without any verifiable citation, I took the liberty of removing it. However, if somebody can cite any relevant data substantiating this section, the removed text is right here:
As the shallowest part of the Bering Sea, Bristol Bay is one of the most dangerous areas for large vessels. This is one reason why the Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishing fleet is limited to 32-foot (10 m) overall keel length. In addition, most of the area is not well documented by nautical charts and navigational aids are sparse.
I removed the trivia, not needed. --Tom 12:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why? If the governor of the state chose to name her daughter after this place, it is certainly something worth mentioning. Dems on the move (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- No it isn't, please stop. --Tom 15:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"No, it isn't" and "yes, it is" are not mature reasonings for conducting discussions on Wikipedia. I request that you do not remove material without sufficient reasoning. Dems on the move (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
|“||This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.||”|
- How about WP:HTRIVIA? --Tom 17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are going to have to start giving more specific reasons.
|“||Should trivia be allowed on Wikipedia?
Yes and no.
- According to who? You?--Tom 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Come on, you two - knock it off. Is it really worth this same kind of back and forth reverting one another? You both might want to have a good look at dispute resolution if you haven't already done so, but this repetitive, unilateral reverting behavior that has been going on is neither helpful nor acceptable. Please don't make me protect the article over a silly trivia section, and please don't make me have to bring up 3RR again. For goodness' sake, get some outside opinion instead of edit warring. Shereth 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about this. I do admit that I should use DR more or get other editors involved. I will try to do this going forward. Thank you. --Tom 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Trivia sections in geography articles should be about the geographic feature--or perhaps its appearance in popular culture. Compare notable locations like Haystack Rock. The fact that Bristol Palin was named after here, even if documented, adds nothing to the feature, and should really be a one-way wikilink from her article (assuming she ever meets WP:N herself). Her inclusion here would be just a case of recentism, and not serve an encyclopedic purpose. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO, if a person who is potentially a second daughter is named after a location (and that is verifiable), it is part of the American culture. Dems on the move (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Jclemens. Well said. Maybe others will comment too? Can this material be left out until consensus is reached? Thank you. --Tom 13:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is completely inconsequential. Keep it out. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, inconsequential here. If the fact is mentioned in Bristol's article, that's plenty enough. Let's add more facts not previously recorded in WP, rather than regurgitating the same fact over and over again in different articles. Stan (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, there's sufficient consensus here to keep the information out of the article. Therefore, the line should not be re-added unless there is an indication that the consensus on the matter has changed. Thanks for the input to all those who chimed in. Shereth 15:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just a little bit more information on this topic (and why your removal of this worthless bit of trivia should have been removed): Sarah Palin considers herself quite a sports fan, and by some accounts, she named her daughter after Bristol, Connecticut, not Bristol Bay. Bristol, CT is where ESPN is headquartered and Palin was a sportscaster at one point in her career. Just thought you should know. ~ * ~ Blue Electric Storm ~ * ~ (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Lots of lovely pictures
Can we get one of those map location image thingies? TIA --Tom 13:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)