Talk:Anglin Bay

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

Untitled[edit]

Is this topic about Anglin Bay, the geographic location, or the oil firm(s) that are adjacent? Propose to remove all references to the oil firms operating there. StevenBlack (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, The article with as it is currently written (with the new inclusions) loses focus and seems to stray off-topic. It starts off describing a geographic location but then shifts gears to begin discussing oil firms of all things. Then I thought, Anglin Bay does have a fascinating history related to the the economics, culture, and society of Kingston. So, why not change the intent/focus to include other stuff. When I thought about it, I realized the article would be severly limited in scope if only the geography/geographic location is the focus. Anglin Bay's history is definitely notable, and perhaps this is the place to include it. I can see including Native use, early French ship building, the old wrecks and how/why they got there, the dry dock (where I worked one summer), and other economic considerations such as the railway, oil firms (history, significance in Kingston's economy, etc.), changes in transportation/the economy that led to industries disappearing, and other things. Planning, development, and even controversies (e.g. the LVEC/new entertainment centre) could be included. Anglin Bay, I believe, is unique to have such a "concentration" of history. Mind you the article would have to be organized better. Headings could separate the different historical/economic aspects of the bay. The article as it stands now, however, needs work in that it needs copyediting and maybe a "History" heading. The stub template would also need to be changed. On the other hand, perhaps we could maintain the geographic focus of this article and begin a new one with a title such as "Anglin Bay history". But I wonder how much more we could include in this geographically-oriented article; it would be nice to add more. If we can't flesh out the current article in a geographical way, maybe expanding it as I described would work. BCtalk to me 03:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]