text:
Talk:Cape Cod

just how big is Cape Cod?
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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)

 * 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)

Truro = 54.5 km2 Wellfleet = 51.4 km2 Eastham = 36.2 km2 Outer Cape Total = 167.1 km2
 * 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

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)

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)

P-town
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)

 * 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)

Picture Question
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)

 * 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)

Advertising Links
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 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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)

 * 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)

Why were History and Geography removed?
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)

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

Cape Cod’s Borders Based In Fact and Not Supposition
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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)

 * (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)

 * 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)

 * It seems to me that the physical geography of Cape Cod is adequately covered in this article. AJD 13:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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)

 * 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)

 * Good thoughts Haikupoet. Thanks! Leftshore 10:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Lighthouses
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)

Rainfall
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)

Map request
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)

 * ✅ Groll τech  ( talk ) 13:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Gut gemacht, Grolltech! Eric talk 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 * 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, and then to build upon that to make and .  Groll τech  ( talk ) 15:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * Hurray, thanks! -- Beland (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge?
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)

 * 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)

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

 * 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)

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)

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)

 * 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)

Vampire Weekend
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)

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

Norse Exploration
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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

Nobska
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)

In the movies
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.[] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.91.140 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The redlinks of the Upper Cape and the beaches of the Lower Cape
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:

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:

and now the Lower Cape paragraph has gotten it too:

Does this bother anyone else? These passages violate Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and some of it also violates 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... Groll τech ( talk )

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

Correction on bike trails
(Moving this from my user talk page as suggested... -- Beland (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC))

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)
 * PS-- move this there if you like! Eric talk 21:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

 * Everything looks good, and thanks for the template! Eric talk 21:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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". — groll tech  ( talk ) 13:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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). — groll tech   ( talk ) 22:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 * 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)

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)

 * I'd be willing to accept a geological explanation, but a summer baseball league, not so much. And  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". — groll tech   ( talk ) 01:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
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)

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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * I am in favor of merging. Rracecarr (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment While I oppose the move, would anyone have any qualms if we moved "Cape Cod and Islands" to "Cape Cod and the Islands"? It would make a bit more sense for the name thing, and could be reworked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Cape Cod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100324134318/http://www.town.dennis.ma.us:80/aboutus.htm to http://www.town.dennis.ma.us/aboutus.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120312230120/http://www.capecodweather.net/climate/ to http://www.capecodweather.net/climate/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080704075920/http://www.capecodchamber.org/Cape_Cod_Golf.asp to http://www.capecodchamber.org/Cape_Cod_Golf.asp
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100116160204/http://www.gofishn.com:80/content/massachusetts-provincetown-to-falmouth to http://www.gofishn.com/content/massachusetts-provincetown-to-falmouth
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141216041628/http://www.capecodonline.com/article/20141113/News/141119791 to http://www.capecodonline.com/article/20141113/News/141119791

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004004757/https://www.dianamuir.com/default/BPConservation.html to http://www.dianamuir.com/default/BPConservation.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Few Summer wet days
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)

Who owns, operates Nauset Light?
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zyxPuzNq?url=http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25/25001.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25/25001.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326161203/http://www.capecodcommission.org/econdevel/CEDS/CEDS2009/FINALCEDS09-5YEARUPDATE.doc to http://www.capecodcommission.org/econdevel/CEDS/CEDS2009/FINALCEDS09-5YEARUPDATE.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930230755/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17067 to http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17067
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928040619/http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070525%2FNEWS%2F705250325 to http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070525%2FNEWS%2F705250325

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615165415/http://www.mma.org/resources-mainmenu-182/doc_download/26-form-of-government-for-each-community-in-massachusetts to http://www.mma.org/resources-mainmenu-182/doc_download/26-form-of-government-for-each-community-in-massachusetts
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004235907/http://www.mma.org/resources-mainmenu-182/doc_download/97-establishment-dates-and-forms-of-city-governments to http://www.mma.org/resources-mainmenu-182/doc_download/97-establishment-dates-and-forms-of-city-governments

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160720213407/http://www.falmouthmass.us/depart.php?depkey=water to http://www.falmouthmass.us/depart.php?depkey=water

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160710174635/http://www.nausetlight.org/NLPSpage.htm to http://www.nausetlight.org/NLPSpage.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Maritime travel section
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)

 * 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 Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , you appear to be reverting other editors' changes merely to get your way. That is not how it works here. See 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

title: Talk:Cape Cod


text:
Talk:Operation Grapple

Images of Grapple X
I have added some screenshots of the Grapple X aircraft and weapon taken from the Channel 4 TV programme Britain's Cold War Super Weapons. They're not very good but considering the subject matter will probably have to do until someone can find some better ones. Ian Dunster 10:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

H Bomb Test was (not really) a Hoax
I read recently that the H Bomb test was actually a huge A Bomb, which fooled the US into believing that the Uk had cracked the fusion bomb problems, leading them into collaboration. I'll try to find the source and see how reliable it is and them amend the article if appropriate. --Dumbo1 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Added information and reference from House Of Commons documents on Nuclear Testing Veterans. It is surprising that after all these years, the fact that this was a hoax, (the UK has never successfully build an H bomb) seems not to be generally known. --Dumbo1 17:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The hoax legend is almost completely incorrect as discussed below. The Americans are not as stupid as that. It IS true that Britain did let the rest of the world think Orange Herald was an H-bomb when it was not, but Britain went on to drop four successful true H-bombs. Man with two legs 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized article
This Article, including Tsar's contribution, seems to have been vandalized (or, to put it more politely, badly edited). It is true that Short Granite, the first test in the Grapple series, fell well short of its expected yield, but was hailed as a success by the British. It is also true that the second test, Orange Herald, was in reality a very powerful single-stage weapon. However, Grapple X and Y were both successful tests using the Teller-Ulam design. Both were detonated before the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed on July 3 1958, and certainly before the US could have given any nuclear know-how to Britain. The mis-conception seems to have arisen from a statement by Brian Jenkins, MP for Tamworth (he is not reputed to have knowledge of nuclear physics, and at the time was speaking in support of veterans who were claiming that their health had been harmed by the explosions), in the House of Commons on 4 December 2002, in which he appeared to be referring to the Orange Herald test. See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo021204/halltext/21204h01.htm. Also, what is this doing at the end of the wiki article: "Although great men have made very important accounts of what was seen, it is still unproven that TNT and oil could have been used to create such effects."? -theeurocrat Theeurocrat 13:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I do not understand why the article was reverted. Everything before the revert was correct and the person only brought back the previous errors which had been corrected (i.e. The May 15, 1957 was a hydrogen bomb test, not an atomic bomb test; the Grapple Z September 2 and 11, 1958 were NOT the largest British tests, Grapple Y was the larget test - I put a citation for this information in the fixed article). I reverted the article back. If you see something incorrect please fix the specific error, do not revert an entire article. - Tzar 02:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

3 or 4 tests at Grapple
The 4th test was not cancelled due to poor yield. The only other design mentioned by Lorna Arnold is Orange Herald (large) which was certain to make a big bang. Man with two legs 13:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed Green Bamboo. Man with two legs 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cassandra's Photos
Ah ha, I noticed my Cassandra page getting a few hits from this - The Cassandra pictures are "mine" but I have never been able to identify the military man in them, and at some point I will have to go back to archives to work out who it was. So if anyone can actually work out who the military chaps are, and which of the actual tests they are photographs of, I'd appreciate the extra information for the page.

Lawrie 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Empire Clyde
SS Empire Clyde (1919) was apparently one of the troopships involved in the 1957 tests. Can anyone provide a reliable reference for this? I'm not sure that this passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The table on this page is generated by database
The table on this page and the contents of any nuclear tests infobox are generated from a database of nuclear testing which I have maintained and researched for a number of years. The table is automatically generated from that database by a Visual Basic script, and then has, periodically, been inserted into the page manually. I began doing this in October of 2013.

Recently a user complained (politely) to me about the practice. It seems to him that it removes control from all editors besides myself over the content. He believes it is tantamount to WP:OWNED of the pages affected. He also points out that there is no public mention of the fact anywhere on wikipedia, and that is true, through my own oversight, until now.

There was no intent that the pages affected should be owned by myself; in fact, one of my reasons for building these pages was to solicit (in the wikipedia way) criticism and corrections to the data, perhaps additional references that I had been unable to locate. I have regenerated the tables twice in the days since they were originally placed. Each time I did so, I performed a diff between the current version and the version that I put up in the previous cycle; all corrections were then either entered into the database or corrected in the programming, as appropriate. As may be guessed, the programming corrections were frequent to start out as suggestions about the table formatting were raised, and most incorporated. I have not made judgements on the "usefulness" of corrections; all have been incorporated, or I have communicated directly with the editor to settle the matter. In fact it was in pursuing such a correction that this matter came up.

I am posting this comment on the Talk page of every page containing content which is so generated. If you would like to comment on this matter, please go to the copy on Talk:List of nuclear tests so the discussion can be kept together. I will also be placing a maintained template on each Talk page (if anyone would like also to be named as a maintainer on one or all pages, you are welcome). I solicit all comments and suggestions.

SkoreKeep (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Operation Grapple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131219131618/http://www.iss-atom.ru/ksenia/catal_nt/ to http://www.iss-atom.ru/ksenia/catal_nt/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Operation Grapple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080509070237/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk:80/cosford/collections/aircraft/vickers-valiant-b1.cfm to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/collections/aircraft/vickers-valiant-b1.cfm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060816035213/http://www.atomicforum.org:80/uk/uk.html to http://atomicforum.org/uk/uk.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522180133/http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/QWA/2/7/4/274bf93c2d23453387fc4275b786b099.htm to http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/QWA/2/7/4/274bf93c2d23453387fc4275b786b099.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

BBC Windscale documentary contradicts a statement
in the Cooperation with the United States section "An additional benefit was that the UK was able to buy highly enriched uranium from the US and also sell plutonium to it made in British nuclear reactors. This deal was useful to both parties and profitable for the UK."

There is no source for this and it is contrary to what is stated in the BBC Windscale documentary (search for it on youtube) In the documentary they go on to say after the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement the UK would transfer uranium to the USA in exchange for plutonium. The statement about it being profitable for the UK needs citation as well.

This is the first time I have bothered mention an error on Wikipidia so sorry if I made a mess of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.221.250 (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

health effects need medical references not NZherald sensationalism
Unfortunately I have not been able to find a review of these studies by a secondary medical source.

However I think that bearing in mind the author of the study has been contracted by Veteran's numerous times - He also looked at 24 Vietnam veterans, who were "exposed to agent orange". Which was then similarly used by the Veteran organization, to sue the government.

Bearing that in mind alongside the fact that looking at pubmed, the author similarly has gone on to publish in 2007, on the apparent chromosome effects of powerlines(another close to FRINGE affair)...I think the editors of this article need to be far more careful and watchful for their confirmation bias, we need to follow the guidelines on on these matters.User:Hawkeye7

Here is the same researcher, RE Rowland, publishing on Chromosome abnormalities from powerlines. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17080456 One wonders if this was likewise paid for by anti-powerline advocates?

Or to use his own "research" to explain his previous findings. Maybe 50 of these operation grapple veterans, just lived beside powerlines? Something he did not take into account in his earlier nuclear testing research, published in ~2005.

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm all in favour of anything that improves the article. I hadn't intended to make any medical claims. Moreover, it sounded like an earlier dispute on another article that went something like this:
 * Me: Those results have been disputed
 * SG: Disputed? By whom?
 * Me: I don't suppose "Wikipedians on the talk page" would be an acceptable answer?
 * SG: No, it would not.
 * It is unfortunate that: (1) research results are frequently poorly reported in mainstream publications; and (2) a dysfunctional adversarial legal system (based on the British model) demands proof before people can access medical treatment that they need.
 * I trust that the article in its current form is to your satisfaction. .  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Dick?
A couple of references to the bombs dick seem unlikely not to be vandalism, but on a phone I can't track them down. Midgley (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR. It's correct. And probably a source of humour to those at AWRE for years.Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

 * The hydrogen bomb primary was called a "Tom", the secondary a "Dick", and the (unnecessary) tertiary a "Harry". This is mentioned in the Background section.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV
I was surprised to come here from the main page and find statements that would not sit well with a reader who thought that nuclear testing was not a good thing, that Britain achieving nuclear capability was not a good thing, or that nuclear weapons in general are not a good thing. Respectively, "A second test series was required" in the lede; "British timing was good" in § aftermath; "an extraordinary scientific and technological achievement" in the lede – all of course in the encyclopedia's voice. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Megaton = million ton
"The second test was Grapple 2, of Orange Herald. Its 720-to-800-kilotonne-of-TNT (3,000 to 3,300 TJ) yield made it technically a megaton weapon."

Can someone explain to me how an 800kT weapon is "technically a megaton weapon"? A megaton is 1,000kT. One could call it a "megaton range" weapon because it's closer to 1mT than to .5mT, but technically it is not a megaton bomb. A 900hp aircraft engine can be classified as "in the 1,000hp range", but technically it fails to meet that bar.

 * This did not escape notice at the time, and was a sore point between the RAF brass and the AWRE boffins. Changed to "megaton-range weapon" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  12:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Operation Grapple


text:
Decibel watt

The decibel watt (dBW or dBW) is a unit for the measurement of the strength of a signal expressed in decibels relative to one watt. It is used because of its capability to express both very large and very small values of power in a short range of number; e.g., 1 milliwatt = −30 dBW, 1 watt = 0 dBW, 10 watts = 10 dBW, 100 watts = 20 dBW, and 1,000,000 W = 60 dBW.

 * $$\mbox{Power in dBW} = 10 \log_{10}\frac{\mbox{Power}}{ 1 \mathrm{W}} $$

and also

 * $$\mbox{Power in W} = 10^{\frac{\mbox{Power in dBW}}{10}} $$

Compare dBW to dBm, which is referenced to one milliwatt (0.001 W).

A given dBW value expressed in dBm is always 30 more because 1 watt is 1,000 milliwatts, and a ratio of 1,000 (in power) is 30 dB; e.g., 10 dBm (10 mW) is equal to −20 dBW (0.01 W).

In the SI system the non SI modifier decibel (dB) is not permitted for use directly alongside SI units so the dBW is not directly permitted but 10 dBW may be written 10 dB (1 watt).

title: Decibel watt


text:
Big Town

Big Town is a popular long-running radio drama featuring a corruption-fighting newspaper editor initially played from 1937 to 1942 by Edward G. Robinson in his first radio role, with echoes of the conscience-stricken tabloid editor he had played in the film Five Star Final. Edward Pawley played the lead role longer, 1943–52, in plots that made the editor more of a hands-on crime-fighter. During the later Pawley years, Big Town was adapted to film and television series, and a comic book published by DC Comics.

Radio
The radio program aired from October 19, 1937, to June 25, 1952. It was produced by William N. Robson and Crane Wilbur, and written by Jerry McGill. Theme music was by Fran Frey. Edward G. Robinson had the lead role of Steve Wilson, crusading editor of the Illustrated Press, from 1937 to 1943. Claire Trevor was Wilson's reporter sidekick "Lorelei," with Ona Munson taking over that role in 1939. The female lead evolved from the initial script's description as "the society editor who writes under the name of 'Lorelei'" to star crime reporter "Lorelei Kilbourne," with no hint that her first name was a stylized byline. She provided the tabloid-minded Wilson with a conscience in the early episodes, not unlike the editor's secretary in Robinson's Oscar-nominated Five Star Final in 1931.

Edward J. Pawley portrayed Steve Wilson from 1943 until 1952 when Walter Greaza was heard as Wilson in the final episodes. Fran Carlon played Lorelei to Pawley's Wilson from 1943 to 1952. During the period in which Pawley starred, Big Town was rated No. 1 among all of the reporter-type drama series on radio. It was also rated in the top 12 among all radio programs broadcast and had a listening audience rated between 10 and 20 million people.

Ken Niles was the announcer.

Film
Four films based on the radio series were made by Paramount Pictures' Pine-Thomas Productions studio: Big Town (1947), I Cover Big Town (1947), Big Town After Dark (1947), and Big Town Scandal (1948). All four films starred Phillip Reed as Wilson and Hillary Brooke as Lorelei, all were based on radio- and/or screenplays by Maxwell Shane, and all were produced and directed by William C. Thomas.

Television
When Big Town moved to television, the program was telecast live, but in 1952 the production switched to film after the move from New York City to Hollywood. The television series ran on CBS from 1950 through 1954, continuing on NBC from 1955 through 1956. Repeat episodes aired on the DuMont Network beginning on February 6, 1953, under the title City Assignment, while Big Town was still showing first-run episodes on CBS. Reruns were also shown under the titles Heart of the City, Headline, and Byline Steve Wilson.

The stories revolved around The Illustrated Press, the city's largest newspaper, and the people who worked for it, most particularly managing editor Steve Wilson (played by Patrick McVey from 1950 to 1954 and by Mark Stevens from 1954 to 1956). Five actresses had the role of reporter Lorelei Kilbourne. In its sixth and final season, the series would adopt the documentary style made famous by Dragnet, right down to Stevens producing, writing, and directing most of the episodes.

Jack Gross and Philip Krasne produced the program in 1952.

Television ratings

 * 1950–1951: #21
 * 1951–1952: #15
 * 1952–1953: out of the top 30
 * 1953–1954: out of the top 30

Comic book
DC's Big Town comic book ran 50 issues, from January 1951 to March–April 1958. The comic book was edited by Whitney Ellsworth, and the contributing artists included Dan Barry, Carmine Infantino, Gil Kane, John Lehti, Manny Stallman and Alex Toth, with most of the later scripts written by John Broome.

Listen to

 * RadioLovers: Big Town "Occupied Paris" (9/5/42)
 * Zoot Radio, free 'Big Town' old time radio show downloads

title: Big Town


text:
Talk:Windows Embedded Compact

Gizmondo
I added the Gizmondo to the list of game systems that use Windows CE. Does the Tapwave Zodiac use it as well? --M.Neko 06:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the Zodiac is a Palm OS device. The Zodiac is also more of a PalmOS PDA designed for Gaming than it is a custom emebedded game console like the Gizmondo was. In addition to playing games, its still a full normal PalmOS PDA. The Gizmondo was not designed like this, though it was eventually hacked to allow third party Windows CE apps to run and after its death it turned into more of a WinCE PDA thanks to the user community.Tfgbd 09:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Windows CE a trimmed down version of desktop Windows ???
I'd like to know if this is really true: is Windows CE a trimmed down version of Desktop Windows ? Isn't it a major rewrite ? It is stated in the paragraph:

 * Back in the day when palmtops were up and coming, Microsoft trimmed down Windows into Windows CE (CE = Compact Edition). The first version, nicknamed "Pegasus" featured a Windows-like GUI and a number of Microsoft's popular applications, all trimmed down for smaller storage, memory and speed of the palmtops of the day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hgfernan (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC).

 * Here is the status-

 * Windows CE is and always has been a complete redo of big windows. At its core it is true 32 bit ,no DOS legacy at all. (Win-9x/me was also true 32-bit, not DOS) what MS did do is preserve the Windows API as for as possible. Possible means limited by the type of device- for example touch screen devices by and large do not support "hover" so you are not going to see that in windows CE.

 * CE 3.0 was a major recode that made CE hard real time down to the microsecond level.

 * CE 4x changed the driver structure a lot, and added Features . 5.0 adds lots of features.

 * Lawrence Ricci eMVP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.55.177.199 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 27 June 2004 (UTC).

 * What interests me more is this; what version of "desktop windows" is Windows CE trimmed down from? I assume Windows 95, but the articles does not say. Lupine Proletariat 11:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Windows CE is NOT a trimmed down version. The kernal is written from scratch for embedding. On top of that they have added large parts of the Win32 API - notably leaving out 16-bit, DOS, and non-Unicode stuff. Of course a lot of that higher-level code is probably ported from NT, but all the lower layers are new. Aaron Lawrence 00:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I refer you to the book "Inside Windows CE" in which the system's designers themselves state that after trying to repurpose Win16 and various Win32 systems they "locked themselves in a room" and developed Windows CE from scratch in the space of two months. The system resembles Microsoft Windows in API only.  It is an entirely distinct product.  It is not a "variant" as the article states. --KJRehberg (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot
No, No, No, No, No - The screen shot is of the Windows CE 2.11 *BASED* H/PC Professional, not Windows CE 3.0, or even the Windows CE core itself. I'll try and fix it when I have a moment.

 * It calls itself this way, as shown in the about box:

Microsoft(R) Windows (R) CE, Handheld PC Edition Version 3.0 Core System Version 2.11
 * --tyomitch 15:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * H/PC Version 3.0, not Windows CE 3.0. HPC2000 is H/PC 4.0 based on CE3. HPC Pro is based on CE 2.11. Just as PPC is. --C:Amie (of HPCFactor.com) 23:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I know where the confusion comes from; I just worded the caption too poorly at first. Hopefully it's better now. --tyomitch 08:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks great from where I'm standing. Might be worth moving it to a H/PC Pro article and putting a true Windows CE core OS graphic in there though. --C:Amie (of HPCFactor.com) 23:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish I had one, but all I could find was this Jupiter thing. Obsolete OS's are always hard to find, especially those special-purpose ones like WinCE. --tyomitch 09:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, so you don't actually have a H/PC? --C:Amie (of HPCFactor.com) 13:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't you mean that all the screenshots at HPCFactor.com are taken off actual H/PC screens? I thought that you used emulators for your shots, just like I did. --tyomitch 14:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The vast majority are from live devices. The CE4.1 ones are Emulator. The CE5 was an x86 'play' build that I ran up and booted onto a prototype device - hence the odd screen size (It's the 'dream res' for many users, but doesn't exist commercially) - hence I'm in no doubt over the copyright infringement. All other ce versions are real devices, mainly from my personal h/pc collection, but also from fellow Factorites. Kinda hard to run the largest H/PC site on the net without one ^_-. Pay our forums a visit if you're interested in getting one for yourself. --C:Amie 19:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, incidentally, if your screen shot in this document is from the H/PC Pro emulator; then the screen shot is of CE 2.10's core, not 2.11. --C:Amie 20:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Complete version history tree
There is a "Relation to Windows Mobile, Pocket PC, and SmartPhone" section, but the relations ar still hard to understand. There is considerable variety of Windows Mobile and Windows CE implementation. Some versions/variations tree can help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.84.64.31 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC).

No Dreamcast mention?
Wasn't Windows CE used in the Dreamcast ( R.I.P. )? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.233.106.102 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

 * Yes it was the fundimental operating system at work in the DC, however it was effecively a platform release based around CE2.01, not a core os release - it was unlike anything seen in the CE core world until CE5 more or less. So detailed comments show be reserved for the dreamcast page here on wikipedia. --C:Amie 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This is not actually true. The Dreamcast was compatible with CE (which is why the CE logo is on the front of the console), but this was strictly on a per-game basis. In other words, certain games (usually ports from the PC) used CE, and came with CE on the disc. The Dreamcast itself did not contain any Microsoft code in ROM. RobLinwood 11:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Only some games uses WinCE in Dreamcast. You may see "Powered by Windows CE" at "Produced or under license of Sega".
 * You're correct, RobLinwood. There is no WinCE code in the Dreamcast:there instead placed it each game GD-ROM.Junkcops (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Product comparison
Is there somewhere I could find a comparison between the Microsoft CE OS and its competetors? (mostly i'm interested in Palm) Some of the stuff here is pretty technical and over my head, and the interface features of CE are somewhat lacking from this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.38.32.5 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Merging
For those who are wondering, I'm not completely clear if all of these articles warrant merging into the main Windows CE article. However, there needs to be a comprehensive "history" page for Windows CE in the same way that Microsoft Windows references History of Microsoft Windows, which references various version of Windows (e.g. Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, etc.). Just working on Image:Windows CE Timeline.png was a huge headache, and dictionaries are supposed to remove these kinds of headaches. McNeight 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting to getting such a page here on WiKipedia. A better index for CE is required as haivng CE3, CE5 and PPC doesn't do anyone any good, however as all the date information for your (very impressive) graphic was lifted off of HPC:Factor, I can't quite see how it was a headache. - C:Amie 19:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, it wasn't a huge headache, but it certainly took some work to sort out. For example, the difference between CE 3.0 and Handheld PC 3.0 (which is based on CE 2.11) and all other marketing-type "distinctions" (Pocket PC 2000 vs. Pocket PC 2002 vs. Smartphone 2002, etc.). McNeight 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge, each is a unique release and deserve their own articles like the larger windows releases and the individual OSX releases.Gateman1997 04:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support For the different versions. However, oppose the rest.'''--Ljlego 01:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't PIE a "program" for Windows CE? Just inappropriate to merge, as it is not part of the shell!

Ideally, they should seperate. RN 09:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RN. —Jared Hunt September 16, 2006, 00:19 (UTC)
 * Oppose - MSTCrow 03:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems to be pretty clear that seperate articles are warranted, I'm removing the tags, but those who say they warrant seperate pages really needs to get on to making CE 2.0 and 4.0 (I believe) articles. Radagast83 18:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Priority Inversion
It supports 256 priority levels and provides for priority inversion.

Priority inversion is not a good thing; it's not something you "provide", it's something that wreaks your system when it happens. I imagine this is supposed to mean that CE provides "priority inheritance" or "priority ceilings" for dealing with priority inversion. Or maybe, it just lets priority inversion happen; I don't know.

 * Explicitly mentioned CE's use of priority inheritance to solve priority inversion problems. --Thalakan 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Century Edition
I thought CE stood for Century Edition.

That is not true. It doesn't stand for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.40.134 (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

RCA Scenium
I believe my Scenium TV has WinCE. It has a browser, but beyond that, I don't know.whicky1978talk 01:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

BeOS for Pocket PC
I saw you mentioned there was a port of BeOS for Pocket PC... Could you please tell about this in detail/show your source for this?

--Kralikba 08:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whats CE stands for
I'm having trubles finding whats the CE stands for, if anyone know the answer please add it to the page.
 * Answer:http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q166915 RN 19:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Microsoft likes to make fill in the blank acronyms. Mathiastck 12:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Microsoft has stated that the ‘CE’ is not an intentional initialism" -- Crap. I have an MS press book about CE development which calls it compact editon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.216.130 (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know what an initialism is, but my memory says that Windows CE was originally called Windows Compact Edition. Fortunately you have a book that is consistent with my memory. Perhaps the confusion is the result of confusing did not (mean Windows Compact Edition) with does not. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sega Dreamcast
According to the Sega Dreamcast page, the Dreamcast did not run Windows CE, but _could_ run it. In that a few games used Windows CE but the game and operating system were on the gamemedium, not the console. Furthermore, according to the forementioned article, the performance when using Windows CE was worse then when using the native Dreamcast operating system. When I read the current Windows CE 3.0 article, I immediatly thought that _the native_ Dreamcast OS was Windows CE 3.0, which it appears not to be.

 * Define the "native" Dreamcast OS?! Aside from the simple menu for stuff like setting the time and Audio CD player which lived in ROM, it didn't really have one.  The menu stuff in ROM wasn't running when you booted off CD/GD-ROM for a game.  Some games were built with Windows CE (I know at least one of the Worms games was), but most of the games were pretty much just bare metal, without a proper OS distinct from the game code itself running.  Anyhow, not really topical to this page.  A CE port to the Dreamcast did exist.  I guess that's all that really matters in this context.  -- Forkazoo 05:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Are anyone check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_generation_consoles#Comparison ? Check "System Software" there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkcops (talk • contribs) 02:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Magic Cap -> WinCE?
This article claims that Magic Cap is the foundation of WinCE. Have any of y'all seen any other citations of this assertion? Or verifiable sources? --moof 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * yeah. What a reliable source! Brainwashed hatred idiots' faeces

77.52.154.151 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) aka the Children's Machine
It might be worth mentioning that Microsoft is developing a version of CE for this computer. Gary 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is a "this computer"? Sam Tomato (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

GPS devices
Windows CE is the OS on many touchscreen GPS devices from several manufacturers. Transplant GPS uses it on their RightWay product line. Their RW200 model runs Windows CE Core 5.0, according to a label on the back. Mio is another company which uses WinCE. There's a 3rd party freeware addon pack called MioPocket which adds many programs and features to Mio and some other WinCE running GPS devices to convert them into full-featured PDAs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.129.132 (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Zune
Should any mention of the Zune using Windows CE be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.137.234 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Development Tools - Visual Studio
"Late versions of Microsoft Visual Studio support projects for Windows CE / Windows Mobile, producing executable programs and platform images either as an emulator or attached by cable to an actual mobile device". This sentence is quite ambiguous. Is it saying that the produced executables can be executed on an emulator or on the actual mobile device? Why is "attached by cable" thrown in there? Does the cable have to be attached for the program to run or is this an attempt to cram information regarding the method of transfer into this sentence? --DarrenW (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows CE
Is this the right article name? The other windows articles are under Windows XP and Windows Vista for example, not Microsoft Windows XP or Microsoft Windows Vista. Abours (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Defining the difference between WinCE and Windows_Mobile
Request help for the Windows Mobile article. I started a discussion on the Windows Mobile talk page (link) about defining the difference between Windows CE and Windows Mobile. Maybe it's better to continue the discussion on the Windows Mobile page.-- Lester  06:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Any similarity with win-9x/me? What about file system support (NTFS, FAT32, etc) ?
Does Win-CE have anything in common with Win-9x/me?

Does Microsoft issue security patches and updates for CE?

What file systems (FAT32, NTFS, etc) does CE support?

Can any application software (Microsoft office, word, excel, Firefox, etc) run on CE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.122.22 (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

i bought my son a mini laptop for xmas and it has windows CE and he loves to play on funny games.com and other game sites. i have set it all up, wifi connected etc all sorted for xmas day, so i checked out the website he likes (funnygames.com) and i cant play any of the games or on any other game site and tried to download flash player but its not compatable with CE, how can my son play games on this system? please help???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.143.70 (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No Managed C++?
"The .NET Compact Framework supports a subset of the .NET Framework with projects in C#, and VB.NET, but not Managed C++." All .net code compiles to the language-independent CIL, so this doesn't make sense. Reference? 66.168.1.178 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Managed C++ (and its successor, C++/CLI) compiles to mixed mode, not pure CIL. Hence, it is quite possible that this is true.  See also mono (software), which also cannot run C++ code. 212.159.69.4 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Microsoft does not like C/C++. Windows was originally developed using C but Microsoft has always made VB easier to use than C/C++, even in ways that could have been applied to C++. Therefore Microsoft did not design their "Managed" software to work with software that use a link editor. The absence of a link editor for .Net makes it incompatible with classic languages such as C++ that require them.

Market share?
Any estimates as to market share either presently or over time? -- Beland (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you guys clear the kernel type confusion somehow?
I think that older Windows CE versions had a monolithic kernel and that newer ones have hybrid kernels, but at first glance the description of what kernel type CE has is a bit confusing, could someone please "clear the fog" a bit on this?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.191.144 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nirvara??
Does the fact that the artist of "Smells like Teen Spirit" is misspelled as "Nirvara" in the screenshot bother nobody?

It bothers me immensely. Someone replace this shit.

Misleading image
The image on the right side of the article is heavily misleading. Unsuspecting visitors will assume that that is the default Windows CE interface, which it is not. An image of the default Windows CE desktop would be much more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.23.93 (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree and have moved it down. I am surprised no one else did so yet because it's very misleading indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy35 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Windows CE. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717180230/http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/evaluate/windows-embedded-ce-6.aspx to http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/evaluate/windows-embedded-ce-6.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hpcarchive.info/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarify Windows CE cmd.exe and console.dll
User Tabdiukov stated that the screenshot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Microsoft_Windows_CE_Version_3.0_(Build_126)_cmd.exe_Command_Prompt_800x574.png used in this article shows a third-party solution, this is wrong.

This screenshot actually contains 2 software components:
 * cmd.exe. This is a command-line program that interprets commands from an input, known as command processor, command interpreter, command interpreter shell or command shell. The Windows CE version of cmd.exe is an optional part (CE_MODULES_CMD) of the Windows CE operating system, available from Windows CE Platform Builder, as well as Windows CE Power Toys; which are all released by Microsoft, not third-party.
 * console.dll. This is the console driver for Windows CE, which provides a GUI for users to interact with any command-line program, such as cmd.exe; it is also known as a terminal emulator. This particular console implementation is made by Microsoft, as an optional part (CE_MODULES_CONSOLE) of Windows CE. SymbolicTools did released a replacement console driver for Windows CE, called PocketConsole, that provided much more features than Microsoft's implementation such as colors; however the console implementation in the screenshot is not PocketConsole. Plus the image reference description states cmd.exe only, the console implementation shouldn't be considered in this case.

These 2 components can be found from Windows CE Platform Builder released by Microsoft, particularly the references can be found in source file PUBLIC/COMMON/OAK/FILES/common.bib and PUBLIC/SERVERS/SDK/SAMPLES/TELNETD/telnetd.cpp; unfortunately Microsoft didn't release the source code for cmd.exe and console.dll, only the pre-compiled machine code for each architecture that supported by Windows CE, in PUBLIC/COMMON/OAK/LIB//.

So please stop saying it "third-party", it was not.

Low power (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Windows Embedded Compact