Talk:Cascadia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Cascadia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

When was the name Cascadia first used, and what is its origin?

153.18.17.22

Well, it's clearly named after the Cascade Range shared by the region, but I don't know historically when or by who it was coined. Sarge Baldy 22:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the first use of the name Cascadia occured in 1892 with the establishment of the Oregon town of the same name, which by 1900 ceased to exist. As Sarge Baldy points out, the name is derived from the Cascade Mountain range. Also, in the 1930's, "Cascadia" or "Cascadian" was a term used to signify a peculiar type of architecture seen in this region which is a style of building design typically characterized by the exterior use of native rock, exposed log or rough hewn timbers, steep roof pitches, and rustic appearing ornamentation and materials. One of the best examples of Cascadian architecture is Timberline Lodge in Northern Oregon, which was built in 1936. Timberline is one of the best preserved examples of Cascadian architecture and is probably best known for being the inspiration for Stephen King's novel "The Shining". Many other examples of Cascadian architecture can be found throughout the region. Nagasakisullenhorde 09:57, July 29, 2005 (GMT)

No, no, no, no....sure, the name Cascadia existed as a town-name and architecture style (which btw by its description sounds like a local variation of Arts & Crafts) based on the name of the Cascades; but as a political-geographic idea it was coined/adopted/adapted by a Washington State geography professor, can't remember his name but I think he was from U.W. I'm surprised he's not mentioned, in fact, in this otherwise detailed article (detail on Jefferson really belongs on that page, though), as it was his p.r. campaign which launched the idea; at least on my side of the border (BC). He was a bit maudlin or jejune in the TV interview I saw, waxing poetically (as poetic as drily-educated academics can get) about the name, and like all Americans extending the Cascades name beyond the Fraser River to include the southern Coast Mountains; and then effusing excitedly about how all the water in the region "cascades" into the sea, and all the waterfalls ("cascades") throughout it, yadayadayada. His boundary (I remember his map) used the Columbia and Fraser and maybe the Skeena basins as the defining parameters (being into biogeography as he was, and biogeography being obsessed with/defined by watersheds).

We never bought it on our side of the border; even the imposition of the name smacked of Yankee irredentism, the same as the way the name Oregon Country was extended all the way to the Skeena and Stuart Rivers by people who'd never been west of the Rockies. Damned imperialists. The idea of Cascadia, though not by that name, does or did appeal to people in BC, mostly in the Lower Mainland and South Island of BC, as people in the Interior, well, they don't share in the perceived granola flakiness of the Coast, and many of them in fact would prefer a separate province from the Coast, which is basically a parasitical urban growth on their resource-producing hides; or even to join Alberta, where God Gave Ralph Klein Power. With the increasing Asiafication of Vancouver in the last twenty years, chances for regional integration in other than economic terms become increasingly marginal; the cultural differences between Seattle and Vancouver are now fairly severe (as a retiree from down there I know up here comments repeatedly, and is fairly obvious if you walk down any street in downtown Vancouver and then any street in downtown Seattle). The new money doesn't like to rock the boat, let's put it that way; an open border would be welcome, but political integration and separation from Canada.....well, there's a lot of us who like the idea of the latter; it's really more separation from Ontario; but conversely there's been a huge in-migration from other provinces, esp Ontario, in the last twenty years (the debate among us locals is whether the city's new tight-assed paranoid flavour is the result of the upper middle class HKers or the upper middle class Torontonians; each group trying to reshape local society/style in their own image). But either way the new money likes money, so economic integration is a BIG SELL, and even Alberta tries to jump on the bandwagon (the usual regional delineation/economy you see written up is BC/AB/MT/ID/WA/OR and sometimes YT/AK); I imagine there's an article on Western separatism (Western Canadian separatism) but if not it's such a common term if that's a redlink it won't be much longer...
... Skookum1 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Continued on Talk:Cascadia (independence movement)#First Use of Name?

I think someone should mention the cascadia scorecard [1] in this article. Also there is a movement to rename Washington State Cascadia that has been brewing for sometime now.

Here's some info I've found on the state renaming:

[[2]] I do not know who the person who brought this initiative in is, not one of the people I've heard about in the struggle to change the name.

Many definitions of 'Cascadia' conflict with each other; I think it is important to highlight that the concept of 'Ecotopia' does not completely match the concept of 'Cascadia.' I have changed the beginning of this article to emphasize that regions always have ambiguous borders. This change is sparked by the previous entry, in which it argues that Cascadia does not include sections of the Inland Northwest.

We need to describe the location of Cascadia in some way. I think the best is to say that the region between the Cascades and Pacific Ocean is always considered part of Cascadia, where other areas are variously also included depending on the interpretation. Sarge Baldy 23:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is that everyone will have their own definition of what this term means, and so it is neccessary to make it clear in the introduction that it is impossible to specifically identify. Yes, I think it would be hard to argue that the I-5 stretch between Bellingham and Eugene would not be "Cascadia," but to automatically discount other parts of the Pacific Northwest would be too specific to meet the requirements of Wikipedia that subjects be met as objectively as possible. I think, at the same time, that too much emphasis in ths article is given to "Cascadian Nationalism," while more should be given to regionalism and ecoregionalism. I think, too, that too much comparison of the term with "Ecotopia" is giving a very skewed idea of what "Cascadia" is about. While "Ecotopia" may be the most public and well-known vision of a northern west coast identity, it is still only one out of many. Being a Pacific Northwesterner, I feel that most other Pacific Northwesterners would disagree with "Ecotopia" simply because of the fact that, due to the widespread dislike of the state of California (in both the coastal and inland sections of the Northwest, mind you), most Washintonians and Oregonians would be absolutely horrified about being overrun by NoCal and San Francisco.

Well, how I see it's there regions clearly part of Cascadia, and bordering areas often considered part as well. Certainly a good portion of Northern California and possibly up into the Alaskan Panhandle could be considered Cascadia, as well as areas east of the Range possibly even into some parts of Idaho and Montana (although I tend to be more skeptical of drawing the line that far east, since it's ecologically distinct). But we can't be so vague as to not give a general sense of where Cascadia is, and I don't think it's a problem to list the epicenter and say that the areas surrounding that area are also sometimes considered part of the area. I do think the article focuses too much on politics and not enough on ecology, but I think that's largely a problem of nobody coming forward to work on that aspect of the region. If they did, it might even become feasible to split the article, since they are distinct (even if they run together, since the regional pride is generally based on the ecology...) Sarge Baldy 08:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Back in the early '80s Lewis Lapham appointed a New York reporter to fly out to Seattle to write about this Cascadia idea for Harper's Magazine; not sure what issue but it was a featured article, I think with Cascadia in the title of the article for sure if anyone's got a complete library collection of Harper's handy. So what did this fresh-out-of-Midtown writer do for his research? Drive east on I-90 to Billings, south into eastern Idaho, and back out I-84 to Portland, then left scratching his head denying he'd found any evidence of a Cascadian commonality. What he should have done, of course, is drive down to Eugene on I-5, then back up through Vancouver to Whistler (then in its still-hippie birthpangs), and tour the Olympic Peninsula, Vancouver Island, and the various islands. From the read of the article I don't think he spent more than 24 hours in the coastal corridor, and just couldn't figure out why Butte and Boise had anything in common with, say, Olympia and Renton....sigh.Skookum1 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re my other note about on the professor's borders; I recall now that he included the Stikine basin and I suppose the Taku, such that the Alaska Panhandle from Lynn Canal on down was included; the border was bulge-shaped so I gather its northern perimeter shut out the Liard and Peace drainages and used the line of the Rockies south from there.Skookum1 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have a cite to the information in the megacity section? I've never seen any other megacity where the majority of one (geographical) half is largely empty and rural. Usually the term is applied to regions where the suburban and metro areas fairly seamless - where in this case the stretch between SeaTac and Portland is virtually empty.

I would agree there is no expansive "Megacity" (thankfully). Most of that huge area is rural or forest. So I also would be interested in seeing a source for such a claim. Sarge Baldy 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just my joke-name for an idea "we" had back in the early '80s after a few wild parties with expat Brits in Victoria (the partying kind, not the tweed-and-tea crowd, even though they did wear twee and drink tea, too). Thought I'd bring this up after seeing the above somewhere:

On that note, there are several other similar sites, including one called the "Kingdom of Cascadia" where the owner suggests that we should be a monarchy (and of course, he has volunteered to be the King!)

We had a better idea; petition the House of Windsor to appoint one of the royal princes (or princesses, as Margaret and Anne were both very popular, as was Princess Michael of Kent, who's also *h*o*t*) to a separated British Columbia (or a separated Vancouver Island, which has had a separatist movement ever since its shotgun marriage to the mainland in 1866). The idea of "patriating" the monarchy to Canada has been around a long time, and if it weren't for a newly-established "tradition" of choosing Canadians to be the Governor-General from Georges Vanier onwards, sentiment when Charles was made Prince of Wales was to have him "do time" as the G-G, same as Mountbatten had as Viceroy of India. Patriation of the monarchy means something different than simply appointing a royal G-G, though; it would mean a separate Canadian monarchy/dynasty, a branch of the Windsors (the way the Greek royalty was a branch of the Hohenzollerns). Our party bunch in BC was a bit more ambitious; and we wanted Randy Andy because of his crazy lifestyle and the shot-in-the-arm all the tabloid coverage would give the local tourism trade. Never mind what it would do for the jet-set allure of the place, or the parties we could expect at Government House (actually they'd probably give him Hatley Castle or Craigdarroch Castle as official residence. And, of course, the prince's taste in sports cars would complement a town already noted for its vintage and muscle car collections. There's a Stuart pretender in Nova Scotia, too, so to heck with that commoner you were talking about for the King of Cascadia; why not get a real royal? ;-)Skookum1 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Which I think is a better name; if you're from the area you probably know what skookum means; illahee means "country, land". So either "the big, strong, genuine country" or "the country where skookum is used/known".Skookum1 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see RE BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum re: Talk:List of United States military history events#Border Commission troops in the Pacific Northwest. If you think maybe I should also move some or copy some of my other stuff from NW history and BC history pages and various Indigenous peoples project article/talk pages let me know; I never mean to blog, but I'm voluble and to me everything's interconnected; never meaning to dominate a page so have made this area to post my historical rambles on. Thoughts?Skookum1 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on my posting of this: if anyone has any questions or wants to debate any issues relating to Oregon Country/Columbia District/Pacific Northwest history/historical geography, colonialist, aboriginal/indigenous, or in this case "Cascadian dynamics" and sundry what-ifs and what-fors, please feel free to drop by the forum and start a thread/topic, or just butt in at yer leisure.Skookum1 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The name "Cascadia" is used for a number of things. I am therefore thinking of changing Cascadia to a disambiguation page between Cascadia subduction zone, Cascadia, Oregon, a synonym for Pacific Northwest and the Cascadia movement. (I also mentioned this here.) What would be a good name for the Cascadia movement article? "Cascadia (movement)", "Cascadia (separatist movement)", "Cascadia (independence movement)" with or without parentheses come to mind. — Sebastian (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A dab page makes sense--a quick search reveals several other things named "Cascadia something" that have articles. Are you thinking of splitting the independence movement section from the current article? I'm not sure what the Cascadia movement article should be called, but the synonym for the Pacific Northwest could be "Cascadia (ecoregion)". Katr67 21:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to to split the independence movement section from the current article. I forgot to mention why we need a new name for the movement article: I think this is set out in WP:D: We should use plain "Cascadia" for the name of the disambiguation page or the primary topic, if there is one. The movement is not the primary topic - if anything, that would be the region itself. Regarding your comment about "Cascadia (ecoregion)": I don't think we need to create a new page for the region; since it's a synonym for the Pacific Northwest it should be covered in that article. Therefore, I'd like to move all information about the region, such as the megacity, to that article so that Cascadia only remains a disambiguation page. — Sebastian (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about not creating a new page, but I dunno, the definition of Pacific Northwest is pretty controversial (believe it or not--take a look at the talk page) as it is without putting the Cascadia info in there as well--I *think* "Cascadia" as a bioregion (based on watersheds, etc.--perhaps this could be expanded on) is a distinct concept from the geographic region "Pacific Northwest", so my vote would be to keep it separate (pun unintended). I'm no expert though, I just live here. :) I find the megacity part baffling, so I have no opinion on where that should go... Katr67 22:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely believe you about the confusion in the Pacific Northwest article; actually, I did take a look at it and wrote about it yesterday. I'm thinking of organizing the information there in a list or table. One reason why I want the two together is that many sources use the terms PacNW and Cascadia interchangably. There is no way to group the different usages into two disjunct articles. A table in one central location could easily keep track of that and clear up the confusion.

"Cascadia (ecoregion)": I would love there to be an unanimuous understanding. Sightlike Institute uses an elegant definition: "the combined watershed of all rivers that flow through rainforest", but I'm not sure if this is universally accepted. You could be right, though: According to List of ecoregions, the WWF defined a well accepted ecoregion called Pacific Northwest Coastal Rivers and Streams. However, this does not square with the WWF link at the bottom of the article. Either way, I would prefer if the ecoregion information stayed in the primary topic article. So far, we have hardly any ecoregion articles, and if we look at a comparable one that we do have, Tasmanian temperate rain forests, it doesn't look like we'll have enough information to make a separate article necessary any time soon. — Sebastian (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't follow your link earlier, sorry. The table sounds like a great idea and I like your suggestion of a map. This isn't quite the same thing, but I like this illustration (which I see happens to be the featured image for Monday) comparing airplanes. Perhaps you talk one of those artistic types into making something like that. It would be interesting to see how far the agreed-upon core of the PacNW/Cascadia extends. Katr67 00:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries! Yes, that's a wonderful picture! I'll find out if I can find some artist for our map. — Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So, back to the topic of this section, do we agree that it makes sense to split the page into a disambiguation page ("Cascadia") and a page for the Cascadia movement? If no one has a better idea, I'll call the latter "Cascadia (movement)". — Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Cascadia (philosophy)? — EncMstr 03:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I see this as a brainstorming, I will not question proposals I don't understand. Here's another idea: "Cascadia (secession)". I feel this name is better than "movement" since it is more specific and fits both the movement and the proposed entity. — Sebastian (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of splitting and disambiguating as talked about here. The "Pacific Northwest" page could mention the occassional use of the term "Cascadia" for the region, as sometimes the term Cascadia is used as a more poetic name than "Pacific Northwest", without necessarily implying anything about political secession. I've seen the term "Cascadia" used to refer to the region as a "bioregion", "ecoregion", cultural region, etc. (bioregions need poetic names, it seems), but I think that stuff might as well be on the "Pacific Northwest" page, as the two terms refer to the same basic region (even if no one can quite agree on the boundaries!).

Personally I would like to see the region described as a somewhat cohesive cultural region that happens to cross an international boundary, as the Pacific Northwest is, without overdoing it on the secession "movement", which strikes me as an extremely minor tangent to the region as a whole (guess I'm a lumper not a splitter). To that end, give the secession movement its own page; "Cascadia (secession)" sounds fine.

And yes, there are plenty of other Cascadias, some that don't even have wikipedia pages (yet).. like the "largest master planned community in Washington State", named Cascadia, in the early construction phase right now. This city-to-be is in the foothills east of Tacoma.

I made a map a while back of what I considered the core of Cascadia, the main population center along the Cascades: http://www.pfly.net/misc/cascadia-people-big.jpg ..if anyone likes it feel free to copy; it was made with public domain data ("landscan" population data). Pfly 06:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I just created a (very crude) map that compares different definitions of Cascadia. I'll upload it in a moment. I share your wish to see it described as an international cultural region.

Thank you also for offering your map. Its quality is better than that of my map, but it only shows a small portion of Cascadia, so I think it would be more useful either

1. for a separate article on the Cascadia megacity or
2. used in Seattle metropolitan area. In this case, maybe you could add the border of the metropolitan area and a legend that explains what the colors mean. — Sebastian (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone who is an active part of the Cascadian movement, I would support the idea of splitting this article. For the movement itself, we would like to avoid the use of the term "secession" (too much of a connection to the American Civil War, the Confederacy and slavery).

I'd support Cascadia Independence Movement or Cascadian Re-Unification, the latter which we use often.

Thanks for all the support. It is inspiring to see so many taking an interest in this subject.

User:NagasakiSullenhorde (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, too! Unfortunately, none of these terms has much resonance at Google. However, if you look for the words independently, you find significantly more hits. It seems there is no agreement on a name yet. I guess this proves what someone else wrote in one of the talk pages, that Cascadia Independence Movement people are no huddlers. ;-)

Here's a table with my findings. The first column lists all hits that contain the term, the second one how many Google actually displays, and the third how many of these are pertinent (my estimate after subtracting those that split by a comma or are part of a larger term).

• "Cascadia Independence Movement" 5 5 3
• "Cascadian Independence Movement" 30 6 6
• "Cascadian Re-Unification" 1
• "Cascadia Re-Unification" 0
• "Cascadian Independence"
• "Cascadia Independence" 36 21 5
• "Cascadia Movement"
• "Cascadian secession"
• "Cascadia secession"
• Cascadia secession 38200
• Cascadia independence
• Cascadia movement
• Cascadia Re-Unification 19700
• Cascadia reunification 19700

From this, my new favorite is "Cascadia (independence movement)". This does not claim to be a term other than "Cascadia" while still being close enough to NagasakiSullenhorde's favorite, and it contains the important search terms. — Sebastian (talk)

I just stumbled upon a book called Cascadia, which caught my eye. It's a geology book, published 1972. The author explains his reason for naming the book "Cascadia" in the preface, saying there were several reasons: One, "although the Northwest includes a very much larger region than that encompassed by the Cascade Range, those mountains are one of the area's most notable features"; two, the recent geologic "crustal unrest" is known as the "Cascadian Orogeny"; and three, "Cascadia" was the name used "earlier in this century" to describe a landmass that was thought to exist in the recent geologic past in the northeast Pacific Ocean. While this Cascadia landmass is not believed to have existed anymore, other landmasses are thought by geologists to have crashed into northwest North America. Anyway, it is interesting that the author doesn't mention anything about the name having cultural or political connotations in his list of reasons for naming his book.

He also describes an oceanic basin called the "Cascadia Basin", which lies between the coast and Explorer Ridge, Juan de Fuca Ridge, and Gorda Ridge, covering a vast area offshore from approximately the Klamath Mountains to north of Vancouver Island.

I realize pages don't exist for these things yet on wikipedia, but I thought I'd add to the list of "other Cascadias" out there. The book is: McKee, Bates. Cascadia: the Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest. McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York (1972). Pfly 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, for the interested, the region he covers under the title "Cascadia" includes the Coast Range, from the Klamath Mountains in the south to the Olympic Peninsula in the north, and on to the "Insular Mountains Province" of BC (Vancouver Island, Queen Charlottes); the lowlands of Willamette Valley, Puget Sound, and the Coastal Trough of BC (Strait of Georgia and Hecate Depression), collectively called the "Willamette-Puget Trough"; the Cascade Range (Mt Lassen to southwest BC), which merge with the Coast Mountains of BC and southeast AK (geologically unrelated to the Cascades, and not to be confused with the Coast Range); the northern Basin and Range Province of north Nevada, north Utah, and southern Idaho; the Blue Mountains of OR, Columbia Plateau/Basin of WA; Northern Rocky Mountains of Idaho and western Montana; the Interior Plateau of BC, incl. Okanogan Highland, Fraser Plateau, Thompson Plateau, etc; the Columbia Mountains of BC, incl. Monashee, Selkirk, Purcell, and Cariboo Mountains; the Columbia Trench which separates the Columbia Mountains from the Rocky Mountains proper. This is a pretty big region. Pfly 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This page doesn't seem to be following the guidelines at WP:MOSDAB. Generally this guideline encourages disambiguation pages to not get too wordy: "Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article." With that in mind, several of the various things called Cascadia on this page should be deleted, I'm thinking specifically of the book title. I'm sure there are dozens of books with Cascadia in the title. Something such as Cascadia (landmass) should be wikilinked and an article written or else it probably shouldn't be included. The Bioregion entry might be better linked to an anchored link (those things with #s in them) to a section in the Bioregion article that mentions Cascadia. In a nutshell, each bulleted entry on this disambiguation page should simply have a link to the relevant article and a short description. Any further controversy can be hashed out on each article's talk page. Except for the controversial Cascadia may or may not = Pacific Northwest, which can't really have its own page. Unless we start one called "Cascadia naming controversy", but I don't know how widespread this controversy is. Is it notable enough to have its own article?

I can't find the relevant guideline, but I was also under the impression that dab pages shouldn't be added to WikiProjects. If someone could post the relevant guideline, I'd love to see it. I think the banners are an artifact of this page's previous incarnation as an article, but perhaps they should be removed. Or, as we have seen, is this dab page a special case? Katr67 21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, an editor expressed some concerns about my recent edits. All I am trying to do is bring this in alignment with the MOS. The current version is more of a compromise than my first attempt. See the history and let me know what you think. Photouploaded (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your second attempt is better. I was just trying to warn you that getting the page where it was, WP:MOSDAB violations and all, was big, huge, hairy deal and that changing it to an ordinary dab page was likely to bring back that controversy. Thanks for compromising. Katr67 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you've gone ahead and changed this back to your original version. Why bother to do an intermediate version at all if this is what you were planning to do? Katr67 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I get one of those crystal balls? The one that enabled you to discern that I was "planning" something? Sheesh. Anyway, here's what I was typing while you responded... Photouploaded (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to imply anything, I'm just irritated that you're changing this back to an ordinary dab page after I suggested that it be discussed first, and you seemed to agree, but then changed it back again. I commented that I liked the second version above, so I was surprised you continued to edit without discussion. Since you didn't live through the entire mess of a year ago, as noted above and which also slopped over onto Talk:Pacific Northwest, you might not understand my concern. Sebastian and several others worked very hard to get the page where it was, and I know that that 5 bucks will buy you cup of coffee in Cascadia, but I'd just like to make sure there is some discussion first. I've asked a couple others to come take a look, since I'm not the best judge of how this page should look. Katr67 (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you writing back. Hopefully we can come up with something that adheres to the guidelines. The previous version was unlike any other dab page I have seen at the Wiki; so if people want to break the rules, they should be very clear as to what, exactly, necessitates it. Photouploaded (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Sebastian says he won't be able to check out this discussion until tomorrow. Katr67 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why these items should be here. Two are tenuously sourced, at best, one is not sourced at all.

• Cascadia (landmass), a name used in the early 20th century for a landmass once thought to exist (see link)
• Cascadia Basin^{[citation needed]}
• Cascadia, a Pacific coastal bioregion (see link)

America2050 is a blog, not a reliable source. Cascadia Basin needs sources. Cascadia as the name for a bioregion, how is this different from Pacific Northwest? Thanks,

- Photouploaded (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and what is the argument that we should just ignore the WP:MOSDAB in this instance? Photouploaded (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The bioregion is understood to be west of the Cascades (perhaps including its summits) which is significantly different from any concept of Pacific Northwest. —EncMstr 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently Cascadia (bioregion) redirects to Pacific Northwest, is that erroneous? Photouploaded (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: we should definitely add

• Cascadia, a name used to refer to the Pacific Northwest (or some other acceptable wording)

If the landmass and basin are legit, let's add them as redlinks rather than with long explanations. I'm not sure about the bioregion one. I can find links about ecoregions (to which bioregion redirects) and there appear to be several ecoregions that make up Cascadia (Willamette Valley forests, Central Pacific forests, Central and Southern Cascades forests, and Puget lowland forests among others.) I'd say leave this one out for now. If someone writes an article about bioregions, we can always update the dab page. --Esprqii (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is part of an ongoing problem. If you take a look at Talk:Cascadia (independence movement) and the Afd for that article, I think that Cascadia (independence movement) should be moved to Cascadia (bioregion), with a minimized role for the independence movement and more explanation about what the bioregion entails. But I haven't been BOLD enough to actually do it. Yes, I'm afraid you've stumbled across a very messy corner of the wiki... Katr67 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So now that I see that I missed that my suggested bullet was actually the first item on the page, I would propose changing its wording from "is a synonym for the Pacific Northwest" to "is a term sometimes used to refer to the Pacific Northwest." I would say no one except those in the "movement" would ever use the term "Cascadia" instead of PNW. And I think it's OK to have separate "independence movement" and "bioregion" articles because one is political and one is (presumably) scientific. But at this point, I don't think there is a scientific consensus of what a "bioregion" is (a bunch of ecoregions?). --Esprqii (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How about Cascadia (bioregion): any place where Himalayan Blackberry grows faster than Jack's beanstalk?  :-) —EncMstr 21:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I voted for Blackberria in the bioregion naming sweepstakes, but I guess that name went to Silicon Valley. --Esprqii (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, my vote is for Scotchbroomia. Katr67 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Photouploaded asked, what is the argument that we should just ignore the WP:MOSDAB in this instance?. In this case it makes sense to me, given the complexity of the term, to ignore the DAB guidelines, by doing so it makes it easier for the reader to navigate to the appropriate article by category. That seems more appropriate than just having a nebulous selection of stand alone links. Awotter (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Displeasure with having a "nebulous selection of standalone links" should be taken to the WP:MOSDAB discussion page, because that basically is the standard for dab pages. Have you read that page? Dab pages are supposed to be Spartan. We are talking about 5 to 9 links in total, I don't think those numbers warrant headers. "Nebulous" isn't quite accurate either, I listed them in the order that Google gave mention to each meaning. Can you accept the page as it is now, if not, what do you think it needs? Photouploaded (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)