Talk:Sable Island

Part of Halifax Regional Municipality

Sable Island is part of district 7 of the Halifax Regional Municipality [1]

Some Believe

I removed the weasel words about the island moving. There are pictures to document the movement. There is some debate about how much the island actually moves east and how much it just changes shape. But that is a research question not for an encyclopaedia entry.

http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mnh/nature/sableisland/english_en/nature_na/sand_sa/island-move_sa.htm

An Anonymous Newbie

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.218.20 (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 

DX peditions

have any of the DXs been successful? this needs to be mentioned, i think. -Mayumashu 05:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marconi Company also maintained a station on Sable for the federal gov't in the early decades of the 20th century. Not sure if DX's were successful as the feds don't want people landing for fear of A) liability, and B) probably moreso, fear of harm to the local environment/ecology.Plasma east 07:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just removed the amateur radio/rare DX trivia section - it is refering to Cape Sable Island which is not Sable Island. Of course, it could just be a typo - but I don't know. No information is better than wrong information, especially when the article itself points out Sable Island is not to be confused with Cape Sable Island! A reference would be useful too if somebody does find out this is actually the right island... -Wangi 23:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added a link to a web site from the latest DXpedition to Sable (earlier this month) - there is no prohibition from ham operators going to Sable and setting up their equipment. Perhaps this web site could provide some information and the DX section re-instated.HiFlyChick (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sable Island Trust

I believe that the funding issue with regards to the Sable Island Trust was resolved in February 2005 when the federal Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans agreed to restore funding for their operations there. Perhaps this is separate from the funding issue for Sable Island Trust though... Plasma east 07:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

visit?

How does one visit the island? It sounds beautiful. --Sonjaaa 01:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You cannot visit the island unless you are there working on the island - by the Canada Sipping Act. The island is a enviromental protected area . --Markhamman 13:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not true - I added a note that you need permission to visit the island from CCG HiFlyChick (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Area of what?

"Sable Island is a narrow crescent-shaped sandbar with a surface area of about 3400 ha no more than 2 km across at its widest point,"

I don't get the part I highlighted in bold. What is "3400 ha"? Peter Tangney 02:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Its a Hectare the metric form of measuring surface area of land . "Ha" is the abbrevation . km is kilometers. It is used in most countries of the world including Canada --Markhamman 13:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Shipwrecks

An issue of National Geographic Magazine from many years ago - not sure when, but definitely 80s or earlier, possibly even 60s - featured Sable Island as the "Island of 600 Shipwrecks." It was an interesting article and should definitely be included in the entry here if anyone can find the reference. I can do no better than pull it from memory, I'm afraid.

I removed some edits about large number of wrecks visible in satellite images - these are waves and clouds, not shipwrecks. An encyclopedia article shoudl not be about guesswork. Every published source on Sable refers to the very small number of visible wrecks - mainly the boiler and hull of SS Skidby and two or three other steel hull fragments that come and go with shifting sand.Letterofmarque (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

= Also, add this picture: http://nswrecks.net/ns-maps&charts/SableIsland-WreckMap-nsmus2.gif It's a great visualization of the wrecks. 96.30.144.236 (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

==That map graphic is not public domain. Letterofmarque (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Trivia sections

I don't aggre with eliminating many trivia parts in most articles since considering a fact as a trivial one is somewhat subjective. Besides, these trivial data could give certain interesting clues for many Wikipedian usuaries. This is why I moved the fact of planting 80.000 trees to a non trivia-section. This fact brings out several interesting questions:

• Why the 80.000 thousand trees died?
• Were those trees out from many kinds of trees? Was whorthwile to investigate adapting different species?. --Fev (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Trivia?If trivia is discouraged, as the box in the trivia section boldly states, then why is the trivia here? If the trivia can be allowed to stay -- then why do we need the box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.25.208.8 (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Graphic

Couldn't someone just turn the picture so that north is in the UPPER left corner? It would make the photo less disorienting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whichiswhich (talk • contribs) 08:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sinking?

I'd heard that Sable Island is slowly sinking into the ocean. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say anywhere in the referenced article that Sable Island "is sinking." There is no proof that "climate change" is causing any sinking whatsoever. 38.13.12.13 (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Altitude

Altitude of the highest point? --Error (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that such a measurement exists - the dunes can be very high (in excess of 30 ft), but there is no underlying rock (until you go down over 1000 ft) and being sand dunes, they change over time. An interesting question, though HiFlyChick (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The German article claims that the highest dune is 40 m high, which would be over 130 ft. In any case, the issue of altitude is worth addressing in the article explicitly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Supplies are delivered

That whole bit about the SM picking out a landing strip may be outdated now there is a permanent runway. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 09:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This still happens - there is no runway, the beach area was simply designated as an aerodrome

HiFlyChick (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Pushpin map

...or the like would be great. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sable Island is not part of Nova Scotia!

Just because Nova Scotia claims that Sable Island is part of the province Nova Scotia does not make it so. It is federally administered and exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

There are two constitutional passages that support this:

1. Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 states: "... the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated... [including] Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island." The important word here is "exclusive." Like currency, the post office or criminal law, Sable Island is the exclusive domain of Ottawa.

2. Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states: 52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Therefore, any law passed by Nova Scotia stating that the Island is part the Halifax municipality or part of a provincial electoral district does not make Sable Island Nova Scotian. Moreover, even if the federal government through, policy or otherwise, indicates that Nova Scotia can have an influence over Sable Island, does not mean that it is part of Nova Scotia. To make it formally part of Nova Scotia would take a constitutional amendment! Sable Island's special constitutional status should be celebrated, not denied!

I suspect Nova Scotia civil servants (or just proud Nova Scotian citizens) have had a hand in writing this article. However, Wikipedia should strive to be factual, rather than people wishing that the facts support their world view. Moreover, it should not be used as a as a tool to support a province's wish to expand its territorial influence. If you are an honest editor of this page you will correct this. Does Nova Scotia have some influence over Sable Island? Yes, but as there is absolutely no legal argument that can support the claim that Sable Island is part of the province of Nova Scotia.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.231.235.191 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Although permission to visit Sable Island is granted federally, it has always been part of Nova Scotia. When Parks Canada takes over (soon) it will still be administered federally, and still be part of Nova Scotia. It is part of the Halifax Citadel-Sable Island electoral district, which makes it part of HRM (which is a little bizarre, but nonetheless, it is what it is). HiFlyChick (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please provide any evidence that, "it has always been part of Nova Scotia." There is clear evidence that it has NOT been part of Nova Scotia since 1867. Please see the Constitution of Canada, 1867 s. 91. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.93.56 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because Nova Scotia assigns a meaningless electoral district to Sable Island, does not mean it is part of Nova Scotia. Doing so is purely a propaganda exercise by the government of Nova Scotia to lay claim to Sable Island and, in particular, any resources that might be offshore. The constitution of Canada is the supreme law of the land, and that says clearly that Sable Island is EXCLUSIVELY under federal jurisdiction. Full stop. Wikipedia should cater to the truth, rather than to aspirations of the Nova Scotia government. As written, this article is very constitutionally inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.93.56 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

To say that Sable Island is part of the Halifax Regional Municipality is absurd. It is an Island 300k away from Halifax. Anyone reading this article trying to understand what Sable Island is will only be confused by the addition of this information. It misrepresents the island and does a disservice to this article. Please ignore the fact that for political reasons, Nova Scotia says that it is part of the HRM. It could be mentioned that Nova Scotia claims that Sable Island is in the HRM, but it should not be included in the sidebar facts about the Island. It is not a "fact" at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.93.56 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If Sable isn't part of NS, why did the Federal Minister of the Environment and the Premiere of Nova Scotia sign a Memorandum of Understanding to create a national park at Sable Island (in Oct 2011)?

http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/cp-nr/release_e.asp?id=1958&andor1=nr

HiFlyChick (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your linked article proves my point. To change the status of Sable Island to a national park required only a federal statute. This is because they have exclusive jurisdiction over it. Nova Scotia does not have any statutory authority over Sable Island, whatsoever. As the article states, Nova Scotians have a special attachment to Sable Island and the government of Nova Scotia has a desire to have an influence over what happens there. Indeed, before Confederation, it belonged to the colony of Nova Scotia, but under the British North America Act, 1867 it was transferred to to Ottawa. The people and government of Nova Scotia still resent the loss of control over the Island and may feel it is properly part of NS.

In recent decades, the government of NS requested and received from the federal government the ability to be consulted on matters related to Sable Island. The federal government has indeed agreed to consult Nova Scotia on the creation of the park and matters of offshore resources. This memorandum of understanding is politically expedient, not constitutionally mandated. There is no doubt that Nova Scotia has political influence with Ottawa over what happens on Sable Island. This does not mean it is part of Nova Scotia.

If Sable Island were in Nova Scotia, it would have required significant provincial legislation to create the park (or it probably would not not have happened at all). The federal Canada Shipping Act, has governed the Island for years. It states that "the Island is under the control, management and administration of the Agent" of the federal minister of transport. No province would let the federal government rule over their territory in areas of their jurisdiction. Sable Island is a federal territory and has been since 1867. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.93.56 (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite the constitutional status you could argue that in practice there has evolved a joint Canada/Nova Scotia governance of the Island (especially since it will now be a park). However, that does not mean it is part of the province proper. Its status is unique in Canada.

While I agree that it has unique status (in the ham radio world it has its own country code, but that doesn't mean it isn't part of Canada), it still needs to be considered as part of a province. When discussing Canadian geography, we don't say that Canada has 10 provinces, 3 territories, and 1 island. Would you then have Sable Island as being part of Ontario (since Ottawa has jurisdiction)?

Parks Canada lists all federal parks by province, and has Sable listed under NS, and also explicity calls it Sable Island, NS in its write-up (http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/recherche-search_e.asp?search=&p=1&province=NS&sort=). In the Canadian Flight Supplement and the Restricted Canada Air Pilot (RCAP), the Sable Island "Aerodrome" is listed as Sable Island, NS. Regardless of your diggings into the constitution, you seem to be the only one who denies that Sable is part of NS, so perhaps there is other governing legislation/factors that you are unaware of. While I agree that Wikipedia should not present public opinion as truth, neither should one person's interpretation (and extrapolation) of a single document be considered cause to change a major point in an article when all other sources indicate otherwise.HiFlyChick (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

While the The Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3 does say that "the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,...9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island." to jump from that to saying it is not part of NS is original research. Look down a few lines to 13 and 15, ferries and banks. The Govt. of Canada has the same authority but it does not mean they own either or that they are not part of the province in which they are located. From there I found Powers of the National and Provincial Governments by Eugene Forsey. This page indicate that the island is owned by the Govt. of Canada and looking back at the Constitution Act (link above) schedule 3 it says "Provincial Public Works and Property to be the Property of Canada" #3 "Lighthouses and Piers, and Sable Island." but again there is nothing that says it is not part of NS. I then found this. Note the title is called "THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FEDERAL PROTECTED AREA ON SABLE ISLAND IN THE PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA" and the sixth paragraph says that it will count to the 12% of protected areas in NS. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Your post was very interesting and well articulated. Here is how I respond. This should be the end of the matter, because you reminded me of a constitutional provision that I had forgotten: the section that transfers things owned by the former colonies, to the federal government. All of these things used to be owned by the provinces, but are now federal property.

Please refer to the Third Schedule of the Constitution Act, 1867 which explicitly transfers ownership of Sable Island from the Province. It lists provincial property to be transferred to the federal government (it includes Sable Island (number 3). This is what is says:

"THE THIRD SCHEDULE.

Provincial Public Works and Property to be the Property of Canada.

1. Canals, with Lands and Water Power connected therewith. 2. Public Harbours. 3. Lighthouses and Piers, and Sable Island. 4. Steamboats, Dredges, and public Vessels. 5. Rivers and Lake Improvements. 6. Railways and Railway Stocks, Mortgages, and other Debts due by Railway Companies. 7. Military Roads. 8. Custom Houses, Post Offices, and all other Public Buildings, except such as the Government of Canada appropriate for the Use of the Provincial Legislature and Governments. 9. Property transferred by the Imperial Government, and known as Ordinance Property. 10. Armouries, Drill Sheds, Military Clothing, and Munitions of War, and Lands set apart for general Public Purposes."

Sable Island is the property of the Canada exclusively! The constitution says it twice. This section basically says, Sable Island used to be the property of Nova Scotia, but now it is the property of Canada. This means it it is not part of Nova Scotia, it has been transferred. So to sum up; The constitution says that Sable Island is the property of the federal government and s. 91 says that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over it, yet you are still arguing that it is part of Nova Scotia. It can't possibly be part of Nova Scotia if the province doesn't own it and has no authority over it!

No other piece of geography is on the list, which indicates the special status of Sable Island. No other piece of geography is under EXCLUSIVE federal jurisdiction. There is no territory of any province which that province does not have ANY authority over (that would be ridiculous). Let me be clear: s. 91 means that only the federal government can pass laws and make regulations regarding Sable Island. This mean that the Nova Scotia legislature (or the legislature of any province) can't make any laws or regulations regarding the Island. So, by definition, it can't be part of Nova Scotia (or they would have statutory powers over it). If it were still part of Nova Scotia, it would not have been put on either list in the constitution. I'm guessing the the Province gave it away, because it was expensive to manage and had no financial value at the time (total guess on my part).

Let this be the end of the matter, if you want to be accurate change this page, if you are a NS nationalist/government worker you probably won't. Nova Scotia has gained influence in Sable Island, but it belongs to Canada and no province ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA. It could be no clearer.

On your other points. 1) We don't say 10 provinces, 3 territories and Sable Island, because Sable Island is small, unpopulated and has no political representation and most people don't know about (especially outside of NS). We don't mention the numerous First Nation territories, and they have different constitutional status. 2) Nova Scotia wants to claim as much protected area as possible and they have a claim over Sable Island, so the federal government is letting them count Sable Island (which makes both sides happy) in their total. 3) Bureaucrats working for Parks Canada have no constitutional expertise. The sad part is that I guarantee the communications officer who wrote that press release looked it up on Wikipedia, assuming incorrectly that it would be accurate. 4. The constitution is the Supreme Law and the land, from a legal perspective this "single source" trumps all others. 5) I know everyone today likes things straightforward and simplified, the governance of Sable Island is messy. I would be satisfied by this article said "Sable Island is a federal territory jointly managed by the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia as a national park." 6. it doesn't matter how many people or organizations are confused by the constitutional status of Sable Island. I suspect most people think that Sable Island is part of Nova Scotia (especially if they read wikipedia). The widespread misunderstanding of the issue is propagated by the authors of this article and doesn't change anything. I'm afraid the constitutional errors found here have become self-reinforcing; people have published statements using Wikipedia as reference and then the authors of this article quote those erroneous statements to prove that this article is correct.

If we were able to take this dispute to the Supreme Court, not only would my argument prevail, you would also have to pay costs. It would be open and shut.

Regarding the title of the memorandum of understanding. I'm sure the provincial government insisted on putting Nova Scotia in the title because they have had a claim over the island since 1970. The Federal government conceded to ensure harmonious relations because 1) the MOU is not legally binding. 2) It is only valid for one year 3) The federal government inserted this line: "WHEREAS Canada and Nova Scotia acknowledge that this MOU is without prejudice to the position of either party with respect to jurisdiction over or ownership in Sable Island;" (so it doesn't impact on the status of the Island). This demonstrates the unique constitutional status of Sable Island, such as statement would not be necessary if it were clearly part of Nova Scotia like any other territory. The MUN does not impact on the constitutional status Sable Island at all.

Also, The issue of offshore resources has been settled and the Island is going to be a national park, so I'm sure the federal government does not object or care if the province calls it part of Nova Scotia or not, because it in practical terms it is irrelevant and costs them nothing. Notice it is a federal park and only requires federal legislation and that "Canada agrees to then take the necessary steps to protect the area under the applicable federal legislation, and to do so in consultation with Nova Scotia." Note that Canada acts and Nova Scotia is only consulted. It is not a federal/provincial reserve. It is entirely under the control of the federal government, who has agreed to consult Nova Scotia, this would not be possible on mainland Nova Scotia.

Even, if you disagree with me, you have to acknowledge that Sable Island is constitutional complex place and not simply a part of Nova Scotia like the rest of the province. The way this article reads, Sable Island has the same constitutional status as the Mic Mac Mall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.95.77 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely possible for a something to be the property of the federal government, and subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction, while still being considered to be within the geographic boundaries of a province. All major airports across the country are the property of the federal government, including the Robert L Stanfield International Airport. However, it would be the epitome of absurdity to use that as an argument to say that the airport isn't actually located in "Nova Scotia, Canada", but rather located merely in "Canada". All military bases are property of the Canadian Forces, and subject to the military criminal justice system. But you would never make the leap to say that CFB Halifax is located merely in "Canada" instead of "Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada". All the rail lines throughout the country are the property of the federal government, but it would be equally absurd to say that you step outside of Nova Scotia and then back into it, as you walk across an at-grade rail crossing. All these things remain within the territorial boundaries of the province or territory where they are situated, despite being the property of the federal government.24.222.2.222 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sable Island is a part of the Halifax Regional Municipality Nova Scotia the province gets royalties from the natural gas from off Sable Island . Also being a part of the Halifax Regional Municipality a society that in charge of monitoring the island gets a grant from the municipality as it is also a part of district 7 Ottawaresident (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I know that this debate is several years old, but I'm leaving this note here to explain that I've changed to wording in the article to 'property of the federal government', and moved this mention to the history section. As said above, the fact that the federal government owns the land does not negate it being in the province of Nova Scotia, nor does the 1867 give any clear indication to that effect. PerplexedPanda (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

'Corkscrew' wounds on seals

The article on Greenland Sharks indicates that there is controversy over whether these wounds are caused by Greenland Sharks or by the seals being drawing into ducted propellers of ships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.148.220 (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sable Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://atlantic-web1.ns.ec.gc.ca/climatecentre/default.asp?lang=En&n=D1316270-1

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. — Gorthian (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sable Island. 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/20131018050705/https://atlas.agr.gc.ca/agmaf/index_eng.html to http://atlas.agr.gc.ca/agmaf/index_eng.html#context=phz-zrp_en
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.library.dal.ca/archives/trela/letters/6allen23nov77.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}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• The archive link works for the Agriculture Canada website, but the interactive map, of course, does not. I found the current map, which has been updated rather extensively since the first one was accessed, but the web mapping service seems to have been down since April. I looked at the PDF versions; their scale is way too small for Sable Island. In the page-size PDF, the island doesn't even show, and in the poster-size version, the registration is so bad between the map layers that Sable Island is the same width as its outline, and no color coding is possible.
• So, for now, I'm inserting a reference to PlantMaps, who seem to base their data on the USDA scheme of lowest minimum temperature. I have no idea who they are, but the maps seem legit.
• For the "permanent dead link" that the bot couldn't fix (nor could I), I found a substitute reference and put that into the article. — Gorthian (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Red links and redundancy

I earlier removed the red links to Robert Elliot, Anthony Kennedy, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Agreement, and Lake Wallace, and removed a cn tag (and associated sentence) about amateur radio. This edit was reverted in good faith by User:Jeff in CA. My edit was based, in part, on the guideline WP:REDLINKS: Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. The two individuals are obscure military officers from the late 1700s, are apparently known only for their respective WP:ONEEVENT, and are unlikely to be sufficiently notable to ever merit their own pages on enWiki (see WP:MILPEOPLE). The political agreement seems quite obscure, but perhaps - perhaps - there is some coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources that could provide justification for a page of its own. I am unable to find any such sources...but I am also unable to find a local shop that carries any of the Springbank scotches, so there is that. Nothing about Lake Wallace in the article is referenced, I am unable to find anything about this former(?) lake on-line (but see above), and indeed the entire passage seems a case of un-sourced WP:OR and is thus worthy of deletion. Lastly, the cn tag, and its associated sentence, is not needed because details about amateur radio are presented earlier in the article, in the 'After Confederation and creation of a weather station' section.

Should I have posted this message, or something like it, prior to making those changes, all of which I considered to be minor and uncontroversial? I don't think so. Should I have reverted Jeff in CA? No, that was a mistake on my part so I will self-revert in a moment. Should I have made five individual, minor edits instead of the one that, again, I considered to be uncontroversial? I guess so, maybe. Should my original edits be retained? Yes. Will I be edit warring over this? Absolutely not. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Those are all valid reasons and well thought through, in my opinion. Having read them, I have no argument against any of them. My general approach is to look out for red link removals that appear to be indiscriminate and for no other reason than being red. As that is clearly not the case here, I have no further objection.Jeff in CA (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Updated climate data for an all-meteorology island.

How about 1991 to 2020 climate normals for this island of only a small science base population. Perhaps the coldest month is now 0+ and doesn't need the -3 C isotherm to qualify as oceanic. B137 (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The coldest month is -1.x C in February, rounding to 30 F. Using Halifax, Climate of New York City, and Nantucket as a proxy, which have increased about 1 F (.6 C) in just the latest decadal revision, February may be 31.5 F, (-.2 C), rounding to the real benchmark for a subtropical or oceanic Cf climate type. B137 (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)