Talk:Cape Breton Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Nova Scotia / Geography (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
WikiProject Islands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


The comment "Cape Breton was illegally annexed along with Prince Edward Island in 1820" smelled bogus to me, so I did some quick searches on-line and at the library. I could find no corroboration (though as I mentioned, my searches were not thorough), so I edited the illegally out. If there really is a controversy over the legality of the 1820 annexation, we should elaborate about it a little bit and not just mention it in passing.--Indefatigable 19:26, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The reference I was referring to was some correspondences from the then governor of Cape Breton that are available at the Beaton Institute. I will have a cite for it shortly... might even expand on it and add something for the Cape Breton provincialist movement. jax9999


That should help a bit...anyone else have any ideas of what else we could put in? I think more on the economy and a bit less on waterway navigation, etc., could help.Habsfannova 03:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks great! I agree - there should also be more information on its years as an independent colony, more on coal mining (Sydney Field and the Inverness Field) and how this drove the steel industry. I'll see if I can get a better map which shows communities and counties in better detail.Plasma east 00:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How about adding some population figures and more info on the tourism industry? I could be wrong but I think the island is trying to drum up interest in more toursim. --Scottanon 21:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i just deleted two people from the famous people area. one was deemed not wikipedia worth and the other was a joke or an insult by some one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Elizabeth May from Famous Capers. Elizabeth was born in Connecticut, and has lived in Ottawa for 25+ years. She lived in Cape Breton briefly in her late teens and early 20s, more than 25 years ago. While she emphasizes this connection in her resume, it does not make her a Cape Bretoner. Serial Comma 16:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Population data would be nice. Funnyhat 06:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of getting out to the college and getting into the census data would we want the historical stuff or just the latest stuff?jax9999


I added some updated population info, with references. Ken Heaton (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


the section on history seems kind of jumbled. The seperate section on industrial history that cites an article called industrial history is just awkward. Im going to have to figure out something.


The word Breton has no relation to the Basque country. The population of these two regions have no particular relation, except that they're both French. As such, I'm deleting the reference to Basque country in the introduction. Dagonz, 9 Apr 2006

The populations of Basque and Brittany have no relation, but I think local historical accounts refer to Basque fishermen and whalers operating from the shores of the island since the 1400s having given the name "Breton" in honour of Brittany. Plasma east 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Settlement history[edit]

There is a separate article called Settlement history of Cape Breton Island (which is linked in the history section) that is essentially just a repeat of some of the information contained in the history section. There's no need to repeat the same thing in two places. The separate page should be eliminated, or else a very abbreviated form of it should be in the history section, with a link like "Main article - ..." for more detail. Dsreyn 17:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bras d'Or and fog[edit]

This was recently added:

Cape Breton's hydrological features include the Bras d'Or Lake system, a fog-free salt-water fjiord at the heart of the island

Last summer, I spent a night in Baddeck, and another in Iona, and both nights, there was plenty of fog on Bras d'Or. I'm removing the "fog-free" claim for now. Dsreyn 12:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes - merging separate articles[edit]

Separate articles on Cape Breton fiddling and Cape Breton Highlands were recently merged into the Cape Breton Island article. I think there are several reasons to keep these as separate articles / topics:

  1. Categories - this allows people to easily locate articles within an area of interest. However, the main Cape Breton Island article does not really belong in categories such as "Scottish styles of music", "Violins", or "Mountain ranges of Canada".
  2. Links - an article on a specific fiddler (say, Jerry Holland), has a link to the fiddling article. If instead this link goes to Cape Breton Island, it's much less convenient for the reader (even if the fiddling content is contained there).
  3. User contributions - just speculation on my part, but I think someone with an interest in a specific area (such as fiddling) is more likely to work on the article if it exists as a separate entity.
  4. General article style - I think it's preferable for the Cape Breton Island article to have a brief overview of everything, but leave a lot of the details to specialized articles. This makes browsing easier for someone who just wants to become familiar with Island in general (and may not want every detail on every topic), while someone interested in more depth in a particular area can just follow the link to the separate article.

Dsreyn 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dsreyn, I fully understand your point of view. It does make sense to have separate articles on Cape Breton Fiddling and the Cape Breton highlands, but the two were so painfully short that they were only a brief overview. I'd be overjoyed to have them separate if someone with appropriate knowledge would put the time into expanding them, but in their current state, it seemed better to merge them with the article on Cape Breton Island and flesh out that article. I'll keep my hands off of the three for a while until we hear from some other users. --G. C. Hood 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I certainly agree that both of the separate articles could use more work though. That sort of gets back to my third point above - I think having them separate is more likely to invite future expansion. Dsreyn 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that you added a "mergeto" template to the Cape Breton Highlands article. Is there any reason for proposing the merge, other than you don't think that article is long enough on its own? If the article is too short (and could be expanded), the solution is to encourage expansion, not to merge it with something else (which seems more likely to discourage expansion).
There are some Wikipedia guidelines on writing articles that you might want to read - Guide to writing better articles and Article size. The preferred style generally seems to be to break separate topics out into their own articles. Dsreyn 15:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dsreyn that both articles should be kept separate from this main article on Cape Breton Island for the reasons stated above. They could be expanded upon, but should remain separate, even if they are stubs. (forgot to sign this post earlier Plasma east 14:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

Cape Breton Landscape[edit]

I have some great photos I took that shows what the highlands of Cape Breton look like, should we put them on, and how would we do this. (I never edited a page before) I'll check back to see your comments.

If the photos show some of the dominant features (ie. barren plateau, rising ridges along the coast, flora & fauna, etc.), then by all means, upload them. You can find instructions on the Upload file link to the left side of the page. Instead of adding the photos to this article on Cape Breton Island itself, you might want to consider uploading and linking them for the Cape Breton Highlands article.Plasma east 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

French language[edit]

Something should be mentioned about the language demographics of Cape Breton... it seems to be a mostly francophone area, distinct from the rest of Nova Scotia. Esn 05:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While Cape Breton does have large francophone populations in Cheticamp and Isle Madame, the language is virtually non-existent in daily usage elsewhere. That being said, there is a public, Acadian francophone school in Sydney and the Cape-Breton Victoria Regional School Board has a fairly popular French immersion program in five of its secondary schools.G. C. Hood 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Colonial Seal[edit]

I think it would be a great addition to the article, but I defy anyone to locate a web image of the colonial seal. That is, the original seal that was granted by the monarchy and used by Cape Breton for the brief period it was an independent colony, from 1784–1820. Does anyone has access to an archive or museum or history book with a photograph of this thing?? —Muckapædia 13e déc. 2006, 11h31 (UTC+0900) 머크백과 tǂc


i've never been to CBI, but i've heard it's one of the most beautiful places around. but there are no pictures! somebody should do something about it... Chensiyuan 17:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

ok ive added some. Chensiyuan 01:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Spreading[edit]

It seems the person who was vandalizing the articles on John W. Morgan, and Glace Bay, Nova Scotia has now started to do the same in this article (6 times in the last day or so). The edits were reverted by myself and another editor who has tried to stop this person from inserting bogus and outright insane statements from the articles I mentioned for months now. He was finally able to stop this vandalism by getting an IP editing ban on those articles, which is why he has moved to this article to committ his vandalism. How long does this constant childish vandalism have to occur before an IP editing ban can be considered? CapersAreCool 04:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess an IP ban probably won't stop the vandalism because the same idiotic edit was made to the article within seconds of an account being created. I guess the person has nothing better to do than sit around all day editing this nonsense into the articles. CapersAreCool 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this debate but I have read all the other references to it on the other sites and I think the misunderstanding is about the history on the IQ information. There were numerous individuals who were teachers and fellow students with Morgan in Glace bay who talked at length about his IQ on the site several years ago; these people identified themselves by name and they said Morgan wouldn't talk about it but they knew the information from his teachers. The information was documented there by people who knew him at school and it is well known in his community. While one person appears determined to delete this fact, there is much more evidence for it than other IQ references elsewhere on Wiki because it is based on people who actually knew him from school. I think a lot of the silly references have resulted from frustration with one person trying to dominate all the Cape Breton sites where Morgan is referenced. It is dangerous to allow this because someone who is a political opponent posing as a friend could be trying to weaken or damage Morgan.

I don't think we should be freezing all these sites just because one person disagrees with consensus opinion and feels strongly about it. No one person should be able to veto everyone else by freezing sites and banning people.

CelticGirl2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticgirl2 (talkcontribs) 04:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Celticgirl is correct about this. I remember the discussion on It is well documented and widely known in the community.

Fireguy3 05:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)fireguy3

I think it is a disgrace that the guy calling himself KirkOconnel can take over all these Cape Breton sites. I never heard of him and doubt he even lives is Glace Bay so why does he get to shut all the sites down.05:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Tarbishplayer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarbishplayer (talkcontribs)

Kirkocconnel/Capersarecool is completely wrong on the facts of this issue. Overeditor 05:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Overeditor

I was a member of a high IQ society from which Morgan was involved so I know this information to be a fact. See comments I made on kirkoconnell's talk page. kirk o needs to find a new obsession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry[edit]

Okay there "group" of Cape Bretoners who know this super speical secret about Morgan and want to include it in the artcile about the Island that Morgan lives on.

Listen up. You are clearly Sock Puppetting. This "Group" only has a couple of edits amoung them and the Usernames were created all around the same time. Please. This is an old trick. Do you think we are idoits?

Give this up. I do not want to have to troll Wikipedia and get admins to ban you whenever I see you editing, but I will.

I am guessing you guys have never heard of the Way back machine have you? Well I checked in the way back machine and guess what? As far as I can tell no such discussion took place. Maybe I am wrong, there are glitches in the software, but at least I can safely say second hand information from a rumourmill website is hardly evidence to a fact. Here is the link by the way:*/

So if you do not have any proof, one valid source, the information will be removed from the John Morgan article. Here, the information will be removed regardless. Why you ask? Because as there is debate on whether it should or should not be added to the Morgan article, there is no debate on whether it should be included in the Cape Breton article. It simply should not be included. -Kirkoconnell 14:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The only sockpuppet is the ko signing on as kirk occonnel and also as capers are cool as he carries out his vendetta against Morgan; look at the records history. The references are solid and even detailed a rescue by Morgan of a young girl at Big Glace Bay Beach which Morgan's "friend" Kirk Occonnel also seems to think should be not referenced. I noticed KirkOconnel started a new item rather than addressing the people in the previous paragraph. KirkO should be ashamed of repeatedly taunting people and calling them names like idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overeditor (talkcontribs) 15:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Brian Olsen's site describes the Wiki principal "here on Wikipedia, it is up to the consensus of editors. And consensus defines who and what is notable enough for inclusion.". KO this is not a dictatorship no matter how many names you sign on under to pursue your obsession.Overeditor 16:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)overeditor

Just because one person may have "sock puppeted" doesn't mean there aren't numerous other people here who support the view that the IQ is relevant, reliable and should be included. Next time try checking the IP addresses instead of jumping to conclusions.

The IQ issue was brought up in the 2004 debates. This is not something someone can just make up, the tapes are verifiable.

Kirk O'Connell has gone so far as to ask the Mayor in person about this issue (which VIOLATES the rule against independent research). Kirk's initial 'report' never says that Morgan denied the IQ claim (though now Kirk is saying that he did). Either way, Morgan has been clear in refusing to discuss IQ. This issue was also reported in Frank magazine as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've no interest in wading in to the debate about whether or not his IQ is notable on his own article. It's clearly not relevant to an article on Cape Breton Island, however. The fact that he is the mayor is sufficient to establish his notability as a Cape Bretoner, which is all that's needed or appropriate here. --Brian Olsen 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is an appropriate point for the John Morgan site and the Glace Bay site but KO has used outsiders unfamiliarity with the area to lock those sites down in pursuit of his vendetta. It is too bad he is allowed to use the Wiki to attain his political goals and call people "idiots", "losers" and "arseholes" and taunt everyone who disagrees with him and use blatant sockpuppetry without being banned himself. This looks bad for the Wiki to set one person take it over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overeditor (talkcontribs) 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'm not agreeing that it's relevant for those other articles; I'm just saying I haven't looked into it at all. But his IQ has absolutely no reason to be a part of the article on Cape Breton Island. This article isn't about him. --Brian Olsen 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Brian: that's your opinion that the IQ isn't relevant. The IQ is a reason for Morgan's notoriety and would likely be sufficient in and of itself to have him listed on this page (even if he wasn't Mayor). This is a democratic site, and we all have our own opinions as to what should and shouldn't be added.

One thing is for sure though is that something has to be dont about kirk oconnell before every cape breton related page gets locked down. that would be very unfortunate —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I can see some people took a whole lot of time to talk about a whole lot of nothings.

1) "It is too bad he is allowed to use the Wiki to attain his political goals and call people "idiots", "losers" and "arseholes" and taunt everyone who disagrees with him and use blatant sockpuppetry without being banned himself." This sentence is without merit. I am not here for political gain, I read wikipedia for accurate knowledge. I'm sorry if that concept alludes you.

2) "Kirk O'Connell has gone so far as to ask the Mayor in person about this issue (which VIOLATES the rule against independent research). Kirk's initial 'report' never says that Morgan denied the IQ claim (though now Kirk is saying that he did)." I explicitly make it clear that it was original research and I used it solely for discussion purposes, I did not include in the article "I spoke to John Morgan and he says this". I was accused of having a vendetta against the guy when I know John, at least politically, and I help out on his campaigns. I am trying to be fair with the piece, and stating unsourced information like this is just not fair to the article.

3) "Just because one person may have "sock puppeted" doesn't mean there aren't numerous other people here who support the view" Not it does not. But it does seem that "someone" is trying to make it out like there is a lot of people on this article that support that view, when clearly it is just a select few or one.

4) "I agree it is an appropriate point for the John Morgan site and the Glace Bay site but KO has used outsiders unfamiliarity with the area to lock those sites down in pursuit of his vendetta." I've submitted names for banning due to policy violations. Admins look at your account, see the warnings and the violations you have occured and banned you. I didn't ban you, you got yourself banned by not following the policies. Loo, there are a lot of nice places where you can post whatever nonsense you want, Wikipedia is not one of them.

5) "Brian Olsen's site describes the Wiki principal "here on Wikipedia, it is up to the consensus of editors. And consensus defines who and what is notable enough for inclusion."." Now that we have Brian Olsen attention on this matter, and he agrees that the debate must now focus off of the Cape Breton page. Boy, I bet you are regretting including his name in discussion. The only people who agree with you seem to be people who don't know wikipedia policy or have their own vendetta and wish to pump their agenda out. I agree with Brian that consense is the usual form of articles, but facts are facts. If a bunch of creationist go to the evolution article and say we don't believe it exists, they don't delete the article.

It is clear to me you just want this supposed information out for the world to read, even though you have yet to find one valid veriviable source and for some reason you hate me for it. Well its not my problem. It has gotten to the point where it is ridiculous having to check every article about Nova Scotia to see if someone included a mention of John Morgan membership is some society and his supposed high IQ that he denies ever getting asseted. Please, stop being so dammed silly. -Kirkoconnell 19:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So someone creates a number of accounts all around the same time, uses those accounts just to vandalize a specific article and you say Kirk is the one who is a sock puppet. If you think anyone believes this than you are no genius. I can say that with 100% fact that I am not Kirk O'Connell. In fact, as far as I can tell, I have never met the guy, but I'm not going to just sit here and let you harrass someone so you can get your kicks. What is Kirk doing thats so wrong? It seems to me that he's just a guy who likes editing here, and this sock puppet person will go at any length to cause problems for him. As I said above, I don't know Kirk personally, but from what I know of him here, its obvious he's a much better person than the real sock puppet guy. CapersAreCool 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the quote from my talk page has been taken somewhat out of context. I was talking about the Wikipedia-wide consensus, which formulates the various guidelines and policies we use; I certainly wasn't suggesting that a handful of editors on one article can formulate their own consensus to override Wikipedia policies. Morgan is relevant to this article because he's the mayor, not because he has a high IQ. If anyone still believes that his IQ should appear on this page, they should take it to the wider Wikipedia community and try to change the broader consensus on relevancy and notability. In the meantime, I'll continue to remove it from this article whenever I see that it's been added back (within the 3RR, at least). --Brian Olsen 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

KO taunts editors claiming he is not subject to 3RR Rule Overeditor 21:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)overeditor

Notice how Kirk's response only would address about 25% of the issues in the quotes he presents. The problem is that Kirk takes a "it's my way or the highway" approach to this and other issues. There is no room to make any addition to any sites without kirk reverting it. As a result, many of the articles have remained the same for years. This is unfortunate and a direct result of an individual who is obviously obsessed with challenging the common consensus on here. Furthermore, as noted by the other posters, Kirk does state the 3RR does not apply to him and also attacks people personally using very offensive language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are taking what Kirk said and turning it around in the same childish manner that you keep vandalizing any article that mentions a certain mayor. He has not once said the 3RR does not apply to him. What he did say was that it does not apply when it is used to revert vandalism. Since all your posts and that of your sock puppets are nothing but vandalism, it is easy to see why an editor would have to revert you more than 3 times in a day. In the last 24 hours, I had to revert you and your sock puppets 9 or 10 times, the same with Kirk, and now a couple of more editors are also having to take the time to revert your vandalism. If you added them together, you made the same vandalized edits more than 2 dozen times in one day. Its time to grow up. CapersAreCool 00:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you rememeber when this all started what I was doing? I was quoting you policy right from BLP. They the anons would say well I don't care about policy it should be added. Then we would ask well sure, add sources. They would insult us for not accepting the sources. I would quote policy again. Same thing. So on and so on. I am sorry I stopped quoting policy, I will continue. As per BLP policy, an unsource disputed or otherwise countrovesial is to be removed. It it therefore expect from 3RR, espeically if a discussion as taken place, in which it was deemed inapproperate for the article by several neutral thrid parties. I can safely say that it has absolutely no right being in the article about Cape Breton at all, what is your agrument against that? Also, I believe I addressed any agrument of merit. You mostly make a half a point then stream on about how I am trying to run all of wikipedia because I remove one speck of unsourced information on a regular basis. I feel bad for you. You seemed to think well by now this(these) guys would have given up and I could put whatever I want in the articles. Remember the John Morgan is one of 5 people in the world who can speak 2 anicent languages? When I removed that which was added by the same person who added the "IQ", where were you? That was vandalism, plain and simple. If you have questions you want me to address, ask them nicely and I will gladly explain why why I am reverting something. You simply refuse to have a dicussion, and if you do you are accusing me of violations and not addressing the issues. I even found the patent for the retractable syring, after some research I must say, and What? You never address the patent I found. Nothing. I think you just have an agenda here and Wikipedia is no place for agenda.-Kirkoconnell 01:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Has this been brought to the Administrators' noticeboard? It seems a fairly clear case of disruptive editing to me. --Brian Olsen 01:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason they are editting this page is because I brought this issue up at the boards and they blocked anons from editing John Morgans article. So they moved to John;s home town, Glace Bay and tried there. That one got sprotected too. Now they moved on to the Cape Breton one. Next they will be editing the article about North America. lol That is how silly this has gotten-Kirkoconnell 02:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget Westmount,Nova Scotia and the article for the CBRM, because the sock puppet edited references to John Morgan's IQ on both of those pages as well. It's just further proof that this nut case has nothing to offer Wikipedia other than vandalism. It would be interesting to know how many times he has added the IQ to an article compared to the number of times he has made a non vandalism edit to any of the articles. He must have added the IQ 1000 times by now. I just checked the history on John W. Morgan and as far as I can tell the first refernce to the IQ was on March 4, 2007, so he's been doing this for 8 months. Most people would have got bored of this by now but I guess the sock puppet has nothing better to do all day than sit at his computer making outrageous claims about the mayor of his community. How pathetic is that? CapersAreCool 04:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

cape breton delacasees[edit]

hey guys my name is george birdseye im a newf but my buddy is from capebreton and he told me about all these great capebreton dishes liek eel soup and cod soup ! please update your articles to let us no about them ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


The demographics table seems to be a cocktail of three separate data sets from the census, as well as a healthy dose of original math and speculation. I don't believe the census provides counts of the response “Caucasian”. This should be re-entered from the source, without any new math. Michael Z. 2009-01-26 18:48 z


The "Religious groups" data is incorrect. I've just looked up the 2001 census data and the numbers shown are for Cape Breton County only. To get the actual numbers I'll look up the data for all four counties and add them up. This data doesn't seem to be available from the 2006 or 2011 census yet, or at least I can't find it. Ken Heaton (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Cape Breton flag[edit]

The flags that are shown on the page are not used. Unfortunately I do not know how to do pictures so i'm just leaving the comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

These flags are being used. There is another flag that is fairly completely unofficial that has gotten more use of late which is not listed. That is a point that can be fixed but the claim these current flags are not used is false. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

SVG Map[edit]

Forgive me, but I do not understand the point of these SVG maps. Coming from three diffent pages, including Cape Breton Island and Mira River, I followed links from maps with proper labels and red dots marking the locations in question, yet arrived in all three cases at the same generic unmarked "Canada Nova Scotia location map 2.svg" map. In other words, in all three cases I followed the links, loaded the higher-resolution images (on a dial-up connection, as I am in a very rural area), and came to maps with LESS pertinent information than the thumbnails I had started from!

Is this how the standard Wikipedia mapping system is now supposed to function? Why have a link from the thumbnail version at all?

(Good page overall, though. I mean no criticism of the editors, but I do believe there is some deficiency in the new mapping system if this is what it produces.) Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

While I do not mean to justify SVG images, the idea behind them is that they are scalable and they are an open standard, meaning no copyrights associated to the format. The scalable nature of them means they can be scaled as large as you want without loss of data, like with a JPG or a GIF. I am sure you could find more reasons why they use them on Wikipedia, but it is a Wikipedia standard so I do not see them adjusting it. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)