Jump to content

Talk:Nunavut/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

old comments

Is there a way to put a border around this flag so that the right-hand side, which is all white, doesn't blend into the background? -- Zoe

How does that look? --maveric149
Excellent. How did you do that? -- Zoe


What is this external link (apparently the only one): Two-weeks in non-anglophonic Canada??? --Menchi 21:52, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Somebody put it in Quebec too. Apparently it's a blog of some fellow's experiences in Nunavut and Quebec. I wonder should it be there? - Montréalais 16:28, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The blog link in Quebec is gone already when I just checked it out now. I've added 2 general external links (both official) to Quebec and 4 to Nunavut (3 official).
The blog is the modern-day experience of one modern traveller, which can differ from another with good reasons (and why not?). It's not historical. It's interesting, but I don't think non-Christians really need a religious tone planted subtly and not-so-subtly throughout a journal. So, it's not appropriate on a non-religious encyclopedia.
--Menchi 19:51, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)


Decided to be bold and got rid of the link. Far too subjective to be any use.

Who says Wikipedia is non-religious. It's supposed to be about everything. DJ Clayworth 19:57, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

CDs

I removed this part I wrote, which I cannot make sense of, but is indeed valid:

For census purposes, Nunavut and NWT are divided into five CDs (census divisions), with Baffin Region, Keewatin Region and Kitikmeot Region counted as part of Nunavut; while Fort Smith Region and Inuvik Region remain part of the Northwest Territories.

That is outdated info though. It's the addendum to the 1996 Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) Statistics Canada. But Nunavut didn't even exist in 1996. So I have no idea how to explain that: "Baffin Region...are part of Nunavut." [Notice the present-tense of this 1996 article]

--Menchi 02:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Number of inhabitants

The infobox lists the number of inhabitants as 28,200, while the text mentions 27,000. They can't be both right. Abigail 11:27, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Triskaidekaphobia in Canada

Until this new province was added, Canada had 12 provinces. When this new province was added, there became 13. For curiosity, did anyone react?? 66.32.127.112 01:16, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

No, because it is not a province. --Menchi 01:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
And neither are Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Canada now has ten provinces and three territories. - Montréalais 05:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Now that there are 13 provinces and territories, we have enough to declare independence from Britain. I'm still waiting.... Ground Zero | t 16:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We gave you independence back in 1982. Possibly we could take it back if we wanted... (Memo to self: write to MP to get Treaty of Paris (1783) revoked). Tompw 13:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

actually we got pretty much independent in 1867. at least thats how we like to see it. some of us even say 1791! Zazaban 05:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

? marks

How come there is 4 question marks after the word nunavut in this article? it looks like this on my web browser: nunavut (????) Baw2 07:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's the Inuktitut syllabics spelling of "Nunavut". If you have an appropriate font installed, you'll see the letters correctly. Code2000 or the fonts available at http://www.languagegeek.com will enable you to see them. Diderot 08:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


% of canada

dose any one know what % of canada make's up nunavut!

Divide Canada's size by Nunuvat's size, and I got ~21%

Check List of Canadian provinces and territories by area and yes it's 21% based on land area and not including the water/ice total area. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Map

Does anyone have a pre-division map of the NWT? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Borders

I just noticed that statement in the Geography section about Nunavut's borders being influenced by the shape of the Inukshuk. Is there a factual basis for that? I can see the rough outline of an Inukshuk in the territory on the map, just didn't think that'd be a concern when dividing up the territory!

Fixed that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Out of pure curiosity, was that some kind of urban myth in Canada? E03bf085 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I've live in Nunavut and I've never heard it said. It may be a southern Canadian thing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Large alternative map

Should the large map really be on the page? It could be an external link. As it is, it mainly slows down the loading of the page as well as breaking up the text. Evan Donovan 15:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I reduced the size of the map. It still looks clear enough to me but may not on other monitors/resolutions. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone add a pronunciation for Nunavut? --TreyHarris 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's pronounced noo-na-voot. :) 82.45.100.187 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How's it pronounced?

Article should say right up front how it's pronounced in English. Tempshill 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have heard it pronounced like "noon-a-voot" Zeolite 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Right here: ˈnunəˌvut!! I heard it pronounced "None-of-it" (who can read those pronunciation guide letters anyway?)Billy Nair 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I've gone through the Peer Review, made some minor tweaks that has been sugegsted and not implemented, and what's left is as follows:

  1. While it is not a state, it benefit by changing this article to conform to guidelines at WP:STATE
  2. This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  3. The article also needs a bit of cleanup

Points 2 and 3 probably apply less than they did at the time of the review (25 May 2006), but are worth bearing in mind. I'm haven't invesitagted whether or not #1 requires any further action . Tompw 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


  1. The article needs WP:CITE references. Some external links can be used, but they have to be inserted as references in the text
  2. The "Major Mines" section looks out of context, it should be incorporated in a broader "Economy" section. The bulleted list could be converted into prose, and so should the bulleted list in Demographic.
  3. The article sorely lacks a "Culture" section, and that would be very interesting given the unique traditions of Nunavut.
Hope this helps. --66.82.9.52 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This is a very nice-looking article, but as was pointed out above, it needs references per WP:CITE. This is a requirement for Good Article status. Please feel free to renominate the article when citations are added. MLilburne 10:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed time zone experiment

I'm not sure how to work this into the article but I recall Nunavut experimented with a unified time zone from late 1999 to late 2000. The idea was that new territory was thinly populated and it would be easier for the new government to function on a unified time zone. The example of Alaska contracting from 4 time zones to a unified time zone for most regions was cited. From what I recall the decision was made either without seeking any public input or ignoring objections from the public. The territory sprawled across the Eastern, Central and Mountain time zones previously but they decided Central should be the unified time zone. This made almost no one happy. Iqaluit residents were upset that sunset in mid winter was now at 1p cutting their afternoon in half. With many regions in the territory refusing to recognize the new time zone a return to the previous status quo was inevitable. The time and date website (www.timeanddate.com) lists the changes for Iqaluit as EDT ends October 31, 1999 2am becoming CST 12am. Changing to CDT at 2am April 2, 2000. Then leaving the clocks alone on October 29, 2000 to revert to EST.

Skywayman 11:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This is a fine article in my opinion, but there are a few things that I think need to be addressed before passing:

  • the section on "Major Mines" needs some introduction. Maybe this should be placed under a subheading of "Industry" or "Economics" or "Natural resources", and any other major industrial/agricultural/fishing/tourism/whatever aspects of infrastructure in Nunavut could be discussed there.
  • Demographics should probably be its own section, not under "Geography" (unless there's a precedent about that that I don't know about).
  • I think the article is still undercited. Any place in which numerical figures are cited should be sourced; so, too, for the "if Nunavut were" statements (which sound OR-ish without a source).
  • The licensing tag on the Flag of Nunavut image has been deleted. Should be a simple fix, as that appears to be a PD image.

Article placed on hold pending changes. Chubbles 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it's kosher to have internal citations; the additions of Wikipedia articles as sources for Wikipedia articles should be changed to sourcing those statements according to whatever outside source the other article relies on. I think some of those facts shouldn't be hard to verify with a copy of a World Almanac or something. Chubbles 05:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
GA delisted as no changes have been made for some time. Please renominate once changes have been made. Chubbles 06:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Demographics inconsistency

On this page, it says there are 100 non-Inuit natives, but on the Demographics page, it says about 300. Someone in the know should fix that.142.76.1.62 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because this article uses Aboriginal population profile, 2006 census and Demographics of Nunavut uses Ethnic origins, 2006 counts, for Canada, provinces and territories - 20% sample data. If you look at the other ethnic origins the numbers for Inuit, Metis and non-natives are different in both articles. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1.9 billion square kilometers?

Under Geography it says that it covers 1.9 billion square kilometers, but it should read 1.9 million. When I went to edit it, the code read 1.9 million... I don't know what the deal is.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.168.59 (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent infobox edit

I just rv'ed an editor who had removed 2 of the 3 "Iqualits" from the infobox thinking it was a simple case of unexplained removal of information, but now I see what they were doing, making the infobox look a bit cleaner, and they might have a point. Maybe it would be better to just go with capital/largest city in this case, I'm not sure that "largest metro" is all that needed here. I guess I could personally go either way, just curious as to what others thought about it. AlexiusHoratius 15:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Iqaluit is the only city in Nunavut. It would hardly have a metro area. Probably should be removed. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point (proper spelling of "Iqaluit" now noted as well :)). Just for some background, I think a major reason for the "largest metro" spot in the infobox is the fact that some US states have one largest city and a different largest metro (Texas and Florida, for example.) I'm not sure if this situation happens in any Canadian provinces or territories, but as it obviously doesn't apply to Nunavut, that may be another reason to remove it. AlexiusHoratius 19:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It does here too, British Columbia is a good example. Though for spelling reasons this is more fun. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the message, AlexiusHoratius. It was exactly as you stated, I figured it was rather useless to have the same city - a title which is even in dispute - listed three times. Mnmazur (talk)
Just curious but are you saying that Iqaluit is not really a city? This from the GNU indicates that it is. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone add a pronunciation for Nunavut? --TreyHarris 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's pronounced noo-na-voot. :) 82.45.100.187 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Article should say right up front how it's pronounced in English. Tempshill 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have heard it pronounced like "noon-a-voot" Zeolite 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Right here: 'nun??vut!! I heard it pronounced "None-of-it" (who can read those pronunciation guide letters anyway?)Billy Nair 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Plain-English pronunciation guide at the beginning please? Is it "Nunn-a-vutt" or "Nunn-a-voot" or "Noon-a-voot"? Tempshill (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It usually sounds more like "Noon-a-voot" but can also be "nun-a-vut", depends on where you live in the place. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian wars

There have been lots of battles between Nunavut and the Yukon This is an ok thing but could affect the way Canada thrives. They don't fight much anymore but in the first couple years that they were formed they fought for territory but the fighting has stopped and Canada is thriving! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.177.90 (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This would be more plausible if the two territories were even remotely close to each other or formed at remotely the same time. Franamax (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Provinces and territories of Canada vs. Category:Nunavut

Category:Nunavut is itself a category within Category:Provinces and territories of Canada. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Map shift northwards

The latest map shift has put Nunavut way up in the stratosphere. Have we decided to eliminate the Hudson's Bay islands as part of the territory? Or are we trying to claim the Arctic Ocean to the North Pole? Backspace (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite correct. Here are the coordinates and scale you put in, 67°30′20″N 91°08′00″W / 67.50556°N 91.13333°W / 67.50556; -91.13333 (Nunavut), and these are the coordinates and scale I put in, 73°N 91°W / 73°N 91°W / 73; -91 (Nunavut). Now a lot of the problem is caused by the mapping service used. The one I used goes from the bottom of James Bay and just cuts the northern tip of Ellesmere Island off. The ones you used goes from somewhere in South America to way north of Ellesmere. However, that is based on us all the same mapping service but I don't think we are. Here's how the various maps look using different services;
67 30 20N 91 08 00W
73N 91W

There are currently 29 different mapping services listed and Google Maps is at the top of the list, making it available twice. I'm going to ask at Template talk:Coord#Mapping services if it's possible to have a new parameter indicating which mapping service the coordinates were tweaked for. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The template concerned is {{GeoTemplate}} so I've moved the discussion to Template talk:GeoTemplate#Mapping services and disabled the link in your post accordingly. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't realise that. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I am having problems with those four map services that you listed. They are not currently working well on my Safari browser (zap out, fail to load, etc.). The service that I used was MSN Maps, which I hope works in your browser so that we can at least see what I will try to explain. For my coordinates and at the scale at which I set the map, just the very top of Ellesmere Island gets lopped off the map, whereas in the south the bottom end of James Bay gets lopped off. I tried to give a scale that would have included everything, but I am not very good at technically tweaking these things to get exactly what I wanted; however it came pretty close to what I wanted. Your coordinates, on the other hand (again, on MSN Maps), at first are zoomed in one click closer than mine are. Zooming out one level makes both our maps the same scale, so that the only difference becomes the map's center (centre). Your map now shows a great deal of Arctic Ocean, almost to the Pole, at the top, whereas at the bottom it pretty much lops off the southern half of Hudson Bay (below the 58th parallel. 71.197.109.181 (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to sign in. That was me up there. Backspace (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The whole problem is due to the approach of choosing a coordinate set for such a huge area. What seems centered for one editor may seem random to some other. Why not chose a fixed coordinate, such as the administrative center, even if that is not the center of the map. That is what's done with cities for example (coordinate at city hall). --Qyd (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't want Russia to be centered on Moscow. I am not looking for Moscow; I am looking for Russia. I am not looking for Iqaluit either; I am looking for Nunavut. Can I get a picture (map) of where it is, without it being skewed toward anyone's favorite part of it? Backspace (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, there are only two services that can automatically select an appropriate view to display the given data: see Nunavut on Google Maps and Bing Maps. With all other popular services the links have to be made to a certain zoom level, shorthard for a service dependent number of pixels per ground distance unit. Therefore the view people get depends on the resolution of their screen and size of the browser window. I suppose GeoHack (the tool that creates all the map service links from coordinates on Wikipedia pages) has been configured to link to views appropriate on average, but without some Javascript customising the links for every user, it's not possible to have all links show the entire feature for everyone. And even if the tool had the browser information, the different projections would be a problem. Compare for example the maps given by the two services with the map in this article; pixels/kilometre isn't constant around the world even when you don't touch the zoom. --Para (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I was able to get on another browser (Firefox) to view those maps from Google and Bing. I don't like their extremely distorted Mercator projections at all. They make Ellesmere Island look like it's half of Nunavut. The service that I usually use, MSN Maps (because it works on my Safari browser), provides quite good-looking maps, in color and with very little distortion, so I think I will stick with them. Backspace (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Backspace, I tried with MSN maps in Firefox (Windows) and the one that uses your coordinates and more importantly the scale does look good, here but with my scale and coordinates cuts a lot off the bottom. Your MSN looks almost the same as my Google Maps. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said before, if you zoom out one level from your map, you get (scalewise) my map, but just a lot farther north. However, I must admit that I did not heavily consider that other people may be basing their data on different mapping services, since I am so accustomed to using MSN Maps. As I've already indicated, I'm not a real big fan of these maps that use the distorted Mercator projection, unless it's for a very small part of the world. Backspace (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we all do the same thing. We get used to one service and forget the others. I wondered how maps looked when viewing a smaller area and coordinates that can't be adjusted so I just tried looking at Cambridge Bay Airport and London Heathrow Airport using MSN, Bing and Google. First at Cambridge Bay using Bing aerial and north of the airport. [http://maps.msn.com/%28bqu3qnzzzzrrkcfdzmwxqk55%29/map.aspx?lats1=69.108056&lons1=-105.138333&alts1=4&regn1=2 MSN is further north than it should be, the airport is on the coast as is the community, and it appears you can't zoom in closer. Goggle satellite and maps are correctly positioned based on the sourced coordinates. For London Bing aerial and map are in the correct place but zoomed in a little too much. Google map and satellite both seem fine. MSN shows where the airprot is but can't zoom in any closer. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Border location

This article states that Saskatchewan and Nunavut, together with Manitoba and the NWT, form a "four corners" but on the nl: wiki someone pointed out that in fact, due to errors in surveying, SK and NU actually "miss" each other by about 400 meters. I'm unable to get a definitive answers from my own sources so any info someone may have on this would be appreciated.--Kalsermar (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Voted to be named Ted

My brother lives in Canada. He says that when they held a national vote to name the province, the winning name was "Ted." The Canadian government stated that "it does not reflect our country as a whole." Any chance we could add this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.87 (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This would have to be verified by a third party source, as stated here. if this actually happened, and could be confirmed by a reliable source, then yes, this could be included.-Zyrath (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
A national vote was never held to come up with a name and the current name was in place for a while before division. I think the OP may be mixing us up with the Northwest Territories (see the last 4 paragraphs in the history section) and the name Bob. Northwest Territories looking for new name - 'Bob' need not apply and Name the residual Northwest Territories BOB!. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 19:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate?

I don't see any Climate section, I know the climate is COLD but I was curious what the climate variances were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.4.81 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I know it is about -50c to -20c in the winter.In the summer it goes up to -10c.It almost stays cold all year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.38.110 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 May 2010
The cold is right but it gets much warmer than -10C. Some places will get into the +20C. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I re-arranged the languages section, putting them in alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They were in the order that the Languages Act had them. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
But alphabetical is just as good. Either way is fine. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Crime

There is no mention of the ridiculously high crime rate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.2.161 (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

gallery?

you should add a gallery for this. but it is great already!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbox-xbox-xbox-xbox (talk • contribs) 22:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Nunavut a PROVINCE and not a "territory"

Nunavut was designated a province in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 06:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No I live in the territory of Nunavut not the province. See this from the Government of Nunavut. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reordering

I have ordered and grouped the sections in a way that seems consistent with a majority of the Province articles. I intend to do the same with the other 9 plus territories unless someone disputes this. Verne Equinox (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sparsely populated place

Nunavut is the most sparsely populated province/territory in Canada. Adjkasi (discuss me) —Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Climate

The climate was quite polar as the temperatures in the winter are at −45 °C (−49 °F) while summers are at 13 °C (55 °F). Adjkasi (discuss me) 05:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Which is correct Category:Places in Canada with Aboriginal majority populations or Category:Places in Nunavut with Aboriginal majority populations, and why?

99.181.137.78 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say the former, as Nunavut is not in Nunavut. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Borders

How on earth was the border drawn? It has a very odd shape. And what about the tiny land border with Newfoundland and Labrador on Killiniq Island? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.161.81 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Killiniq Island may have been in place before division. For the most part the border would have been drawn to comply with land claims on both sides. For an example see Parker's Notch. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Funny how history can produce bizarre outcomes. Like Fafard or Akimiski Islands being in Nunavut and not in Ontario acording to google maps (though http://www4.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography-boundary/geographical-name/search/unique.php?id=FBDGK&output=xml says otherwise for Fafard). Also, it might be useful to clarify in the main article the reason for the 1999 split, i.e. Inuit and Inuvialuit are different people and each getting land claims settled, if I understand correctly (which I am unsure of, hence the call for clarification). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.161.81 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

See also

The Chemetco link in the see also section should perhaps be explained somewhere. Until I clicked through and searched for Nunavut I had not idea what the reference was for. Perhaps it can directly link to the sub-section, e.g. Chemetco - Air-borne dioxin production? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmyroadctfig (talk • contribs) 02:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. This matter seems to warrant a whole section, since the Chemetco page quotes a report that says "Nunavut is especially vulnerable to the long-range air transport of dioxin." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Cold War, dubious statement re "launch warheads"

This section claims that, re Cornwallis and Ellesmere Islands,

"These islands were prime candidates for the Soviet Union to launch warheads from. "

What, the Russians were going to invade Arctic Canada to install ICBM bases?? Needs to be fixed. By dim memory of a Farley Mowat screed, this displacement had to do with installing DEW Line radar stations? Help? --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There were no DEW line stations on Ellesmere or Cornwallis Islands, according to the map at File:Map of Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line.jpg. As for Soviet missle attack from that area, there might have been some concern about Soviet Navy ballistic missle submarines coming up through the ice around the Canadian Arctic islands, but that seems equally likely (or unlikely) around any of the many islands; I couldn't guess why Ellesmere and Cornwallis would be special.  Unician ∇  19:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nunavut. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nunavut. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Archaeological findings"

It seems rather odd that the only entry under the title "Archaeological findings" refers to (not universally accepted) finds of presumed early European material. Nunavut is rich in native archaeological sites ranging from early Pre-Dorset to Late Thule/historical Inuit. Why are none of these mentioned?--Death Bredon (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nunavut. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Table of average daily temperatures sorts incorrectly.

Table entries are sorting lexicographically rather than numerically.


For example, if you select the 'Sort ascending' arrows in the header of the 'January (°C)' column of the table titled 'Average daily maximum and minimum temperatures for selected locations in Nunavut', the sorted order of the table entries is this:

−10/−25
−17/−30
−18/−31
−19/−32
−20/−33
−27/−40
−9/−24


This is a lexicographic sort based on the sequence of characters in the string representing a table entry's data, rather than the desired numeric sort based on the value of the data.

The correct numerical ascending sort order would be:

−27/−40
−20/−33
−19/−32
−18/−31
−17/−30
−10/−25
−9/−24
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.169.237 (talk • contribs)

 Done I restructured the table to sort properly. Mojoworker (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nunavut/Archive_1&oldid=1251453956"