Talk:Long Beach Island

LBI is in NJ; not NY

I changed the Categories to properly reflect Long Beach Island New JERSEY. Whoever created ths stub had the two of the categories going to NY, which Long Beach Island has no association with NY at, nor is there a Ocean Coutny NY, it's Ocean County NJ. Just another example of why Wikipedia is not a very reliable source of information. I see several people went in and had already changed most of the erroneous references to NY, but missed the categories. How could anyone who created this page have associated Long Beach Island with New York. if they created it, they should have actually have known where it was located. [Edit it seems as if someone on May 18th had changed everything to read that it was located in NY.] --JerseyDevil 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Island geometry

Is there any information on how big the island is by area? All the information I could find measures its size only by length/width, but the width varies widely. Wl219 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The island varies in width at the widest it is two miles wide but it goes down to only four blocks wide exept in the 1962 noreaster were the island were split in three places two in a small town in the northern end Harvey Cedars

I love the island i spend every summer in Harvey cedars and love every town barnagat light loveladeis harvey cedars northbeach surf city ship bottom brant beach beach haven creast beach have long beach township abd ship bottom if you are a shoobie you stay in the south end if you are a local you'll stay in the north and don't forget about the great surf shops Ron Jons and wave hog are two of my favorits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.118.49 (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Geometry section incorrectly identifies Loveladies as the most northern part of Long Beach Township. High Bar Harbor is the most northern point in Long Beach Township. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.117.122 (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Island length

Despite the source (sources are only as good as the person that wrote them), I'm still at a bit of a loss as to where 18 miles is coming from. If one measures it on mapping software, it appears to be 21 miles across both Google & Microsoft. Seeing as these are directly drawn from real satellite imagery, I just can't see much way to dispute it. Is there something I'm missing? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the first source doesn't work; and I can provide sources saying 21, too: [1] [2]. Now I don't mean to sound too intrusive here... it's just that measuring by satellite comes up with 21, though books such as this seem to indicate that 18 is firmly in the minds of many. I'm wondering if 18 is the popular number because subtracting 3 miles of parkland (at the south) from 21 equals 18 of readily-accessible island. Thoughts? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 04:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe LBI is growing on the south end (Holgate) due to the longshore current. That may explain the differences. It may have only been 18 miles long years ago, but may now be 21 miles long. Famartin (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Three miles is a lot of growth over a few years. Sources should be added to document the new length, ideally explaining the change in size. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we restore it to 21 based on the satellite measurements? I'm still at a loss as to how it's even possible to contest them. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V seems to have a bias to requiring sources, rather than deducing from satellite measurements, and the sources I've found and added to the article show 18. Are there sources that show 21? Should we say that there are discrepancies as to the length, either 18 or 21? Is there any official source that would have the data and/or settle the matter? Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I included 2 in my first post to this thread -- one is just a tourism website and probably not too reliable, but the other is the Washington Post. My issue with many sources, however, is that a lot of journalists don't put too much thought into their sources. You provided a source from one media company saying 18, and I found one from another which says 21. As for WP:V, I agree that it doesn't give much credit to measuring existing geography, as that's borderline WP:OR... but it almost seems a bit ludicrous to think that we'd hold back something which is generally pretty accurate (satellite imagery services) for much of the developed world... and even a fair share of the undeveloped world. Might this be an issue that move over to the discussion pages for either WP:V or WP:OR? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 05:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And just to further expand, official agencies may not be too reliable, either. Perhaps if USGS or a NJ State website could be found giving the info, then that could be a bit more reliable. I wouldn't put as much credit on a local government, chamber of commerce, or tourism website though... many of those along the Jersey shore are run by a local retiree that just wants to give back to the community. Not to knock them too much, they certainly provide an excellent service to the community; but the ones I know tend to think that email forwards are the greatest thing since sliced bread :) --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 05:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

LBI has the best weed?

I removed this comment from the introduction:

While going crazy you can chill with the best weed in NJ.

'nuff said. James A. Stewart (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   Someone please note this error. There are two identical photos for two different locations. One is Long Beach Island. The other, also showing Sandy damage, is Mantoloking, NJ. They are separate places.

64.252.197.52 (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long Beach 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/20050319185533/http://www.oceancountyhistory.org:80/OCHistory/long_beach_island.htm to http://www.oceancountyhistory.org/OCHistory/long_beach_island.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}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long Beach 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/20090719190628/http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Projects/LBI/From%20sea%20to%20shore%20Replenishing%20Long%20Beach%20Island.pdf to http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Projects/LBI/From%20sea%20to%20shore%20Replenishing%20Long%20Beach%20Island.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)