This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Civil engineering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Geography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs Islands 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.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands

The article states:

Another, less distinctive, type of artificial island is formed by the incidental isolation of an existing piece of mainland by canal construction.

Is this really so? I would understand a reference to phenomenas as for instance the Curonian Lagoon, that however isn't artificial, but canals... aren't they too narrow? --Johan Magnus 22:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, this particular phenomenon isn't terribly interesting, hence the words : less distinctive, incidental; however, it is one way that an island is artificially created and a piece of land is surrounded by water. For examples, see Dithmarschen and particularly Marble Hill, Manhattan, New York, which shows a real complex history: first a part of Manhattan Island, then isolated for about twenty years, and finally reconnected with the opposite shore of the Bronx. This of course was a recipe for municipal chaos. It wasn't really clear what borough it was now in; when a judge found it to be legally still a part of Manhattan in the 1930s the Bronx Borough President declared it 'the Bronx Sudetenland' (things worked out a little more peacefully here). The Romans also created one from the Tiber, called Isola Sacra, the holy island. Anyway, sometimes interesting (like Marble Hill), usually not so much, I think its something that should get a mention in this article.--Pharos 00:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting answer. Dithmarschen is the only example physically close to me (200 miles), and in that case it wouldn't at all correpsond with my understanding. It would be, to me, similar to say that North-America was made an "island" through the digging of the Panama Canal. --Johan Magnus 00:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article claims, that...

...it is usually constructed on an existing reef or may be an expansion of a small natural islet.

But is this so? An islet is a small island, so why would an artificially expanded natural islet turn it into an artificial island? Ellis Island do not actually belong to this article.--Huaiwei 15:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial island here does not exclusively refer to structure that is entirely man-made. — Instantnood 15:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely why I am asking this question. Is this statement verified?--Huaiwei 15:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If no one is able to provide verification by the end of next week, I will go ahead and correct the article and List of artificial islands accordingly.--Huaiwei 16:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the first thing you'd have to do is to ask why Ellis Island is considered an artificial island on the Wikipedia article, and possibily many websites and encyclopædias, at talk:Ellis Island. — Instantnood 16:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply because when one authoritative source makes a mistake, others are prone to follow. How many websites (besides those which feed on wiki's articles) and encyclopedias make the above mistake? Do list them out here.

If I may quote from encarta [1]:

Ellis Island, complex of one natural and two artificial islands, joined by causeways, in Upper New York Bay, northeastern New Jersey and southeastern New York, near Manhattan.

To therefore call Ellis Island an artificial island is only partly correct. If one may look at maps [2], aerial pictures [3] and satelite images [4] of the island, even that definition by Encarta is in doubt, because it is evidently clear, that the "complex of islands" is in actual fact just one. The US Supreme Court judgement over its ownership [5] does not talk about three islands, but one expanded island. The official website of Ellis Island makes no mention of it being so, nor of its "artificial island" status [6]. Non of the sources listed in the Ellis Island page support Encarta's view either. In fact, this page [7] has an excellent diagram on the land reclamation profile of Ellis island over the years. Three islands? An artificial island? Hardly.

Is anyone able to provide any data or sources to counter any of the points above?--Huaiwei 17:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Island is 90% artificial; it is much more artificial island than natural island. Most "traditional" artificial islands have been built on some existing natural structure, either a reef or a tiny bit of stone or dirt sticking above the water.--Pharos 17:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I constantly say above, please provide any source which states that an "artificial island" includes one which was expanded from an existing island. Also, please show any source which tell us the % of landfill needed before the island "becomes" artificial.--Huaiwei 17:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is no International Commission on Artificial Islands that sets up an official definition. Many sources describe massive expansions of tiny islets as "artificial island". The point is, that if an island is 90% artificial, it should be discussed in an artificial island article. We should adopt a pragmatic definition when discussing this phenomenon.--Pharos 16:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mind helping, although I must caution again if this definition amounts to original research. HKIA is only 75% reclaimed land, and one of the original islands can hardly be considered an "islet". Why is it erroneously being called an "artificial island" by less than authoritative sources? Conversely, are all islands which were substaintially expanded called artificial islands? The point is engineers, reporters and governments even and etc like to use the term "artificial island" because it feeds their self-ego into believing they have created something purely out of human hands, even when it was not entirely true.--Huaiwei 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A recent comment made by User:Instantnood in [8] has aroused my attention to a line I missed in this article:

although some recent developments have been constructed more in the manner of oil platforms.

Can examples please be given with regards to this kind of "artificial island", because this effectively suggests that any man-made structure which protrudes isolated in the sea is now an artificial island, even if it was supported by piles or a floating platform? What are we gonna call an island next? A ship which dropped anchor?--Huaiwei 21:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at chinampa and crannog, which are linked to in this article. — Instantnood 21:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From this, can I now put it to you that you support the idea of calling all oil rigs islands, and that a Kellong [9] is an island too? I want to know your clear stand and justifications in this one instead of quoting me sources which appear to need correction too.--Huaiwei 16:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Kellong doesn't work. My position sticks with the definitions on Wikipedia, and the convention that HKIA is frequently cited by the press as being built on an artificial island. Please don't challenge if these are artificial islands, before successfully changed the definitions by modifying the articles on Wikipedia through discussions, and before the established conventions has been changed. — Instantnood 17:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An indonesian version of a Kellong: [10]. An artificial island by your definitions, surely, since you agree that oil rigs are islands, and so are anchored ships? HKIA is frequently refered to the press as an artificial island? How frequent, when it does not even fit into the definition claimed by this article? Your last few requests sounds strange. What "established conventions" are you refering to? I do not see any such convention here, so what needs to be changed, except for this article, and corresponding articles which dont quite tally?--Huaiwei 17:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more day left before I edit this page tomorrow.--Huaiwei 14:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred procedure is to request for comment. ;-) — Instantnood 15:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is still not too late in being used now. Or even after I have already edited the article. My one week deadline remains.--Huaiwei 15:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Via RFC:

I would not call oil rigs artificial islands. I can see why someone might want to though. Whoever is trying to change it has to know that generally oil rigs are not referred to as islands, because it is silly. They just want to change it to be more inclusive. I can respect that, I argue semantics all the time. I think it is easy to solve, you can make up some conditions if you want, how about these:

An island: is not floating

An island: is attached to the ground

An island: has a coastline

With this, all islands and artificial islands (since this is really about the defintion of "island," not just "artificial islands") fulfill all the conditions easily and obviously. Nothing else but an island would really fulfill it (I think). Oil rigs, not so much. This actually sits well with me, because you might be able to call the tube parts of oil rigs "artificial islands" (if they are attached to the ground) which is ok with me, but then the whole structure itself, the oil rig, isn't an island. This works with bridges and stuff too. Their supports would be little artificial islands, and I don't know if anyone would get too upset over that. You wouldn't call a bridge an artificial island that's for sure. What do you think?--Ben 10:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if you don't like defining things so much, you may just want to go with the more subjective culturally defined "island," and defer to "the things that people call islands", but since no calls oil rigs islands, then you simply don't call them that. I think whoever is wanting to call oil rigs islands has their own personal definition of island that they think is neutral and objective but it doesn't fit with other people's, so that means consensus either on a more hard-line objective definition like I suggested above (but which more than likely counts as "original research"), or consensus that the definition should defer to common usage. Or something like that :). I think mine is close enough to the subjective defintion, but I do understand that it can seem out of line to people. Personally, I like to keep things subjective when they are as common as the word "island" but I also like seeing if I can make up an objective definition. Anyway, I just hope these ideas help in your discussion.--Ben 10:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I see you have already solved it a couple weeks ago. Good job too in the introduction. Oh well, maybe if people are still grumbling they can at least get another perspective.--Ben 10:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A peninsula which is made into an island by a canal, like the Isle of Dogs, London?

Would René-Levasseur Island in Quebec count as an artificial island? If so, it would be by far the largest in the world.

The formation of the Manicouagan Reservoir in the months following the construction of Daniel-Johnson Dam in 1968 caused two pre-existing natural lakes to become connected, completely encircling a land area of 2,020 km² (780 sq mi). (Incidentally, the area that is now an island was itself an ancient impact crater.)

Should it be added or not? — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the justification for Kansai Airport appearing twice in Artificial_island#Largest_artificial_islands_according_to_their_size? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Io Herodotus added René-Levasseur Island to Artificial_island#Largest_artificial_islands_according_to_their_size and provided a reference, but the reference does not state that it is an artificial island. Moreover, the site does not look like a reputable source. Does anyone have an opinion on this? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to my point of view, there should be 2 categories,

• reclaimed islands and
• islands made by other means, (dams or else).--Io Herodotus (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a lack of references, my instincts are that the island itself is natural, even though the water surrounding it is artificial. de Bivort 02:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a related example, is Cape Cod an artificial island because there is a man-made canal detaching it from the mainland? de Bivort 02:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both Cape Cod and René-Levasseur can be described as islands that wouldn't be islands if it weren't for humans, and therefore as artificial islands (at least by the definition in the lead of this article). Should a new column be added which gives details on how each island was formed? I don't really see the necessity for a separate table just for the one island that wasn't reclaimed from water. SiBr₄ ⚑ 23:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a more of a problem than you've suggested, I'm afraid. Cape Cod would be third in the table if it counts. The Delmarva Peninsula would be first (due to the C&D Canal). Southern Florida because of the Okeechobee Waterway. Scandinavia because of the White Sea Canal? etc etc. de Bivort 02:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether lands separated from mainland by canals count as artificial islands is a different issue than whether only reclaimed islands are artificial islands. Are North & South America and Africa & Eurasia separate landmasses because of the Panama and Suez Canals? Also, by that logic, wouldn't all of Southern and Western Europe be one big island because of the Rhine–Main–Danube Canal which connects the Rhine and the Danube? René-Levasseur Island was separated from the mainland by flooding of an adjacent valley (connecting two lakes on either side of the island), not by a man-made canal. SiBr₄ ⚑ 20:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've nicely extended my examples. I was following your definition of "islands that wouldn't be islands if it weren't for humans". We should probably just defer to sources. If there is no supporting reference for RLI, it should be removed from the table. de Bivort 01:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Africa could be the largest one! I have removed René-Levasseur Island, perhaps here we only talk about reclaimed lands. There is another problem; most islands listed here are 100% reclaimed lands, but some artificial islands include parts of existing islands. Perhaps another column could give the size of the reclaimed land.--Io Herodotus (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point wasn't that only reclaimed islands should count as artificial islands, but that waterways such as rivers and canals don't separate landmasses (while artificial lakes such as the one surrounding RLI do). IMO René-Levasseur should be included in the list, if there are sources which support its "artificial island" status. SiBr₄ ⚑ 06:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also artificial island — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.43.69.61 (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artificial 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/20140522085455/http://ir.kagoshima-u.ac.jp/bitstream/10232/15559/1/AN10088628_v12-1_P7-22.pdf to http://ir.kagoshima-u.ac.jp/bitstream/10232/15559/1/AN10088628_v12-1_P7-22.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: 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) 00:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A gret idea.But are there any more large artificial islands planned? How about a Nova Tesla Land a artificial isalnd and powe generation source(From tiddal action) To brooadcast FREE elletric power per inventor Nikola teslas ideas? Thanks MinEdsonAndreJohnson (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following:

For example, Singapore dredged five hundred million tons of sand to prepare an artificial island. This sand removal caused desertification to a fishing town, having a bad effect on the ecosystem.{{Clarify}}

— ^[1]

1. ^ 연합뉴스. "지구촌 곳곳서 인공섬 조성 붐…갈등·오염 등 부작용 속출". Retrieved 2016-03-23.

The source says "For example, Singapore drastically damaged 500 million tons of sand in southwest Cambodia, causing devastating fishing villages and destroying ecosystems. " (Google translate). It cites news.com, with no links.

I found sources that Singapore has imported 500 m tons of sand, to extend its size by 50 square miles. This is not by creating an artificial island, it is land reclamation, and does not belong in this article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I am planning on adding additional content to the "Environmental Impact" sectionBiostudent2 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]