Talk:Granite Island (Michigan)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some other sources[edit]
Take a quick look at this, which expressly references the light:
http://clarke.cmich.edu/lighthouses/lhtime1.htm
Clarke Historical Library - Sources Regarding the Lighthouses of ... Marquette, MI: Northern Michigan University Press, 1979. Penrose, Laurie. A Traveler's Guide to Eastern Great Lakes Lighthouses. ... clarke.cmich.edu/lighthouses/lhsour1.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
Clarke Historical Library - A Light House Keeper's Life Granite Island (11 miles north of Marquette) Light constructed. .... Big Bay Point (24 miles northwest of Marquette) Light constructed. Sault Ste. ... clarke.cmich.edu/lighthouses/lhtime1.htm - 56k - Cached - Similar pages 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
Should the name of this article be changed to Granite Island (Michigan) and Granite Island Light[edit]
We have an article that (I think) does two things pretty well, and in a complementary fashion. The two subjects are intertwined inextricably, IMHO. I think keeping them together would be good, but maybe the dual nature could be touted in the title, and artfully handled by redirects as to names,etc. Just a thought and a modest proposal. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Stan
- I don't think this would hold up to scrutiny. Click here to see how it has been handled in other articles with intertwined subjects.Asher196 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if we follow the Alcatraz Island scenario, than you are correct. But this is a smaller island and a smaller lighthouse, which I think distinguishes it in some material way. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Stan
- If someone is searching for information on the Granite Island lighthouse, it will redirect them to this article, so it's not like we are hiding the information here. I just know from past experience that an article name that is too long or descriptive will be changed.Asher196 (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if we follow the Alcatraz Island scenario, than you are correct. But this is a smaller island and a smaller lighthouse, which I think distinguishes it in some material way. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Stan
- I don't think this would hold up to scrutiny. Click here to see how it has been handled in other articles with intertwined subjects.Asher196 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
BK: As usual, you really are Older But Wiser. The redirect works. Asher and I had discussed the problem (?) of having 2 info boxes, but I think it is looking OK. So I agree with you. Best regards. Happy Memorial Day. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Stan
- Just my opinion on this ... the current state of the article is at least 95% about the light, with mention of the island being secondary. As there's not enough about this obscure island to justify it's own article, I would recommend renaming the whole thing to be Granite Island Light, with a redirect from its current name over to the new name. I would also suggest only using the lighthouse infobox. The map showing the location could be added separately as a thumb image. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well Stan, what do you think? Should we change the name?Asher196 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody appointed me arbiter of this dispute. However and FWIW, I think that the present name works. I see no reason to Balkanize this little article. I agree with BK and Barker on this. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Stan
- Well Stan, what do you think? Should we change the name?Asher196 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Range 0?[edit]
The infobox seems a bit confusing. The characteristic given is for the newer metal structure light (operating) which must have more range than zero. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Stan
Splitting this into two articles?[edit]
Based on the criticism of the assessor, do we split this in to two articles, one about the lighthouse and one about the island? I think that the article and its sources on the light and the island are inextricably intertwined. But if somebody has a constructive way to split this up, it could be done. The question is whether it's a good policy decision. Any thoughts? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Stan
- There isn't enough information to justify separate articles. I don't see a good reason to separate them. Looking back at Barek's comments, I see he advocates making the article center around the light, and changing the article name to reflect that. That may be the better option. Asher196 (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- C-Class Michigan articles
- Low-importance Michigan articles
- WikiProject Michigan articles
- C-Class Lighthouses articles
- Mid-importance Lighthouses articles
- WikiProject Lighthouses articles
- C-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
- Low-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
- C-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Low-importance