Talk:Granite Island (Michigan)

message: *Wagner, John L., Beacons Shining in the Night, Michigan Lighthouse Bibliography, Chronology, History, and Photographs, Clarke Historical Library, Central, Michigan University.
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)
thread_title: Some other sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And it is not like there is so much information at present on either one so as to overwhelm. As is, the list of additional reading and external links is almost as long as the article itself. I don't think there is enough here to warrant splitting this yet. older ≠ wiser 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Well Stan, what do you think?  Should we change the name?Asher196 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Should the name of this article be changed to Granite Island (Michigan) and Granite Island Light

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range 0? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Splitting this into two articles?