Talk:Old Mackinac Point Light

message: This will seem like a stupid question, but we have two articles.  Are there in fact two lighthouses?  Googling this, I am getting a lot on Old Mackinac Point Light, but precious little on Mackinac Point Light. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mackinac Point Light]] and [[Old Mackinac Point Light]]

message: I propose to return this article to the article's original name of "Old Mackinac Point Light," for the following reasons:
(a)  It is true that the National Register calls this site the "Mackinac Point Lighthouse," but the state of Michigan, which actually owns and operates the site through the Mackinac Island State Park Commission, calls it the "Old Mackinac Point Lighthouse."
(b)   The point where the lighthouse is located is called "Old Mackinac Point."  A prominent 1700s Straits of Mackinac military stockade (better known as Fort Michilimackinac) was located on this point, a few feet away from the lighthouse.  When this fort was abandoned in 1781 and the military presence removed to another site in the Straits of Mackinac, the point came to be known as "Old" Mackinac.
(c)   A search on a well-known search engine shows that "Old Mackinac Point Light" or "Old Mackinac Point Lighthouse" are the names by which this site is known in the lighthouse-appreciation online community.  
If anyone wishes to comment on this move they are welcome to do so. Bigturtle (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. "Old Mackinac Point Light" is the appropriate name. However, I would suggest that rather than moving, you reverse the redirect currently in place. The longer and more substantive edit history is currently at Old Mackinac Point Light. It might be possible to do a history merge, but I think in this case it would merely result in a very confusing edit history. older ≠ wiser 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support.  Of course, since we have two articles concerning the same subject matter, we need to make sure that they are properly consolidated.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we only have one article.  I do think that the renaming it to Old Mackinac Point Light might be more in line with common usage.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I'm having a tough time reconciling this.  If you look at the Terry Pepper data bases, he gives figures of 56 and 62 feet, respectively, and he does have a reference.  However, the National Park Service gives a figure of 40 feet tower.  Wobser (boatnerd.com) says 40 feet.  Based on the photos and its relationship to the building height, I have doubts about Terry's numbers.  I did not find any source for the 45 feet that is currently in the info box.  Any insight would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some measurements of the image, and using the door as a reference, and assuming it's a 7 foot door opening, then the 40 foot figure looks to be more accurate.Asher196 (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went with the figure, 50 feet tower height (although I'm not sure that this includes the lantern), that is being touted by the present owners, Mackinac State Park.  If it doesn't include the lantern, then the 56 foot figure could easily be accurate.  Terry mentions the tower as rising to 45 feet (in his narrative on this light), but implies that the lantern is added to it.  He also has his database, which lists it at 56 feet, based upon the 1909 survey.  Terry's figures at least have the virtue of (a) having a verifiable source; and (b) are consistent in terms of what is being measured -- i.e., tower base to top of vent ball.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Height of tower and focal plane

message: Something is wrong with the ref tags but I wasn't able to see what it was...the error is visible at the lowest part of the article. Could another set of eyes find it? Cheers,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this revision does not have broken refs, while this revision does.  I have no idea why - that's why I moved the refs down the page, as that seemed to work (and added one reference to the list).Greedyhalibut (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks...that helped me figure out the problem; should be okay now.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken ref tag somewhere 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Old Mackinac Point Light. 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  tag to https://www.dataleap.com/secure/pin/orderpage.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304201448/http://www.mackinacparks.com/news/old-mackinac-point-lighthouse_11/mackinac-state-historic-parks-releases-first-book-about-old-mackinac-point-lighthouse_243/ to http://www.mackinacparks.com/news/old-mackinac-point-lighthouse_11/mackinac-state-historic-parks-releases-first-book-about-old-mackinac-point-lighthouse_243/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090914044234/http://www.lighthousesrus.org/MichiganNorth.htm to http://www.lighthousesrus.org/MichiganNorth.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified