Talk:Sand Island Light (Wisconsin)

Aerobeacon

Removed the erroneous claim that the original Fresnel lens was replaced by a DCB-224 aerobeacon. The DCB-224 was not employed at any of the Apostle Islands lights. When the Sand Island light became the first of the Apostles stations to be automated (1921,) it was initially equipped with an acetylene lamp, controlled by a "sun valve." The beacon was moved from the lighthouse to a new steel tower in 1933, and the original lens replaced with a 375mm lantern lens. The acetylene lamp was eventually replaced by a solar-powered light. (Seeing The Light: Sand Island; more detailed information will soon be available in the National Park Service Historic Structure Report for the lighthouse, currently (2011) in preparation.)

This article needs expansion; the lighthouse is historically significant and a popular destination for visitors to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobmack apis (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Sand Island Light". National Park Service (archived). Retrieved May 21, 2011. WP:Veribiable WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

To whomever is reverting the edits concerning the DCB-224 aerobeacon: the cached version of he NPS Maritime History page that you referenced contains several errors- you'll note that it also claims that light was deactivated from 1933-1980, which is also incorrect. (Check any USCG light list from those years to confirm.) You might also contact the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore to confirm; their number is 715-779-3398. I know the number well because I was on the Lakeshore staff for 12 years and I was up in the Sand Island tower at least 50 times. You can go ahead and keep reverting this edit, but it's not going to make the information correct.

WP:NOR WP:truth WP:RS. Please sign your posts using four tildes. I don't doubt your good faith or your credentials. They are essentially irrelevant. But you need to address my position. We are not adjudicators of the truth. That there may be a conflict in the sources is something we can put in the article. With respect, you need something more than your bare attestation. Of course, I WP:AGF. Since you may be new here, you might also want to look at WP:3RR. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about failing to sign my comments; I thought my username (bobmack_apis) would be added automatically. I understand the basic Wikipedia practices and I also realize that anyone can claim all sorts of credentials in the Internet, which is why I added reference to other sources which give the correct information, as well as pointing to other easily confirmed mistakes in the source originally used.

I would suggest that discussion of the precise type of lamp that replaced the original Fresnel lens be omitted for the time being; it is a very minor point, but its prominence in the previous version compromised the credibility of the entire article to anyone familiar with the lighthouse.

68.117.105.172 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)bobmack_apis

Deactivation

It is incorrect to state that the light was deactivated from 1933 through 1980. Like the claims concerning the aerobeacon, this statement appears to be taken from the U.S. National Park Service Maritime History web page, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:peX8XEQDtHUJ:www.cr.nps.gov/maritime/park/sandisl.htm+http://www.cr.nps.gov/maritime/park/sandisl.htm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com , which includes several inaccuracies.

The most readily available, and authoritative, reference confirming the light's operation during this period would be the annual U.S. Coast Guard Light Lists: eg, the 1946 edition, "Sand Island.... flashing white, 10 seconds. U. 60 feet above low water or, seen 13 miles. 480 candlepower, 375 mm apparatus. Acetylene. flash 1 .5 second white day mark on square skeleton tower established 1881 rebuilt 1933." (Note also the reference to the illuminating apparatus.) Many other sources attest to the light's operation during this timespan:

The Raspberry Island Lighthouse keeper's log, on file in the National Archives and available also at the Apostles Islands National Lakeshore headquarters, is another excellent source. After Sand Island was automated in 1921, the nearby Raspberry Island keepers were assigned responsibility for the beacon. Their daily logs contains numerous references to the operation of the Sand Island light during the period in question. For example, "5/4/34- 1st and 2nd Assistants left Station at 8 A.M. to look after Sand Island Light. Put Sand Island in commission.... 7/13/35- Relighted Sand Island..... 7/4/37- General duties. Keeper and 1st Assistant relighted Sand Island.... 5/3/39- Keeper and 2nd Assistant went over to Sand Island. Light fast-- 30 sec. flash."

Newspaper archives of the time also mention lighthouse operations occasionally. For example, the Bayfield Press of May 7, 1964 reports an incident involving Coast Guard crewmen who were stranded on Sand Island while putting the lighthouse into operation for the shipping season: "The U.S. Coast Guard launch commonly called "the 40 footer" took off from its Bayfield mooring for Sand Island to light the light there for the season shipping period. Unable to approach Sand Island, a skiff was lowered and two men.... proceeded to Sand Island. While attending their duties there, an already heavy squall became more severe... etc."

Bobmack apis (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)bobmack_apis

Illustrations

It is unclear why a photograph of the Michigan Island Light Station, with its two towers, is used to illustrate the Sand Island article.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USCGmichiganislandlight.JPG) At the very least, the photo should be clearly labeled to avoid confusing readers.

Bobmack apis (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)bobmack_apis

So fix it. It is unclear why an editor who sees a wrong photograph leaves it there, rather then correct it. --Muhandes (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

External links

There were eleven entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
• WP:ELCITE: access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)