Talk:Ambrose Light

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Title 2 Naming convention 3 The information box 4 Overusing bold in article name 5 Range

[edit] Title

According to this edit, there is some dispute whether lightstation or light station is the more correct term. While I don't consider the US Coast Guard to be an authority on usage, it does seem that the two-word version is more common in American English and the one-word version is mainly used in British English. I'm not convinced that uniformity is essential here; I think the issue should be determined by location on a case-by-case basis. I do think that in this case the two-word version is appropriate, so I'm going to move the article accordingly. If anyone has sources to the contrary, please cite them and feel free to move it back. Kafziel 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be moved (back) to "Ambrose Light"? That seems to be what the Coast Guard calls it.[1] —wwoods 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

YES, it should be move back. --- Skapur 23:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention

It is my understanding that the light station is owned and maintained by the National Data Buoy Center, a branch of NOAA, and is officially designated as Station ALSN6. I would presume, therefore, that the name is an anacronym for Abmbrose Light Station Number 6. Please refer to the National Data Buoy Center link documenting this fact in the References section in the article. If you decide it is in the readers best interest to confuse this fact by introducing alternative facts feel free to do so. Dennis 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The page http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=alsn6 lists it as Ambrose Light --- Skapur 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The light list also calls this Ambrose Light. I can't think of any document more authoritative on the topic of naming navaids than the Light List. I'm therefore moving this back where it belongs. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The information box

While adding an information box is a great idea the current implementation has stretched the photo and pixliated or distorted it. Someone should either look into readjusting the the shape and size of the info box to better fit the photo or find another photo with a higher resolution that won't get so distorted. Dennis 14:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Has indeed the Ambrose Lightship been on station since 1823?

[edit] Overusing bold in article name

It is my opinion that the paragraph/sentence that is tacked on to the end of the article introduction, "This light is named Ambrose Light and listed as number 720 in USCG light lists." is either misplaced or unnecessary since the name Ambrose Light is clearly used in the begining of the article and therefore already a clearly recognized mention. Also, the link used for the argument that the USCG is somehow the authoritative entity on the names of other agencies property would be better place in the References or External links section along with all the other off site references. However, I personally do not have any desire to get into any conflicts with other editors corrections, right or wrong. I've offered my opinion and the community can decide. Dennis 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some editors insist on using the incorrect name "Ambrose Light Station". The correct name in all the references I have come across is just "Ambrose Light" --- Skapur 15:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Range

The first light "was about 136 feet above mean low water and the 10,000,000 candle-power light could be seen for 18 miles."

The second light is "76 feet above mean low water, and the 60,000 candle-power light is visible for 18 miles."

A dimmer, lower light can be seen as far? Did the standard change between 1967 and 1999? The distances to the horizon are 14.28 and 10.68 miles, respectively, though that doesn't count the extra distance due to the height of the observer. —wwoods 15:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The current light list does indeed say 76 feet and 18 miles, without mentioning the candlepower specifically. It describes range as, Nominal range of lighted aids to navigation, in nautical miles. It also defines:

Nominal Range: The maximum distance a light can be
seen in clear weather (meteorological visibility of 10 nautical
miles). Listed for all lighted aids to navigation except
range lights, directional lights, and private aids to navigation.

I would certainly not expect this to take into account height of eye, since that could range from zero (submarine periscope) to well over 100 feet (bridge of a large ship). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already stuck my foot in my mouth once today so I'll let you guys decide. I added the info from the sources I found and included in the external links in the article. I agree there seems to be a descrepency in the candlepower and the height of the towers. Candlepower and height of the focal plane would determine the distance and these are two clearly disparate towers so what I added doesn't sound sensible. Perhaps someone can find a reliable source and update it or remove the stats for the old tower. Also, if any of the data in the links I included are uncitable or incorrect then the link should probably be removed next time the article is updated. Dennis 18:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)