Talk:Mill Mountain Star

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I don't agree with using numbers in the Construction paragraph for 88.5 feet. It's taught that you should spell out all numbers below 100 that are non-scientific. See the provided link. First part. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnMcClane (talk • contribs) .

Actually, according to Wikipedia's own Manual of Style, on the dates and numbers page, it states:

Numbers may be written as words or numerals, although note that many users prefer that numbers less than ten be spelt out. It is considered awkward for a numeral to be the first word of a sentence: either recast the sentence or spell the number out. A consistent approach is required within each article.

So by Wikipedia's own stylistic rules, everything seems to be just copasetic in using a numeral there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color combination out of date

I don't have a reliable source for it yet, but the passages in the article referring to the Roanoke Star as being in a red-white-blue configuration are now out of date. I was in Roanoke on Sunday, and the star is now glowing in an all-white configuration. All I have at this point is my own photo of the star from Sunday, which I posted on my site, which is not a reliable source per Wikipedia. That's why I've left the article as-is at this point. If anyone can find a reliable source, then by all means, let's update things. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would think that your photo, your word, and your reputation would be adequate documentation for this fact. If someone disputed it, that would be a different matter, but in the absence of a dispute, I don't see anything wrong with your photo documenting the change in status of the lights. It is unusual in that it is a dynamic landmark.

By the way, is there no webcam of the Star? That strikes me as odd. I've done a brief Google search to no avail (other than pr0n ads). –BozoTheScary 14:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The color change (all white) is a temporary memorial for the Virginia Tech shooting victims. I'm not sure when it will end but, the local news station reported it last week right after they changed it. JohnMcClane 16:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention of local news. I found a ref and made it happen. –BozoTheScary 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was also searching for a reference and ended up finding one in the local paper (The Roanoke Times). However, it contradicts the statement made by the local news station. Apparently, it will stay white indefinitely. JohnMcClane 22:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While I thank you for the compliment, going on one's word yields {{fact}} tags, and my Journal is technically not a reliable source per WP:RS. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that your word and reputation is not good enough, but word, reputation, and a photograph appears to hold up as a reference, in the absence of dispute, in a number of articles, perhaps even in spite of policy. The image in a photograph acts as an independent source of information. While a photograph is falsifiable, so is a web page reference.

Anyway, that is all irrelevant due to your excellent flurry of work on this article. Kudos to you! Kudos to JohnMcClane, too, for helping to spur this update. –BozoTheScary 13:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the news to find this being discussed, so I don't think we've heard the last about the color change just yet. As such, I'll keep my ears and eyes open on any information regarding the star. Until then, I say we leave it as is because, apparently, the city has a commitment to keep it red, white and blue as long as troops stay in harm's way (reference here). In fact, it could be a smart idea to write a small paragraph about the current debate in the history section. JohnMcClane 03:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WDBJ7.png

Image:WDBJ7.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star in white

I have photos that I took at the star on the first night of the all-white configuration, but due to its being the first night back on after an outage and a configuration change, a lot of the sections were out. If I upload the photo, would various individuals be willing to fix the "holes"? I think a photo of the white configuration would be a nice addition to the article, but I don't want to show it with a bunch of sections out. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)