Talk:Ambrose Light

Lighthouses Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lighthouses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lighthouses and other water navigational aids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LighthousesWikipedia:WikiProject LighthousesTemplate:WikiProject LighthousesLighthouses articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Ambrose Light is actually owned by the Coast Guard. If you are reading NOAA's website entry about ALSN6, that refers only to NOAA's weather package on the tower, not the tower itself or any of the other equipment residing there. The tower and light are owned and maintained by the CG. A good reference is the Light List: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/LightLists/V1COMPLETE.pdf GPSRider (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And hearing no dissension, I have updated the main page to reflect the above. GPSRider (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nearly a year late, but should be fixed now. A bigger picture would be preferable, though. --Pekaje 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the request for a bigger photograph. Perhaps someone from the area could go out with a boat some time this summer and snap one? Lack Thereof (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has indeed the Ambrose Lightship been on station since 1823?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I suspect that they were able to keep the same range with a reduced light simply with a more modern fixture, and better lenses. Better focused light, and less wasted light could allow them to keep the same visibility with a less powerful light. However, I think we should still seek out sources for the candlepower of the old and new lights.Lack Thereof (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allided v. Collided

Collision is a word. Allision is a word. Collide is a word. Allide is not a word. Collide is a newer word than collision (17th C. v. 15th C.), so it's likely an example of verbifyiing normalized. Allision was never a common noun, so sufficient need probably never arose to make a verb from it. Allision, the striking of a moving object on a stationary object, should be explained if it is going to be used in the article. Anthony717 (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I don't have an unabridged dictionary, but I checked the online 1913 Webster's version. Allision derives from the French - "allidere, to strike or dash against". Regardless, allide is not a word. Anthony717 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update No. 2: I searched "allide" and "allided". There were a few thousand hits. The way I see it, if it's not in any dictionary, it's not a word. As best I can tell, allide (and its other verb tenses) is a serially independent derivation of allision by naval sorts, principally maritime attorneys and their witnesses. Not to beat a dead horse .... Anthony717 (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information offered by the second (2nd) OinC USCG, of Ambrose Light Station.

   I was the stationed on board the USCG LTSTA Ambrose ( from 1969-1974) when I mutual-transferred to the USCGC Gasconade in Omaha, NE.  I was assigned to the Light Station as

   the 2nd Officer-in-Charge. I was Boatswain's Mate First Class (E-6) at the time, when I relieved my good friend and shipmate BM-1 Edward S. Huff'  He went on, I believe to be

   assigned to lead a mobile leadership class in what was then the Third CG Dist. out of Gov. Isl. NY.

   I just thought I'd toss this in, not knowing if this will even be logged in to your information box; but thanks anyhow!  My e-mail address is: no.1dhpstoptaste@gmail.com.

   Thank you, and good sailing! --68.47.107.249 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ambrose 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060425134509/http://www.southstseaport.org/street/ambrose.shtm to http://www.southstseaport.org/street/ambrose.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ambrose 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527042615/http://www.sandyhookpilots.com/ to http://www.sandyhookpilots.com/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.uscg.mil/history/Lightship_Index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]