Talk:Grand Marais Light

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grand Marais Light article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

photo

On my recent trip up the North Shore of Lake Superior, one of my goals was to photograph this lighthouse. The existing photo on this article is artistic and charming, and I quite like it for what it is, but it does not depict the subject of this article with much clarity. So, I walked all the way out to the end of a long breakwater, set my camera on a tripod, and waited a rather long time for an opportunity to shoot this subject with no tourists climbing on it. (It was a popular day for that.) I uploaded my best image, which was carefully composed and shows the lighthouse clearly in good light. About a minute after adding it to the article, I get reverted by TWINKLE, it appears, with "no reason for the change." Really? No reason that can be seen? Jonathunder (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original image is far superior for both depicting the light, and of course for its artistic side. I appreciate your version, but it doesn't show the location in the channel as a whole, and should not supercede the original. I will add, however, that if this article becomes expanded, I would definitely include your images in the later text - it's a valid secondary image, but not as a primary image. ES &L 12:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you like your photo better than someone else's, unless the old one really sucked, it's polite to discuss the change before throwing someone else's photo away. As ESL points out, there are many attributes of the old photograph. Indeed, your photo shows more detail of the structure. Note that I had nothing to do with either taking the old, scenic photo or adding it to the article. Toddst1 (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Marais 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/20130707081501/http://lighthouse.boatnerd.com/gallery/Superior/Grand-Marais-MN.htm to http://lighthouse.boatnerd.com/gallery/superior/Grand-Marais-MN.htm

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) 04:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]