|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Claim that Frederick Law Olmsted designed the grounds of Yerkes Observatory is misleading
Closer to the truth, I believe, that the grounds were designed by the architectural firm, Olmsted Brothers, comprised of John Charles Olmsted and Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. in 1906, three years after the death of the senior Olmsted. See:
- PROPOSAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE YERKES OBSERVATORY SITE IN WILLIAMS BAY, WISCONSIN prepared by Aurora University. The proposal cites John Olmsted as the landscape architect. See Historic Yerkes Landscape page 5.
- Treemendous,Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine See The Trees at Yerkes Observatory, at the bottom of the page.
I'll update the article myself when I have time; other editors are welcome to confirm these references and update as well. Gosgood 15:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
102 cm (40 inch) refractor at the Yerkes Observatory
The 102 cm (40 inch) refractor at the Yerkes Observatory is a landmark telescope and there is practically nothing about it in this article. This is a major oversite and i hope someone gets around to writing an article on it re: it's history, construction, place in the world as the worlds largest refractor...etc. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Largest refracting telescope ever used?
The article claims it is 'the largest refracting telescope ever used'. I hate to be a stickler, but what about the Swedish 1 meter solar telescope finished in 2002? --ChetvornoTALK 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Refracting telescopes are made of large pieces of glass whose edges are rounded in order to make small visible areas larger at a certain point (like a magnifying glass). While I have not read the whole article about the Swedish telescope, I find it highly unusual that they would make a refracting telescope which was dedicated to looking at the sun (it does not take up a small area comparatively).
Even the eight inch refracting telescope that I used had to be covered so that only a 2 inch diameter or less of the area of the glass be available to accept the light from the sun.It is a large magnifying glass; have you ever used a magnifying glass to start a piece of paper on fire with the light from the sun focused onto it? Please reread that article and tell me if you think that this is a huge magnifying glass that they use to look at the sun with or not.
- That cap with the ~2 inch diameter opening in it (the F-stop) was to make that telescope safe for viewing the moon with. Without that cap on, I could feel my eye being damaged from the intensity of that light -- light which is the moon reflecting sunlight, if I might add to this treatise which could be titled The Swedes do not have a one meter refracting telescope which is dedicated to looking at the sun with! -- carol (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Yerkes telescope is a 40 inch magnifying glass and since the time that these giant refracting scopes were made they started to use curved mirrored surfaces which need less length (which is possibly the real reason that this is the largest refracting telescope ever made). So, the eight inch refracting telescope I used was 12 feet long, but the 8 inch reflective telescope was approximately 2 foot long. This is the main reason that really large refracting telescopes are so old. And I don't think that it is an issue of refracting telescopes providing an inferior view compared to reflecting telescopes; I think it is an issue of efficiency and the best surface for the application intended and evolution of the science. A few decades later and they are making telescopes that look more like beehives than this tradtional model.... -- carol (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC) and edited by carol (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"Chain Reaction" image
Someone who does not have a Wikipedia account has removed the image from "Chain Reaction" on the grounds that "Free images of this observatory exist, undermining any need for using a copyrighted image. It is being used to decorate/illustrate what an observatory looks like. The Licensing tag does not cover this usage." It is not being used to illustrate what an observatory looks like. Observatory roofs are not typically venues for gunfights. It does show Yerkes from an unusual point of view, but the reason I added it was to illustrate the item about its use in "Chain Reaction." It is a trivial but amusing incident in the history of Yerkes observatory. It's worth mentioning, and, having been mentioned, is worth illustrating. I don't believe anyone has ever staged a movie chase scene at Mt. Palomar or Lick.
This is not one of these split-second "popular culture" sightings, either. The portions of the film in and around Yerkes must be something like six or seven minutes' worth, maybe not quite as integral to the film as the scenes of Mt. Rushmore in North by Northwest, but important nevertheless. The first appearance of one the film's main characters, the Maggie McDermott, occurs when the hero and heroine find her at the eyepiece of the big refractor.
I've added the following fair use rationale to the image page, but am repeating it here.
The fair use rationale for this image according to the four factors is:
1) The purpose and character have been fundamentally transformed. In the movie, this image is a dramatic incident in the lives of the characters, who are engaging in a life-threatening gunfight. In the article, the image documents an amusing but non-dramatic moment in the history of Yerkes Observatory, namely the use of this dignified temple of science as a movie set.
2) The image is copied from a published work and is therefore on stronger ground regarding fair use then had it been copied from a nonpublished work.
3) The amount and substantiality of the portion taken is one frame from a two-hour movie, thus representing approximately 1/170,000 or 0.0006% of the work. Furthermore, the cinematic meaning of the frame relies on action and sound, both absent from the silent, still frame.
4) The effect of the use upon the potential market is negligible. It is not credible that anyone would decide not to buy the DVD of Chain Reaction as a result of the publication of this image in Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to want to re-write the copyright laws, you may want to re-think that. It does not matter how little impact your use of someone else work has -- it still belongs to them so you have to pass Wikipedia's requirements for usage.
- There are several problems with your submission:
- -Illustrating a "trivial but interesting moment in Yerkes' observatory's history" is by definition trivia. Just because it was used for a "significant chunk of a popular movie" does not mean this would be relevant or significant to Yerkes Observatory. There is no supporting reference as to why this would be significant, other than the fact that you noticed it (see also WP:OR).
- -It fails WP:NONFREE Item 8 - Significance criteria. It does not "significantly increase readers' understanding" of Yerkes' observatory.
- -It fails WP:NONFREE Item 10 - Image description page criteria. It does not have a "copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use". The tag used to support it is for "critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television", its use is nether critical commentary or discussion of the cinema and television.
- I will leave it to other editors to delete it. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)(comment left at users talk page and refer to text there)