Talk:Dark-sky movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I put in the MTA banner on my article's page, but it didn't show up because there's a stupid ad in the way!! Kgroblee (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Kgroblee

Kgroblee (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)kgroblee

Dark-Sky Movement[edit]

Is this the right title for this, or should it be at Dark-sky movement, or what? Noel (talk) 21:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it should be Dark-sky movement, small 'm', but for some reason Wikipedia wouldn't let me Move it to that new title. I see now that this new title exists, so whatever was holding me up seems to be gone. - DavidWBrooks 22:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I take that back - it was redirected to here - a big mess. Anyway, I have fixed it now. - DavidWBrooks 22:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the correct title: no capital letters (except the first one, which Wikipedia does automatically), because it's not an official title of an organization - e.g., it's not the equivalent of National Aeronautic and Space Administration, but of baseball teams. So many variants have been created now, though, that this may be complicated ... - DavidWBrooks 22:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Move function, which wasn't working earlier, is now working, so I have switched the redirects. This is now the article. - DavidWBrooks 22:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Los Angeles Observatory[edit]

This is red linked. Does the reference to the Los Angeles Observatory refer to the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles?

What references are there to validate the impact of pollution, etc. on viewing from the Observatory? —ERcheck @ 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Griffith Observatory states they are still letting visiters come and see the night sky, so why does it says it's no longer functioning?Jimagnus (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Griffith Observatory is almost strictly an educational facility that does no substantial research in astronomy. There was already extensive light polution from Los Angeles when it was built in 1934, but the location was chosen as a prime location for educational purposes to the masses of the city (citing the documentary "The Once and Future Griffith Observatory"). The building itself is a major contributor to an already overwhelming light pollution problem; the lighting used at Griffith Observatory was designed to attract people to the building (my opinion). I removed the reference to Griffith Observatory being "useless" since it remains very useful for its intended purpose of public education. If there is a mention of it here, the buiding should be portrayed as a contributor of light pollution, not a victim of it.Mcsew2k @ 02:58:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirect from "Lighting Control"[edit]

Hi, I think that the redirect from Lighting Control is wrong: the term lighting control refers to a totally different area of technology (dimming, lighting control protocols, etc.). I'd be happy to draft a lighting control page --Francesco.Anselmo (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Arizona law[edit]

Here's an article that should find its way into this article. __meco (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea - it's done. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)