Talk:Mackinac Island

Porter Hanks

Lists of notable residents are, by consensus, typically limited to people with existing articles. Otherwise, an article listing people from New York City would include my aunt who, I assure you, is not notable (sorry!) along with several million other people. When editors add red linked names to these lists, the WP:CONSENSUS notice reads, "Your recent edit to (article name) appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you." In other words, if you know of a notable person who you feel should be on the list, write the article first, then add them to the list. Constructive discussion before I remove this guy again? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless the article has a notice restricting itself the notable people section to persons only with articles, notable people without an article can be listed if they have references that meet WP:RS to back up their notability. The comparison of Porter Hanks to your Aunt in New York is silly in the extreme. Hanks has had poetry[1] written about him over 100 years after his death....William 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

List of people from New York City along with hundreds of other such lists are typically limited to entries with pre-existing articles. I am unsure why you feel this article is somehow different. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I placed Porter Hanks on the list because he is more notable than the majority of people already on the list. Virtually every history textbook on the War of 1812 mentions him and the key role he played while on the island. I added his name because its omission was glaringly obvious to me. Having the criteria be whether or not there is a Wikipedia page on him seems a poor one to me. Plenty of notable historical figures have no Wikipedia page. However, it's no skin off my nose to impoverish the list by removing him.DanQuigley 20:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added a redirect; Porter Hanks - > Siege of Fort Mackinac. If anyone cares to create the article, have at it. Otherwise, I'll get to a stub at some point. As this article is one of only two that link to Porter Hanks, I won't be working on that very soon. (The other, obviously, is Siege of Fort Mackinac.) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at writing a notable article about Lt. Hanks. Comments are welcome. Bigturtle (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge 2019

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

=No consensus to merge and discussion stale. Klbrain (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Mackinac Island is an island. Mackinac Island, Michigan is a city whose territory comprises the island and the smaller uninhabited Round Island (Michigan). We don't need separate articles for the island and city: for analogy, Manhattan Island and Manhattan (borough) redirect to the same article, which article explains that the borough includes other smaller lands as well as (nearly all of) the eponymous island. Mackinac Island about the island is a featured article. Mackinac Island, Michigan about the city is inferior and contains mostly a repetition of information in the island article, with sentences and navboxes that aren't in the island article but could easily be. The main extra bit in the city article is the tedious demographic info generated by bots. If that tedious info can be curated into a human-friendly form and added to the island article then the city article becomes completely redundant.

Previous merge discussion in 2004–2005 at Talk:Mackinac Island/archive#older entries and Talk:Mackinac Island, Michigan#Merge was instigated by Bkonrad; nobody supported a merger but the four commenters' arguments were IMHO weak: Decumanus and Rmhermen seemed worried that the bot info would look bad in the other article (I agree, see above); Funnyhat and CBessert said the two island and municipality were different concepts (I agree, cf. Manhattan). jnestorius^(talk) 01:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree: The island and the city are two distinct entities and shouldn't follow suit just because other island jurisdictions may be merged into one article. The article Mackinac Island, Michigan should focus on the city's history, as well as demographics, notable residents, structures, and human elements. The Mackinac Island article itself can focus on the geography, geology, and natural elements. The city's article could use a good cleanup and restructuring (to remove redundant information and an overly tourist tone), but combining the two would overload a single article with too much information. I would be hesitant to edit the island's article since it's a featured article, but some of that information there might be removed to the city's article since it pertains to the city itself and not the island. —Notorious4life (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Having spent some time looking at the articles (including Mackinac Island State Park, which may need to be considered in the merger), I am completely undecided. I can see merging all three together in appropriate sections, but also leaving them separate. It should be noted, over 80% of the island is State Park property and not part of the City. Based on the map, it looks like many of the points of historical interest are within the Park (upon the Island) but not within the City, although state park locations seem to have City addresses. Also, the city no longer encompasses Round Island, so the city may technically comprise only a small portion of the Island. But the history of all three articles are so hugely intertwined, it is difficult to draw distinction between the topics. --Mindfrieze (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• What does whether or not a property is owned by the state have to do with city boundaries? John from Idegon (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • From the City's website, I am under the impression the state-owned property (which is 80% of the island) is not merely state property within the city but is actually not part of the city and thus outside the city boundary. I would love to see some clarification of this one way or the other. --Mindfrieze (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Area

The article lists Mackinac Island as being 4.35 square miles (11.27 km²) in area, but that figure appears to be inaccurate. The city article (Mackinac Island, Michigan) also lists the entire city as being 4.35 square miles (11.27 km²), which is listed as the city's land area in the 2010 census (Page 61). However, the city's boundaries in that figure also include neighboring Round Island, which that article lists (without a reference) as 0.59 square miles (1.53 km²). How can Mackinac Island—the island and the jurisdiction—be the same size, when they are not conterminous? Are there any documents that list the actual size of Mackinac Island (the island only), because the 4.35 square miles (11.27 km²) area listed in the island article cannot be accurate since it also includes the area of the separate Round Island. If the Round Island area of 0.59 square miles (1.53 km²) is accurate, shouldn't Mackinac Island (the island) be listed as 3.76 square miles (9.74 km²) (if a reliable source for Round Island's area can be located)? —Notorious4life (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Anyone? Come on, this is a featured article, and there are no citations to support the area information. The duplicate link provided in both instances where the 4.35 square miles (11.27 km²) number is used in the article is a permanent dead link. Additionally (and unrelated), there seems to be too many pictures wedged into the article. I don't want to make bold edits on the featured article, but a little spring cleaning might be appropriate. —Notorious4life (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any good sources, but here's one that says 3.8 square miles: [2] GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

FA in need of review

This older Featured Article does not meet the current FA criteria. There are several unsourced paragraphs, the "notable people" section is almost completely unsourced, and I could find trivia in the article. Virtually all links are from 2007/8. The sourcing seems weak for a Featured Article; for instance mightymac.org and grandhotel.com seem promotional and not high-quality. Article needs work and I see similar concerns directly above. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Where was Somewhere In Time shot?

Where was Somewhere In Time shot? In the "Points of interest" section we say at the Grand Hotel, but in the "Film" section we say Mission Point. Which was it? GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Location shooting was done at the Grand Hotel, with Mission Point Resort used for soundstage work.Bigturtle (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of Freemasonry content?

It seems that almost a quarter of the History section is dedicated to the history of freemasonry—not just on the island, but the whole region... why is there so much on this? I find it highly dubious that freemasonry is historically relevant to the subject matter enough to warrant this attention. To be completely honest I would be in favor of reducing it to a sentence or two. Criedley (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Or removed, until it can be rewritten; it really is a blemish on the article from a guidelines point-of-view. Criedley (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)