I've gone and updated this on the deduction that this is strictly an Irish/UK thing. People familiar with the area should review the current version. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Looking around I've noticed that some articles use a lower case l, mostly as (Foobar lighthouse), but the majority use a capital L (Foobar Light(house)). I have always used the capital L, but for clarification in case anyone is unsure I thought I would raise it here. Is there an agreed consensus to use the capital L for article names ?...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a good question. I'm not aware of any consensus for using upper or lower case letters. But, if in doubt we should just go along with WP:COMMONNAME and use whatever the majority of reliable sources is using. And that means that there may not even be a common scheme to follow. Unless this has been discussed before, I'd suggest though that we use Light(house) with a capital L if that is the common name (most often when part of the proper name), and light(house) with a lower-case l if that is just meant as a sort of addendum or disambiguation for non-English names or names in nautical charts where just the geographic location is being used. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
For US lights the Coast Guard invariably capitalizes "Light" (which they prefer these days over "Lighthouse"). I would tend to say that the usage of the controlling authority in each country should be followed (e.g. in the UK that would be Trinity House). Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The term 'lighthouse' has been in use for several centuries, so I propose it is not changed. 'Light' can mean too many other things - lighthouse is very specific. Whether it should be a proper noun is debatable, but when referring to a particular lighthouse (such as Foobar Lighthouse) it should be capitalised IMHO.GlassyEye (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Portal:Lighthouses
I have pulled together a portal for lighthouses at Portal:Lighthouses as there seemed to be a good selection of articles, pictures and DYK’s to make it look interesting. To select articles I created a recognized content page using JL-Bot, which is now at Lighthouses recognized content. I have overwritten the existing manual list on the main page as well, for featured, good and DYK articles. Hopefully, the portal and the project page changes will prove useful...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I have just prodded this stub. While the directory itself is invaluable, I think we can hardly justify having an article about it when there is almost no coverage by other media. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Standard format for US state lists
Hi there. I'm working on Maryland lights. One of my goals is to get the List of lighthouses in Maryland up to Featured List status. I am of course using the Connecticut list as a guide since it has reached feature quality. I note that the MD list has an 'automated' column. In the interest of making the lists consistent I was considering removing that column from the Maryland list. Other than that I think improving the reference/citations in-line should just about get it there. TheCrazedBeast(talk)23:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
TheCrazedBeast, I don't know why "automated" is missing from the Connecticut list; I've put it on basically every other list as it is a datum that the CG provides, and the transition from manned to unmanned is of interest to people. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
TheCrazedBeast, One thing I do find surprising on the US Lists is the lack of a column for Tower Height, so a casual reader can’t sort the table to see which is the tallest/shortest and those in between. The lead for the Connecticut list tells us the tallest lighthouse is the New London Harbor Light, but the only height given in the table is that for the Focal Height (which has no link or note to a definition). The Range of the active lights would also be something to consider (i.e. which is the most powerful light in the state)...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not there because I haven't been able to get it with any consistency. Range is likewise only available as rule for active lights. There's aso the question of how many columns there is room for. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation Mangoe, does that mean that Rowlett’s directory is not considered consistent enough for use in these articles?..Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Animated characteristics
So in my editing adventures I naturally stumbled across several lights with an animated gif of the characteristic. I found them a bit lacking in that I could not use the same look and also incorporate sectoring. So, I make a few of my own. Please have a look in commons:Category:Lighthouse_signals to see them along with the older style. They are simple to make and I would be happy to create them for anyone. Note that the timing can be very precise (to the millisecond). You can see one in action at Baltimore Harbor Light.
Comments and suggestions welcome! TheCrazedBeast(talk)03:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Would you create an animated signal that flashes green at 5-second intervals for the Block Island Southeast Light? It could be modified from one of your existing animations which flash white at 5-second intervals and green at 4-second intervals. Waz8:T-C-E00:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done and added to the article infobox. I happened to add one to the BI North light recently too. Came across them as I was starting to plan a trip to Block Island this spring to go geocaching ;) Any other requests just post on my talk page! TheCrazedBeast(talk)18:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, your animation on the BI North light is what prompted my request. I haven't been there since 2015 -- enjoy your trip! Waz8:T-C-E04:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Whilst assessing lighthouse articles I have struggled to interpret the current criteria for article importance on the assessment page.
I checked the project archives containing the discussion about how the criteria came about, which included some further ideas about how they could be improved. I have reworked those ideas into the table below.
It’s not perfect (as the various designations are not all comparable), maybe the Tower of Hercules should be in the Top category as the only World heritage site. But hopefully it will prompt a discussion and help to clarify the importance of the many unassessed articles which still persist...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Jokulhlaup My question is about individual lighthouses and the Importance rating attached to them. Point Clark Lighthouse, one of the Imperial Towers seems to be unique and yet is rated as Low importance.
one of the National Historic Sites of Canada, the only lighthouse on the Great Lakes or Georgian Bay to receive this highest-level designation.
The remaining area of articles that do not have an importance rating are the various Lists of Lighthouses in x. I propose that these should be assessed according to the number of lights listed.
High for lists that contain over 100 lighthouses.
Mid for lists with 99-10 lighthouses 99 - 26 lighthouses.
Looking at the lists in closer detail revealed that the original breakpoint for low/mid was against what was already being used, hence it has been revised upwards so that Low class is now applies to a list of 25 or fewer lighthouses....Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who started the list and whether I can just go ahead and add some.
I know there are some missing, including the Range Light in Southampton, Ontario. Called the Saugeen Front Range Light and the Saugeen Rear Range Light. AND the McNab Point Lighthouse. All are discussed in this article: [1]
Any suggestions?
@Peter K Burian: my response may be quite belated, but of course you are welcome to add some lighthouses to this list (and to others you happen come across). In addition to that news article, details about the year of contruction, the location etc. can also be found in the Lighthouse Directory. You can cite this web-subpage using {{cite rowlett|onlh}}. Other pages from the Lighthouse Directory can also be cited with the same template using different parameters. De728631 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been able to access any of the USCG lighthouse by state pages in several weeks. Some page higher in the site work OK, but not those on individual states. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, it's gotten worse: for a while you could get to them directly, but apparently, two days ago they rearranged everything, and now essentially everything on the USCG historical site is inaccessible. Worse, their search page finds all the old pages, which you cannot actually see. Mangoe (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
On @Anna Frodesiak:'s advice I decided to make a new section here regarding this category. I will copy/paste the discussion header from her talk page here:
I am thinking about depopulating this category in favor of a list of notable museums or an article about lighthouse museums. My reasoning is that so many current lighthouses contain a visitor center or small museum which is run by foundations or by the coast guard. Some stand out examples to consider might be defunct lighthouses that have since been turned into museums or the like.
I took a further look at the category and found that the tag was being added to articles that make no mention of a museum. So my questions are as follows...
1. If a lighthouse is open to the public would it be qualified then as a visitor center or museum? (Somebody is there maintaining things)
2. If so then should the category be renamed "Lighthouses open to the public" or the like?
There were zero comments so I think it's inappropriate to start removing categories. It should be an RFC and probably add a note to relevant projects' talkpages as well. WikiProject Washington recommended. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
As someone who does a lot of categorization of files on Commons, the main question to me is, is this intersection of museum and lighthouse important/interesting/helpful enough to warrant a category? I'm not a member of this WikiProject, so I leave that determination up to the rest of you, but for my two cents, I would prefer that it be left there. I noticed this edit at Battery Point Light and found my way here. The relevant categories that are remaining are Category:Museums in Del Norte County, California and Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places in California, but now there's no easy way to see which lighthouses in California are museums or open to the public in any way (and "open to the public" does not necessarily equal "museum"). Sure, you could add an additional column to List of lighthouses in California, but I think it's easier for editors to add a category to an article than realize there's a list article they should also be editing. —howcheng {chat}22:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Howcheng: The problem is the definition of "lighthouse museum" which is sparse when it comes to sources. Lighthouses are old structures that no longer serve as a primary means of navigation, so by default one would assume they were museums unless stated otherwise. Like I said it would be easier just to have a category for lighthouses that are open to the public as that is easier to source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: When you say "one would assume", I think by "one" you mean "one who is familiar with lighthouses", and I respectfully suggest that that's too limited a definition. My definition of "lighthouse museum" would be a lighthouse that has its own web site where it describes itself as being a museum, or listed on a city/county/travel site (TripAdvisor, etc) as being a museum. Otherwise, it's just a lighthouse. But again, I'm not an expert, so take from that what you will. —howcheng {chat}03:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87 has been doing wholesale edits to lighthouse articles.
"Removed museum category, if any given lighthouse is open to the public then it is more than likely also a museum."
I don't disagree with your assertion, but I believe this action is not the most helpful path to the readers.
Is it not better to have too many categories than too few?
This is misguided, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect, IMO. Actions uninformed by actual knowledge. E.g., Sturgeon Point Light has a rather complete lighthouse and maritime museum. 7&6=thirteen (☎)12:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87 has effectively deleted the category "Lighthouse Museums" by removing every single entry. This is a form of vandalism, it seems to me. Is there any way to do a wholesale rollback? —Dilidor (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@7&6=thirteen: I'm admin, and I think your accusation of "vandalism" is a little too harsh. We don't punish longtime editors for acting in good faith and being WP:BOLD. This is just part of the normal WP:BRD cycle, although since many pages were affected, we're doing the other steps a little out of order. [Edit: sorry, that was Dilidor who made the vandalism charge]—howcheng {chat}15:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
As you corrected yourself, I did not accuse anyone of "vandalism". I think those edits – depopulating the lighthouse/museum shared categories – were severely misguided, but I WP:AGF. 7&6=thirteen (☎)16:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for WP:AGF, my intention was not to disrupt anything. As I have been trying to say.... there is little support for the definition of "lighthouse museum". We shouldn't be going by if a lighthouse has a gift shop or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I think we can keep the inclusion criteria fairly straightforward: if the organization running the lighthouse calls it a museum, then it's a museum. Otherwise not. —howcheng {chat}18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, the categories will not auto empty for 7 days so there is time to repopulate them with examples that fit this criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Howcheng: I was not intending to accuse anyone of anything malicious in mentioning vandalism; I was attempting to underscore the significance of the sweeping deletions. Please do not take my words to mean that I was making any "charge". @Knowledgekid87: I reverted the two lighthouse edits merely to restore them to the category; please feel free to add them to the Connecticut sub-cat if that is more appropriate. —Dilidor (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Well most of the articles are now restored, I did not do so for lighthouses with no mention of a museum in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I have noted that Knowledgekid87 has restored many of the pages to the way they were before his deletions. I have not reviewed them all. I am not endorsing all of them, but we can revisit individual articles, and I take KK87's words a face value. But it seems that we are in agreement. WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎)13:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Does this WikiProject have a naming convention for articles on lighthouses? Is it "Foo Light(house)" or "Foo light(house)"? Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Many years ago (i.e., almost 13, now) when I was working on articles about lights/lighthouses in Florida, I argued for using 'light' as the proper name rather than 'lighthouse', because the US Coast Guard called then 'lights'. When referring to a navigational aide, I believe that 'light' is correct. When referring to the structure on which a navigational aide is mounted, 'lighthouse' is appropriate. Some lights have been mounted on more than one structure (see Cape San Blas Light for an extreme example). The light at Carysfort Reef was carried by light ships before a lighthouse was built on the reef. It would seem, though, that most people (aside from mariners) are interested in the structures rather than the navigational aides. With many lights being decommissioned in recent years, the lighthouses have often outlived the lights. I do think a discussion is needed on a naming convention. - Donald Albury13:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, I accept that "Light" is used in the US, and "Lighthouse" elsewhere, per WP:ENGVAR. The question I need to get to the bottom of is should the second word begin with a capital "L" or a lower case "l". Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The Coast Guard has once again revamped their websites (they do so every few years) and the links from our articles have gone dead, but the current Coast Guard site points to a National Park Service site, where I found Historic Lighthouse and Light Stations in Florida, where all the structures listed use "Light", capitalized, in the title. So, the official names, in U.S. government usage, include "Light", capitalized. Off hand, I don't have a feeling for when "lighthouse" should be capitalized. - Donald Albury21:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
For some time we had an obscure convention page suggesting appending Lighthouse or Light to the name (with implicit capping, contrary to the guidance at MOS:CAPS). This should be case by case, capping when Light or Lighthouse is part of the proper name, as attested by sources (like for Bodie Island Lighthouse mentioned above), but lowercase when we're appending light or lighthouse to a name and it's not one that's usually capped in sources (e.g. see the ones I downcased recently that appear in sources lowercase if at all). As for "Light" in the US, that too is a weird convention some use, often at odds with commonname. We shouldn't have conventions that push us to circumvent WP:AT or WP:MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
So, it would appear that there isn't a formal naming convention. I am aware that SailorSam and Dicklyon disagree as to whether lighthouse should take a capital L in article titles. I've also been in dispute with Dicklyon myself on the issue of capitalisation in a different area. Would it be better if this issue was thrashed out at WP level, and a formal naming convention for Lighthouse articles was established, or should we continue as we are? Mjroots (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It looks like it is time for an Request for Comments. I think it should ask for comments on two questions:
1. Should all articles about lighthouses use "lighthouse" in the title, or leave article titles in their current state?
2. Should "lighthouse" (or "light", if that term continues to be used in article titles) be capitalized in article titles?
What makes lighthouses so special that they would need their own guidelines? Are there other topic areas that suggest caps for things that are not proper names? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Donald, if you want to do an RFC at a central place, that would probably help. But be clear, that this is about whether to cap Lighthouse or Light as part of the name in general, versus depending on whether it's consistently capped in sources (as MOS:CAPS suggests) for the particular one. It has nothing to do with titles per se; your "leave article titles" or "capitalized in article titles" just muddies the waters, since in-title capitalization is not going to be different from in other contexts. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
(←) Let's have a look at some facts surrounding this issue or these issues:
Stable consensus: Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses was created 12 years ago. Reading through the archives of this talk page, 1, 2, and 3, I see no prior discussion suggesting we should change the convention to lower-case l. Nor do I see that consensus has been challenged at any other venue.
Consistency: My last petscan of Category:Lighthouses by country showed 1600+ articles conforming with <Foobar Lighthouse> or <Foobar Light>, and a few hundred that did not.
• An alternative convention is to use Light instead of Lighthouse. There is no established convention as to whether one is preferred over the other, or whether they should vary on a case-by-case basis based on usage in souces.
An understanding of the convention requires an understanding of the sources.
... this list could be expanded with countless book citations.
Our convention is based on the fact that the governing lighthouse organizations and major databases list the proper names as <Foobar Lighthouse> or <Foobar Light>, and that is the title format we use per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), and it is consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. This is no different from what we do with "Bridge", "Building", "Castle", "Church", "Dam", "Hotel", "Mine", "Palace", "Park", etc.
Comments:
As for "Light" in the US, that too is a weird convention some use, often at odds with commonname. I acknowledge that some sources use <Foobar Light> extensively or predominantly. The problem is that the distinction between what is a Lighthouse, and what is just a Light, has never been fully agreed upon among pharologists and enthusiasts. Bowditch p. 63 (NGIA Pub. 9, 2000) touches upon the distinction, and Rowlett expands a bit on The Lighthouse Directory. But I agree, and think that in many cases the average reader would find it more natural that those same articles were titled <Foobar Lighthouse>, and that such a title would comply with WP:COMMONNAME. Take Cape Canaveral Light as an example. No yachtie let alone landlubber would think of this structure as anything else but a lighthouse, in my opinion. The Cape Canaveral Lighthouse Foundation founded in 2001 also uses the proper name "Cape Canaveral Lighthouse".
This should be case by case, capping when Light or Lighthouse is part of the proper name That is an opinion that goes against consensus, cf. point A.–D. above, and I doubt a case can be made at a wider RfC that the proper names capitalized <Foobar Lighthouse> or <Foobar Light> in the above mentioned sources should be disregarded, cf. WP:CONSISTENCY.
... but lowercase when we're appending light or lighthouse to a name and it's not one that's usually capped in sources (e.g. see the ones I downcased recently that appear in sources lowercase if at all). Based on a spot check of the recent undiscussed mass moves to lowercase, I contest that the claims are correct. Please list (i) the articles for which no reliable source was found listing the proper name as <Foobar Lighthouse> or <Foobar Light>, and (ii) list the articles for which no reliable sources were found.
I welcome the this discussion, folks, but be aware that, as we speak, DickLyon is mass-moving lighthouse articles to "Foo lighthouse" anyway. My own understanding is that the sources overwhelming use title case for these buildings and it certainly fits with the general convention for the naming of structures. Bermicourt (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Per sources, as always. This includes "light" vs. "lighthouse" and also capitalisation. If the proper name of "Craggy Island Lighthouse" is just such a proper name, then we capitalise it as such. We don't invent new names to fulfill some assumed wikidogma. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree. BTW it appears Dick Lyon has also been asking for moves to be carried out as "uncontroversial technical requests" using the WP:RMT procedure. That's clearly a breach of protocol as he's already participated in this debate and knows they are not uncontroversial. I'm not sure how Wikipedia deals with that, but I've asked him to stop and to please revert his moves while this discussion is taking place. Bermicourt (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I have been moving a few each day after inspecting their sources. If you see one or more on which you think I've made an error, that is, for which sources support the idea that it's a proper name, please point them out specifically. It's possible I got some wrong, but I don't know which ones are concerning you. The majority of these are stubs that have never before been looked at for style issues. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It's way past time that Dicklyon was TBANed from using RMT like this. This has spread across so many projects and article domains now and he keeps doing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Like what? Which uses of RMT are you saying were inappropriate, and what other projects/domains are you talking about? I hate this kind of knee-jerk reaction from you when I work on fixing style issues; what are you objecting to, specifically? Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
You are not "fixing style issues" you are mass moving article titles based on your view of how English should be without proper consultation with those sweating to produce and maintain those articles and, in this case, in clear breach of the rules for WP:RMT. Bermicourt (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not mass moving; and the moves have nothing to do with any opinion of "how English should be"; just trying to conform to guidelines. Please say which RMT request(s) you believe violated some rule, and maybe I'll get your point. Dicklyon (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Compatible conventions
Conventions need to be compatible with consensus central guidance such as MOS:CAPS. In this revert, Sam Sailor is asserting that we should capitalize things that are not proper names. This is a non-starter, and will confuse the issues above, about whether some of the lighthouse names are proper names or not. We are not in the business of making up proper names, as Andy notes. So just use name of lighthouse, and the word "Lighthouse" is not OK. Dicklyon (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, this 2009 edit changed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) from "historical" to "proposed", along with a note that it was not intended to replace, but to supplement, other guidance. I don't see that the proposal ever got discussion to become a convention. Just a year ago it was relabeled a "Guidance essay". I think it would be good to work on improving it to where it could become an accepted convention. I made a few edits to make it less obviously at odds with normal title and style guidance about not making up proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Conventions need also to be compatible with WP:COMMONNAME and, if there is no clear consensus among authoritative sources, there should not be a convention favouring one form of spelling over another, to wit WP:ENGVAR. I would strongly encourage you to devote your energy to improving articles rather than engaging in contentious, non-consensual renaming which just irritates other editors and wastes everyone's time. Let's focus on increasing the sum of human knowledge. :) Bermicourt (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Conforming to Wikipedia's style on capitalization is in no way incompatible with COMMONNAME, and is not a spelling issue. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
You can also continue discussion. I have asked if any of my moves are contested, but nobody has spoken up. Are you saying that Cape Palliser lighthouse is treated as a proper name by sources? Certainly not by the first cited source, but maybe by others? I see at least three books that do it with lowercase lighthouse, but I'm willing to listen to contrary opinions if there are some. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Dicklyon, I don't have such a strong opinion on this matter, but from reading the above I don't see how you can say I have asked if any of my moves are contested, but nobody has spoken up. It is very clear that at least one editor is vehemently contesting all your lighthouse moves in general, past and future. --Muhandes (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not just lighthouses. All the edits I recall seeing from Dicklyon, across several projects and subject areas, are of the same form: imposing a simplistic "No more than one initial uppercase letter in any block of text" dogma across everything, no matter what sourcing or local consensus says. This is more of a behavioural problem than a lighthouse-specific issue, and that's why it's time for TBANs. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If anyone wants to seek a TBAN, they need to go through other steps to try to resolve the dispute, including persuing the steps in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Undiscussed moves. If further efforts fail to resolve the dispute, then a next step would be to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Be warned, however, that AN/I is a dramaboard, and results may not be what is expected. I do request Dicklyon to advertise (and not just on the talk page of the article) any moves he proposes to make and wait a reasonable time for responses. - Donald Albury17:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
My point is that "contesting all my moves in general" is not productive without specific objections to any of them. Andy's vehemence is irrelevant. He knows that in the vast majority of cases that he didn't like, taking them to RM discussions confirmed the consensus to follow the guidance of the MOS. If I've made a wrong call on some name not being a proper name, why won't someone point that out; maybe I'll agree. Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Moving forward
Where are we on this? Is anyone interested in drafting and discussing naming conventions compatible with WP:MOS, or holding on RfC on something related? Or is anyone interesting in challenging my judgement on any of the ones I moved to lowercase due to them not being capped in sources? I completely agree with Sam Sailor that "An understanding of the convention requires an understanding of the sources", but I don't understand his claims about what sources show (see the Maritime New Zealand source for example, which uses lowercase lighthouse, not quite consistently, as I've noticed while working on New Zealand lighthouses recently). Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm not as invested in the details of naming lights/lighthouses as I once was. I prefer capitalization, and I prefer 'Light' over 'Lighthouse' for lights operated by the U. S. Coast Guard, but those preferences follow from the fact that all of the articles about lighthouses that I have I worked on are or were operated by the U. S. Coast Guard or its predecessors. I cannot justify making either of those a convention for all lighthouse articles without strong support from reliable sources. As for following sources, those seem to be muddled, and counting sources using or not using caps, or 'light' vs 'lighthouse', might become contentious. - Donald Albury20:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, sources are muddled and mixed, and I agree we do not, and should not, let sources vote on such issues. But we do sometimes need to look to sources to determine what's a proper name – as MOS:CAPS says, we cap as proper name things that are consistently capped in sources. As for Light vs Lighthouse, that's complicated; it might be appropriate to have different conventions for different countries, if the countries are consistent. But in the case of the US, I think Lighthouse is most common in popular literature for a general audience, while Light is more common in the specialist nautical literature. I'm going to continue to stay out of that issue for now. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata question for range light infoboxes
Hey Lighthouse folk! I'm working on some edits to lighthouses in Prince Edward Island, Canada, and I've run into a problem at Brighton Beach Range Lights with data being pulled from Wikidata. That page has two infoboxes, one each for the front and rear lights, but both boxes pull an image and coordinates from Wikidata. The coordinates entered there were for a different range light on PEI so I've fixed that, but the problem is that the same image and coordinates are populating both boxes (so the image of the front light displays for the rear light). Is there a good solution for this? I'm sure it's not the first time it's come up. Cheers! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion those two info-boxes should just be combined as well, it is utterly useless to have two maps that pinpoint a location in about the same spot. I would either combine the lighthouse images or use them in the article body. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way, I just wanted to point out that there is an alternative. I wrote this article eight years ago and the infoboxes were much smaller then, as far as I recall. --Muhandes (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I remember those times of smaller info-boxes. It's a good idea for an alternative, I just don't like how the boxes stretch the pages now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Hello! I've created a stub for Matamoros Lighthouse, but User:Tbhotch and I have also seen a couple sources describe the subject as a "beacon". I don't know much about beacons or lighthouses. I just want to make sure this article is appropriate for associating with this WikiProject and I welcome editors to make further improvements to the entry (and/or clarification re: beacon vs. lighthouse, if needed). Thanks! ---Another Believer(Talk)16:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
'Beacon' may refer to what is sometimes called an 'aerobeacon', which have been used as navigational lights, sometimes replacing the more traditional lantern and light in established lighthouses. The pictures I see in some of the sources are consistent with the base of an 'aerobeacon,' and the construction date of 1932 is within the period in which aerobeacons were being erected to guide aircraft and, sometimes, ships. While the structure is called a "faro" in the sources, what seems to be missing is an explicit statement that this beacon was intended as a navigational guide for ships. - Donald Albury20:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
If it helps, the plaque of the one found at the Malecón reads: "This beacon was inaugurated on August 15, 1932. During the day it provided service with a black-and-white bar signaling system. At night it used a dioptric beacon with acetylene equipment. One hundred and ninety-three meters from this point is another [location] beacon, on Matamoros Street. Both concluded their service to the ships when the port in the estuary of El Salado came into operation, on August 20, 1970." (CC)Tbhotch™03:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
We currently link to the ARLHS's World List of Lights on almost every lighthouse article. It strikes me that this resource, although extensive, is not particularly useful in most cases, and not WP:RELIABLE either. I think it may be an appropriate external link, but I don't think we should (a) cite it as a reference, or (b) display it prominently in the infobox.
The first one has a photograph; the second two have nothing except very approximate coordinates of the position. What are people's opinion of this database? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added it to authority control, as there was no opposition there. (No comments at all to any of these proposals actually.) I have to question if it should be there if it is not useful though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that this citation template has been nominated for deletion. I thought this template (which links to the Canadian Coast Guard's List of Lights was in use, and I wonder why it is not used now. Does anyone know about this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Proposal: move identifiers out of infobox
Lighthouses have several identifiers, like admiralty number, NGA ID, ARLHS ID, USCG number, and so on. Currently many of these are displayed in the infobox, but it may be more appropriate to move them out of the infobox into a "authority control" type template at the bottom of the article. The rationale: these identifiers are not human-readable, and not of interest to the casual reader. They are useful for editors or researchers, so should remain in the article, but at the more standard (and less prominent) place for identifiers used in other areas of the encyclopedia. I will make a mock-up so people can understand the proposal better. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The example below shows a lighthouse with 4 identifiers in the infobox, and how it could look with the authority control template at the bottom of the article instead — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The above is for illustration purposes only. I am not proposing to use the "Mexico number" because I am find no reliable sources to verify what it refers to. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
That is a good question. Data can get rather confused when an article covers more than one lighthouse. Some editors try to mix data into one infobox using qualifiers like (first), (second), (current), etc. which can be quite hard to follow, whereas other editors use an additional infobox which is clearer. We can adopt the same approach with the authority control. If an article is mainly about one lighthouse, then its AC box would relate to that lighthouse. If its scope is two (or more) lighthouses then we could look at adding an additional box. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the examples; there are indeed many of them. Thinking about this some more, I have noticed that in most cases, when a new lighthouse replaces an older one, it seems to inherit the identifiers from its predecessor (e.g. Admiralty number in both Fitzroy infoboxes is K3168). Is this true? If this is the case, then we probably don't need to worry so much about this, as the current/active lighthouse will provide the relevant identifiers. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't say this for sure as I never researched it thoroughly. There are some cases where a new identifier was issued, mainly I suppose when a light was moved. I see discussion is moving forward at Template talk:Authority control and maybe something will come out of it. I think the main concern should be how to make this change. You will obviously need a bot to do all the changes, and such a bot will need to mark pages with more than one infobox for manual handling. --Muhandes (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply. I have been working on other things which will eventually help this conversion to proceed. We still have 0 articles in need of a Wikidata item and I am working on resolving these. It will be much eaier if all the relevant identifiers are on Wikidata. If anyone is able to help with these, let me know! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I don't know if you are still interested in this, but there is some progress to report. All the identifiers from the infobox have now been migrated to Wikidata. I believe I have resolved most (if not all) of the data conflicts caused by articles covering more than one lighthouse. And I have started adding some of these identifiers to the authority control template. For example, look at the bottom of Bjargtangar Lighthouse. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Yes, I noticed you good work on sorting the data for articles in my watchlist, and lately the addition of {{authority control}} to some of them. For sure there is no point in listing these identifiers in the infobox if they exist in the authority control. I haven't been following the discussions so I'm still not sure how multiple infobox situation are handled. For example see Fitzroy Island Light, where I don't seem to get the NGA listing. Can you comment on that? --Muhandes (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
There has not been any progress on adding separate items to the authority control, and I think it will be a long time (if ever) before this is supported, because there seems to be some resistance to the idea. I will resurrect the proposal, but it may be necessary to create a temporary fork of that template to achieve what we need for this project. Fitzroy Island Light is attached to Fitzroy Island Light (Q5455705) which is the 1973 light, and we are using a separate qid to add the infobox for Little Fitzroy Island Light (Q105885742) built in 1992. As the NGA and admiralty number correspond to the latter, they do not currently display in the authority control. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Sadly, this is exactly the concern I raised to begin with. I don't see how we can remove the data from the infobox before this issue is resolved. On the other hand, adding authority control without removing them from the infobox will reuslt in redundancy. --Muhandes (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This is my mock-up of how it could look like in the case of more than one lighthouse being covered by one article. I will propose it at the authority control talk page. If implementation is delayed we could in the meantime use a temporary version for lighthouse articles, and merge it later. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Can I ask your opinion on linking to the USCG list (as in example above)? It is a very large PDF file in some cases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm not familiar enough with Authority Control to know if this is the standard way of handling the issue. --Muhandes (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Me neither. Quick update: all lighthouse articles now have {{authority control}} so I have removed the identifiers from the infoboxes which are covered by these. That leaves 508 articles which have a custom QID, which still need to be dealt with somehow. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, anybody out here being able to take a closer look at this file? If this is the one, the image could be added to the article. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
That image is from before 1918, as Germany lost German East Africa (Tanganyika) in World War I. The image that is already in the article seems to be of the same structure. The Lighthouses of Tanzania site, which is linked in the article about the lighthouse, says that the Ulenge Island Range Front was established in 1924, which, if correct, would mean that the photos are of another lighthouse at Ulenge. I think you need to dig around to try to figure out the history of lighthouses at Ulenge Island. - Donald Albury14:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@Reywas92: Thanks for checking before moving. If you go through the archive you will see that this is not an uncommon issue in this small and dormant community, repeating every couple of years, the most recent one being probably two years ago. While this was never settled, the following is my understanding: mariners look at the aid to navigation, i.e. the primary source is Light List (or List of lights). They will most often use "Light". Landlubbers will look at the structure, and will often use "Lighthouse", following sources such as conservation lists. There might be more to it, but you will almost always find sources which use "Light" and ones which use "Lighthouse" (on a personal note, being navy originally but now more than 20 years away from sea, I find myself a bit conflicted). Since both views are valid, my understanding is that the "consensus" is to keep the status quo. If one writes a new article, one tries to conform to the standard used at that region. Otherwise, we let it rest as it is. You can see what most of us think in the small list of GA articles, with only one "Lighthouse" (as of 2021). I think this is as good a consensus as we can ever achieve on this subject. Again, thanks for checking before moving. --Muhandes (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Reywas92 and Muhandes:, having been involved on this discussion 15 years ago (and starting, and therefore naming, most of the articles about "lights" in Florida), I argued that the aid to navigation is the "light", while the structure supporting the light is a "lighthouse" (and many of the "lights" had more than one "lighthouse" over the years). The US Coast Guard tends to use "light" (or "light-station") for the aids to navigation that it maintains, while popular works aimed at the general public use "lighthouse". Just to complicate things, in the last 15 years the Coast Guard has shut down many of the lights, and has been transferring the structures to other agencies, or even selling them to the highest bidder. It seems that most people are more interested in the structures rather than the navigation aides, and many of the structures survive, even though no longer used as lights. In other words, I am leaning to not objecting to an RFC to rename those articles. - Donald Albury23:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree with this sentiment, since many are better known for the building and in this case a legal designation for the natural area that includes it. I'm not sure it needs to be a whole RFC since I now see the essay Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(architecture)#Lighthouses doesn't show a preference (the prior discussion did not reach a conclusion to use Light), but I do think the Jupiter Inlet Light/house should have a name that conforms to its WP:COMMONNAME and any others shouldn't face resistance. Not that I need a bulk rename – I came here since this is one of three Outstanding Natural Area lighthouses. Reywas92Talk22:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I tend towards the status quo but I certainly don't feel strong about it, and unless someone comes up with some convincing argument, I will not object. I think you can treat it as WP:RM#CM, and remember to leave a note here. --Muhandes (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Generally I favour "lighthouse" because our article is normally about the whole building not just the light. Indeed there are many lighthouses which house more than one light, and in these cases it could be quite confusing/misleading to call the article "light". However I agree with the above that, absent strong consensus either way, status quo should remain. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
A couple of reasons for going slow on any renaming are, 1) there are a lot of articles affected, and 2) some editors who participated in the naming discussions years ago are still active, but may not have noticed this discussion, yet. One advantage of a formal RfC is that it should generate wider participation, and leave less room for any complaints about how a decision to rename a bunch of articles was reached. - Donald Albury18:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Only if it is determined that the light/lighthouse never met the notability guidelines. A light/lighthouse does not lose its notability just because it is no longer in use. The General Notability Guideline states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - Donald Albury22:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
If reliable sources call something a lighthouse, then we call it a lighthouse. In common usage, that includes conical and skeletal towers as well as lanterns sitting directly on a building that looks like a house. In fact, I'm sure that most people first think of a conical tower when they hear the word "lighthouse". I do make a distinction between "light", which is an aid to navigation, and "lighthouse", which is a structure that supports, or used to support, a navigational light, but the structure does not have to resemble a "house". - Donald Albury21:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes that's very true. But I'm worried that some editors may disagree. Some of them might only think about conical towers and not those with other form of structures. 219.76.24.195 (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Anonymous, do you have some specific article in mind or are we theorizing? If we are only theorizing, as Donald explained, notability is independent of type of structure, it depends only on coverage in reliable sources. As Martin pointed out, the word "lighthoues" is defined broadly as "any structure designed to emit light". As a matter of convenience, I personally use Rowlett's list selection criteria: include any fixed (not floating) aid to navigation, displaying a light, having a height of at least 4 metres (13 ft) and a cross-section, at the base, of at least 4 square metres (43 sq ft). This is not a notability criteria and has nothing to do with the Light vs Lighthouse naming convention. On the latter, we all have different opinions and we all respect each other's opinion by keeping the status quo. --Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The Japanese Wikipedia has its own rules and guidelines, and there is no point in discussing those here on the English Wikipedia. - Donald Albury16:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes but I am just mentioning those lighthouses as examples. And yes they got their own tiles and guidelines but other Wikipedia versions may sometimes serve as points of reference. It isn't going to be helpful to stop whenever we hit something which isn't part of Wikipedia English. We aren't talking about something from another planet afterall. 219.76.24.217 (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Our current infobox {{Infobox lighthouse}} works really well for standalone lighthouse articles, but not so well on articles that cover multiple different lights. I came across one example where there were 7 different lighthouses which were operational at different times, and the information was confused and excessive. I'm thinking of designing a new template for use on leading lights, and light stations with multiple historical lighthouses. Will post further ideas shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
At first I thought you were referring to Unmanned reef lights of the Florida Keys, which I cobbled together almost 16 years ago (about the same time I created the Dog Island Light article). Looking at 7 minor lights with similar structures and minimal history, I decided that creating a separate article for each light would be excessive. I will admit the article is awkward. Any ideas on how to improve it? - Donald Albury22:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
What if making it a table, with columns like coordinates, power sources, focal heights? Like a table on the size, population, highest point, etc. of each island under the geography section of an article for an island group? 219.76.24.204 (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The biggest problem I see with that is that it would require seven columns, many of which would have to be wide enough to make the table too wide to show on even large dispays, let alone mobile devices. Maybe there is a way to limit the column widths without looking too clunky. I may play with that later. - Donald Albury15:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I've made a draft using a table, at User:Donald Albury/unmanned reef lights. I'm thinking that I should flip the table, putting the light names across the top, which would make it easier to add rows for things like tower color, depth of water the tower stands/stood in, fate, etc. - Donald Albury14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the table is a definite improvement. And personally I would stick with the orientation you have. You could combine coordinates with location, perhaps saving a column. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking about an infobox with three sections:
General information about the light station (e.g. location, coordinates, operator)
Dates that each lighthouse was operational with summary of construction (further data available by clicking link to wikidata)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Infobox references to a coast guard site are all dead links
All of the infobox references which are named uscg7 go to a dead link. There is a template, cite uscgll, used for generating the references. I've been individually replacing them with the live link equivalents, but across all US lighthouses, that would be a lot of work. Who could fix it?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Please can you give an example? Hopefully we can just update the template so you will not need to edit each article separately. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The first link to volume 7 of the list of lights works fine for me. The link you added is also good. Why did you remove the uscgll link? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I notice that the links from the authority control template are not currently working, e.g [2]. I'll make the same change on that template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has been mass-changing "manned" to "staffed", with the rationale of using non-gendered language (example). I don't think it sounds correct to talk about staffing a lighthouse. Are there any synomyms of "manned" which would be suitable replacement? Crewed? Some variant of "stationed at". What do people think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I quite like "crewed" even though I haven't heard it used in this way before. But I was also happy with "manned" and suspect the relatively few female lighthouse keepers were not bothered by that term either! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The noun form would be awkward - "station" refers to a place, "stationer" is someone who sells stationery, and "station keeper" invokes someone who keeps a vessel in proper position relative to other vessels. - Donald Albury14:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Almost all these territories got their own lists already. But two were folded into the list of their respective sovereign state with no discussion. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
There are lists of lighthouses in Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, the Åland Islands, the Falkland Islands, Isle of Man, the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, Greenland, Saint Martin, Curaçao, French Guiana, e.g. 219.76.24.212 (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing to be done. The consensus was to leave lists of lighthouses in dependencies separate. The issue of whether Hong Kong and Macau are dependent territories is disputed and was not settled here. - Donald Albury13:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Would the discussion above (and along with those at, e.g., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries) be sufficient to serve as the basis already to retain the lists of lighthouses for those dependencies with (as Knowledgekid87 put it) "several" lighthouses? Or alternatively would RfC be the preferred way forward? 219.76.24.212 (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Unless someone specifically proposes to delete/merge elsewhere those lists, and at least some other editors support the proposal, I see no need for an RfC. We don't need RfCs to maintain the status quo. - Donald Albury18:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Further to what Martin mentioned, List of lighthouses in Macau and Lighthouses in Hong Kong were forcibly folded into the Chinese list undiscussed. In the former case an administrator was involved. The original proposal was meant to restore the status quo before that merger (i.e. separate lists for the territories), but then that progressed to forum shopping.[3][4] So the answer to Donald's question: No one specifically proposes to do so. It was simply done. The status quo was broken straightaway and the convention was just disregarded, and some of them, including an administrator, resist to restore the status quo. Do we need an RfC to retain the status quo in such case? The consensus above has been, imo, more than clear though, but it's always better to talk and see whether most of us would agree that's sufficient or otherwise. 219.76.24.198 (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Without commenting on how the the change was made, I will note that while Hong Kong and Macau used to be dependencies of the UK and Portugal, respectively, they are now "Special Administrative Areas" of the PRC. There would be a stronger case for keeping "List of lighthouses in Hong Kong" and "List of lighthouses in Macau" if there were lists of lighthouses in various Chinese provinces, comparable to the lists of lighthouses in the various US states. Unfortunately, I strongly suspect that this issue is tied up with political views of the PRC, and crafting a neutral point of view solution will not be easy. - Donald Albury12:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
They are still considered to be in the same category as all other inhabited dependencies and special territories and presented as such in publications. On the other hand they aren't according to the constitution of the People's Republic falling into the same group as provinces and special cities. So provinces and states aren't quite a comparable case. For the latter half of your comment: Wikipedia is known to be infiltrated and having "security risks" and the Wikimedia Foundation have recently gone that far to ban some editors and administrators from there. Hopefully things will get better soon. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
RFCs, if ever needed for this, would have to follow the relevant MOS, conventions and NPOV policies. Comments in contravention with these guidelines should be disregarded and these users should be advised to go to the talkpages of the corresponding guidelines. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that many people turn a blind eye to these rules, and for some articles there are a group of editors staunchly defending their position, as if they own those particular articles. 219.76.24.208 (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
But this involves the general directions of this WikiProject with respect to countries which are territories. And after all it was forum shopping, as it had been pointed out above by some other learned editors. 219.76.24.205 (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Abune is adding an extra map to lots of lighthouse infoboxes (example). In my opinion two maps in one infobox is usually excessive. Even if this change was desired, it should be made at the template rather than tacking it on to each article. I have tried to discuss with this editor but they have carried out making these changes. What do others think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
_-_19.JPG){kind=link}
