Talk:List of lighthouses in England

Untitled

Could people please stop putting lightships on this page, it is a list of lighthouses not lightships! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDBalgores (talk • contribs) 08:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Seaton Carew lighthouse(s)

See article Seaton Carew lighthouse, County Durham.

Only one of the pair of lighthouses still exists, and only as a tower, without its lantern gallery (hence non-working) - and at a different location. Where would you draw the line on this one regarding inclusion in this list? Stuffed cat (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Walney lighthouse (St. Mary's Light)

Not owned by Trinity House but still a working lighthouse. http://www.walney-island.com/walney_lighthouse_01.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.152.170 (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Table

Would this article benefit from conversion into a table, similar to that for Wales and the Isle of Man ?...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Table now included. It is an expansion of the previous list, as it contains the different high and low lights etc...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jokulhlaup: I've made a start on drawing some data from Wikidata. I hope you approve. I've noticed that the 9th column is mainly used to show which authority operates (or used to operate) the lighthouse. So perhaps that would be a better use of this column, e.g. Operator? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Martin - Thanks for the ping, the last column was an attempt to keep some of the comments from the list prior to tabulation back in 2015. I agree that the primary purpose is to show the operator, so it can be renamed as such, but the additional comments need to be kept...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This 9th column is a bit mixed up currently. I think it might be better to restrict it to the operator (with relevant dates), and perhaps add further comments as a footnote. In many cases we can reflect the fact that the lighthouse is inactive by showing the end date of the operator. I am also not a fan of the sentence "Minor structure categorized as a lighthouse by Trinity House" as this is a subjective statement, and the size of the structure can in any case be inferred from its height (column 6). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As long as we have the relevant dates, I am Ok with the changes you suggest. I also didn't like the Minor structure comment, and nearly removed them myself, so happy for those to go. - Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

For an example of how I think the footnotes could work, please see Seaton Carew Lighthouse column 5 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I've finished adding footnotes for additional information. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of lighthouses in England. 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/20050406004115/http://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/interactive/gallery/index.html to http://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/interactive/gallery/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070101160141/http://www.lighthousesrus.org/Europe/England.htm to http://www.lighthousesrus.org/Europe/England.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) 04:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Lighthouses

Are there still operational lighthouses in the UK, which still have lighthouse men living on site? Throughgrittedteeth (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Checking the North Foreland article shows that this was last manned lighthouse until 1998, so there aren't any left in the UK...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Maps

The maps at the top badly affect the structure of the article. Is there any other option for displaying them, e.g. collapsed or elsewhere in the article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree/ weak oppose, the maps would sit better if there was a longer lead section, maybe with a brief history of English lighthouses etc. I wonder if Barabbas1312 has a view on this...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, when I created the maps the article was just a plain list, it wasn't in table format and contained no photos, so the maps sat neatly alongside. Since those (welcome) additions, the maps are rather less integrated than they were (though the extent to which they affect the structure of the article depends on what device you are using, I think). Nevertheless, I still think they provide very helpful geographical context for the major lights listed (which I don't think is available elsewhere). So I would oppose deleting them - but maybe there is a better way of integrating them?--Barabbas1312 (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've put the maps alongside each other which saves quite a bit of space. Of course a longer lead would also be good, if anyone can summarise the topic? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Inactive lighthouses

I would like to propose separating the inactive lighthouses into a separate table. Some columns can be omitted (e.g. range and focal height, which are in most cases unknown and probably irrelevant anyway). In their place we can have a column for the date of decommissioning. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the three items in #Others I would move West Bank Lighthouse (Q17549387) and East Bank Lighthouse (Q17549420) to the inactive section. If the chalk tower was never lit then I would just remove it from this article, because if it was never lit then it's not a lighthouse. What do others think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that the split of the inactive lights has already been done, which is Ok by me - and including West and East Bank, but the Chalk Tower at Flamborough should be included as well. It was built as a lighthouse, and is described by Historic England as a former lighthouse, the fact that it was not lit is unfortunate but doesn't detract from the fact that it was designed to be a lh.--Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay we can classify it as an inactive lighthouse. What is your opinion of folly lighthouses (such as this), which were never intended to be lit? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a good question, how do we deal with the faux lighthouses - should they be ignored because they are fake or follies, or should they be included because this list is where someone might look-up a lighthouse (whether it is real or not). I'm inclined to go with the latter, Rowlett includes a section of Notable faux lighthouses on each of his pages, so there is a source. He has three for NW England for example--Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess we could add a new section for faux lighthouses. I guess the only relevant columns would be name, image, location, county, maybe height. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Class of light

Would there be interest in any additional columns for the active lighthouses, for example the class of light? An example of what it could look like is below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Lighthouse	Image	Location coordinates	County	Year built	Tower height	Focal height	Range	Class of light	Operator
Berry Head Lighthouse		Berry Head 50°23′58″N 3°29′0″W	Devon	1906	5 m (16 ft)	58 m (190 ft)	19 nmi (35 km; 22 mi)	Fl(2) W 15s	Trinity House

Another option is the NGA number which will produce a convenient link that will often verify a lot of the information given. Example below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Lighthouse	Image	Location coordinates	County	Year built	Tower height	Focal height	Range	NGA number	Operator
Berry Head Lighthouse		Berry Head 50°23′58″N 3°29′0″W	Devon	1906	5 m (16 ft)	58 m (190 ft)	19 nmi (35 km; 22 mi)	114-0344	Trinity House

References

The option with the NGA link would be the better option, shame it can't be a link to the Admiralty list but the NGA link is very useful to check the details as they do change, especially with the introduction of LED powered lights. The light characteristic is useful but may not be understood in the short form by the average person. Be careful of using the heading 'Class of light' as this is not widely used, and could cause confusion with major/minor lights.--Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added a column for the NGA link. Some of the links won't work yet because they are missing the 114 (is that the catalogue number?). And there are a couple missing too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed up all of those NGA numbers so the links should work now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Someone came along and undid 18 months of improvements to this article including most of what was discussed on this talk page. I have reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The "improvements" were in a manner not allowed on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That is profundly untrue and just saying it is "not allowed" does not make it true. You have not provided any evidence of your belief that this is not allowed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

...if you ignore the AfD where this was discussed with you, where I have provided such evidence, as you well know (and which also showed that many people prefer to have these in a non-Wikidata format). Fram (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)