Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lists of lighthouses in Macau and in Hong Kong

The following discussion 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.

---

While lists of lighthouses exist for many territories including the Isle of Man, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Christmas Island, Aruba, the Cayman Islands, Curaçao, the Åland Islands, Puerto Rico, and so on, and that lists in areas other than lighthouses exist for Macau, User:Atsme ignored the established convention on Wikipedia (and practically anywhere else) and unilaterally, without any discussion, blanked this list, which had existed for many years, and turned it into a redirect to the China list.[1] This happened similarly with the list of lighthouses in Hong Kong,[2] [3] which shares more or less the same position with regard to lists on Wikipedia. This runs against WP:NPOV and is blatantly enforcing the position of "50 Cent Party" which have long disrupted different language versions of Wikipedia with their agenda and expansionism and undermining the status of territories. RfC shall now be requested with inputs from WikiProjects Lighthouses, Lists, Countries, as well as Wikipedians from the two territories in question. 124.217.189.46 19:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Vote and discussion

• My vote goes to: Standalone lists for Macau and Hong Kong speedily. Merge the materials in any other list(s) regarding the two territories to these two lists. 124.217.189.46 19:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.189.46 (talk)
• Discussion is at Talk:List of lighthouses in China —valereee (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• This is the TP of a redirect and not the proper venue. There is already an open discussion at Talk:List of lighthouses in China#Discussion to split Lighthouses of Hong Kong and Lighthouses of Macau into their own separate articles where the 2 relative subsections currently exist. Administrator Valereee is overseeing it, so please don't hesitate to direct your questions to her or at the proper TP venue. Atsme 💬 📧 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• This Macau list has always been a list until you blanked it out. And you edited the China list to forum-shop.[4] 14.0.180.170 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with standalone lists, which is, the case before Atsme's blatant disruptions. Each territory gets its list for all these topics, no matter it's Wikipedia or elsewhere. Atsme may style him/herself a patroller but apparently this is an unfortunate coincidence that what he/she did align with, as 124.217.189.46 pointed out above, the 50-cent party members. There's certainly nothing to do with separation as Atsme erroneously claimed.[5] 14.0.180.170 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  I am simply doing my work as a patroller at WP:NPP, and advise you to focus on content, not editors. I have done nothing but try to encourage discussion about this split and do not appreciate your WP:PA. Atsme 💬 📧 20:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Apparently Atsme is the one who's committing PA.[6] I started this discussion here according to what the tags then led to, unaware of the fact that he/she edited the China list to change the venue[7] and also of the fact that he/she had already gone ahead to kick-start the discussion at the venue he/she picked. As the patroller it's his/her duty to study the subject matter and how similar things are done across and beyond Wikipedia. (WP:Commonsense please.) 124.217.189.46 21:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.189.46 (talk)

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.

• @Valeree: As you were among those who were involved in the recent edits of the lists concerned[8][9][10] I would, with all due respect, advise you to state clearly the reason why you sided with Atsme regarding his/her choice of discussion venue,[11] knowing that he/she edited the China list[12][13] for the sake of forum shopping, and, more desirably, to refrain from choosing one venue and closing the other. 124.217.189.46 22:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.189.46 (talk)

• Look, it doesn't matter where the discussion is, although the talk page of a redirect that only 3 people have watchlisted is probably a very poor choice. It's at the first place someone suggested. —valereee (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Put on hold and restore everything to their original states before meaningful discussions may go ahead. Wikipedia:Common sense regarding the status of dependencies should be given undue weight. And for the record, Atsme and Valereee had engaged in several edits which had the result of leading away the discussion from the talk pages of the lists that are actually affected (i.e., here and Talk:List of lighthouses in Hong Kong) to a venue which they desired. And that was after these talk pages were identified.[14][15][16][17][18] 218.255.11.66 (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Restore here - per basic courtesy of WP:BRD and simply TALK of what goes here should get discussed here - how would one ever know to seek a consensus discussion among many other pages?. A lack of discussion or moving venue is a bit rude and it is also inappropriate as a lighthouse can appear in many articles so it’s simply not an a or b question when it can be both. A lighthouse may be in multiple articles and multiple lists. For example, those in the List of lighthouses in Ontario would also be in List of lighthouses in Canada, and some might be in a list of historic sites. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Markbassett, I'm not sure what you're saying...are you saying that discussion should be here and two other places? Because this talk has 4 watchers. I'm not sure it's helpful to have discussion as a page with that few watchers when another page has more and we can just put a direction on this page to have people go to that one. What are you thinking around that? —valereee (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

—valereee - I'm a bit confused on the situation and how to phrase it --- but it seems clearer to me to talk about the pages if they all actually exist, and if the alternatives were more clearly stated as (a) one page with two redirects or (b) have three pages with wikilinks or (c) something else. I mentally apologize to Atsme for thinking they had overdone BOLD but now think he did the REVERT -- so deleted my initial post there -- but I also think the question phrased at that third page is unclear as to things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries! I'm just hoping someone else will want to wade through the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at the main discussion to close it lol. I've never seen anything even approaching that level of disruptiveness. —valereee (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree. This list should have indeed never been guillotined in the very first place. Common sense please. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Atsme what made you think this list should be booted out in the first place? 219.76.24.198 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)