Talk:Sabine Pass Lighthouse

Title name change

This article is about a lighthouse. While there is some interesting information concerning the actual light, that was removed during the Civil War and replaced after, the title needs to be changed (a move) to Sabine Pass Lighthouse. I am currently working on several articles and some are related, but I will address this as soon as possible. Otr500 (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Name Change

Apparently there is an editor that wishes to revert the common as well as actual name of the Sabine Pass Lighthouse back to the wrongly named Sabine Pass Light. This is notification of my intent to politely stop this travesty but will, according to the guidelines of Wikipedia, use all the abilities at my disposal to stop this editor or any others that have an agenda, by purpose or mistaken direction, to make changes that do not reflect the intent of Wikipedia. Several members of scientific articles decided to rename all Iguana articles to the scientific naming. A Green Iguana can not be called an I. iguana just because a certain editor or even group prefers the scientific name better. Apparently it appears I will have to gear up to effect a Wikipedia consensus name change to reflect the common name as the correct and proper title name for this article. I would much prefer to just edit articles but will now have to take a Wikipedia-wide look to see what is going on. Otr500 (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, the Coast Guard calls it "Sabine Pass Light" (see here) so the name is not "wrong". I work with the NHRP project as well, and as a rule we do not automatically preempt other names for a place just because the NRHP listing happens to use a different name. Nearly every surviving lighthouse is on the NRHP, and while I haven't bothered to look I would say there are plenty of them which are listed as "X Lighthouse"; but we have preferred the USCG names because they are official and consistent. I would also suggest you dismount from your elevate perch on this and consider that people have had to deal with this issue for many years on Wikipedia, that your objections are not novel, and that the question has been resolved, at least to the point where your insistence on having your own way on this presents an appearance of presumption on your part. You are certainly welcome to leave messages with the Lighthouse and NRHP wikiprojects if you want to press the issue, but there isn't a snowball's chance in, well, the Gulf Coast that you will prevail in getting this one lighthouse named against the convention applied to the several hundred others, at least not on the terms you're using now. Mangoe (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Sabine Pass Light → Sabine Pass Lighthouse – Move from "Sabine Pass Light" (apparently an official U.S.Coast Guard name) to "Sabine Pass Lighthouse" (apparent common local name, and official NRHP name). Uninvolved other editors views are needed, per discussion above in #Name Change section, and per discussion at Talk:List of lighthouses in the United States#Sabine Pass lighthouse not light. doncram 21:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support better name -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Leave correct USCG name as recommended by Lighthouse project Talk:List of lighthouses in the United States -- Ahwiv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- Comments: More common name. A google search shows many pages referencing the structure as a lighthouse. The historical and current name is Sabine Pass Lighthouse. From the article; A Light List is a detailed list of navigational aids including lighthouses and other lighted navigation aids, unlighted buoys, radiobeacons, daybeacons, and racons. A mariner needing navigation looks for a light. Often times this person may never see what the light sits upon and is only interested in the light and not the lighthouse that supports it. The government calls almost all beacon type aids as simply light. I have found that most references to Sabine Pass Light is governmental. 1) There is this wikipedia article, 2)- A facebook page ([1]) that was redirected and contains information from Wikipedia, 3)- A NPS page (here), 4)- The US coast Guard (here. 5)- A GSA page (here) officially uses the same listing as the Coast Guard but uses "LighthouseNotices" in the URL and on the page. The NPS also produced a history, History of the Lighthouse Service and Lighthouse Construction Types here. Excepting any I might have missed, the common name by far, on a google search, is Sabine Pass Lighthouse and I have not even attempted to delve into the local news media and historical naming records because it is after all, a lighthouse. The historical name is the same, and the governmental authority that built the lighthouse was called, "The U.S. Lighthouse Establishment (1789)" Beyond all that a lighthouse is well documented as well as recognized the world over as being just that. Any Naming convention on Wikipedia should ascribe to using the common name, and specifically a locally historically significant building, that is important to two states. The Sabine Pass Light is the thing that has not been in the lighthouse in a long time. Otr500 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• oppose A quick Google check shows 47k hits for "Sabine Pass Lighthouse", as opposed to 68k for "Sabine Pass Light", minus 4.5k for "Sabine Pass Light Station". And besides rounding this in your favor, I didn't account for the likelihood that many if not most of the last group should actually be subtracted from the first rather than the second. So at least at that level there's some evidence that both names are often-used; it isn't as though "Light" is rarely used, or that most instances of it can be attributed to "light station". But to go on from there: this is, even if the nominators don't realize it, an invitation to get into an argument about pretty much every surviving structure, oh, and every demolished one as well. And it is a huge waste of everyone's time to have to go through this: either we should go back and rename every US lighthouse article, or we should leave this one alone. In the past we have discussed this, and have stuck with the USCG convention. It is, as all admit, an official name, and people who actually use lighthouses use the official name. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Umm, there were indeed a bunch of lighthouse moves by the Lighthouse wikiproject that moved places from their proper common name to incorrect/unusual names. We need to move them back one by one, or in a big batch. There is no validity to oppose a move of one to its correct name, because there will be a lot of others. Yes, there should be a lot of others.

I do defer to Mangoe's choice to create new articles at whatever name zhe prefers, and to display whatever zhey want at the list of lighthouses. But, when questioned and evidence is put forward on a common name for an actual article, then the Lighthouse WikiProject has no more say, they do not have ownership, and the Wikipedia regular naming policies apply. --doncram 01:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given the analysis by Mangoe, it would be hard to establish the proposed name as the common name. Having read/touched more lighthouse articles then most, it is clear that while lighthouse is the most common, it is not the only choice. There is nothing wrong with current name and without overwhelming proof that the proposed name is clearly the common name, leave it be. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Umm, the official name of the place is the Sabine Pass Lighthouse. When I search in google on "Sabine Pass Light" what comes up is the current wikipedia article and then usages with Lighthouse(!). The official organization is "The Cameron Preservation Alliance - Sabine Pass Lighthouse, Inc.", a Louisiana non-profit corporation. Please see http://www.sabinepasslighthouse.org/. What is put forward by Mangoe should not be termed an analysis, it is just gross totals of irrelevant pages.

And the really compelling reason to change the name to its common, current, actual name is that there is present here an interested local person, OTR500, who is providing plenty of valid evidence and is being opposed by bureaucracy that is not supported by Wikipedia policy. It would frankly be embarrassing if this Requested Move does not pass and move it to a reasonable name, IMHO. --doncram 01:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as official naming is concerned, we have the USCG and NPS on the side of "Light" and the preservation society on the side of "Lighthouse"; I honestly didn't look up the NHRP listing but they are so scattershot on lighthouse names that they cannot be appealed to for some sort of systematic rule. As an overall authority the Coast Guard surely takes precedence over any other authority, so this comes back to whether it's better for this one tower to have a deviant name— unless people are willing to agree to rename every US article. This needs to be approached on a better basis than a control struggle for ownership of the article; the reason why we in the lighthouse project ride herd on this is because standard naming is better than the chaos of having the patron of each lighthouse article decide how things are going to be named. I personally am not absolutely opposed to renaming, but I am opposed to naming each light/lighthouse individually because of all the time that will be wasted on doing this on each of several hundred articles. Mangoe (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely the local owner/patron gets precedence. You/we do not get to impose our view of order upon the world out there. We must accept what local common usage is. And, the NRHP namings are "scattershot" as you say because the NRHP naming process listens to what the local names are, and uses those. This is not chaos, it is the world. This will not waste time, it needs to be done, one by one hundreds of times, or systematically all at once if we can identify one fell swoop of namings all being wrong. We simply do not get to ignore Wikipedia naming conventions and common sense, about each place. --doncram 03:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Here, as I understand it from Otr500, there is no "Light" at all, so the usage of "Light" rather than the descriptive and common and actual local "Lighthouse" seems particularly egregrious. --doncram 03:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The official name of the structure while it functioned for its intended purpose was "Sabine Pass Light". The USCG historical site from which we get much of our information on historic lights calls it by that name. Rowlett, by far the most definitive worldwide directory of lights also uses that name. The Coast Guard almost always (I can't think of a counter-example) uses "Light" rather than "lighthouse" in the name of such structures.

Suppose the new owner wanted to rename it "Lighthouse Bayou Lighthouse" or the "Sabine River Light" (both are local geographic features) or the "Sabine Pass Lighthouse Restaurant" (for a proposed new use which did not materialize). Since we are more concerned with the history of this structure than its present situation (decrepit, inaccessible) it seems to me that we should give deference to the historical name. There is precedent for this -- see Lighthouse Inn (West Dennis, Massachusetts).

With that said, it seems to me that this is a tempest in a teapot -- there will surely be a redirect at the other name and we all have bigger fish to fry than this one. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 13:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are strong arguments on both sides, but I think the use of "Light" by entities like the National Park Service Maritime Heritage Program and the Lighthouse Doomsday List, coupled with the lighthouse project's desire for consistency in naming, gives that name an edge over the use of "Lighthouse" in newspaper articles and other popular contexts. However, I think the Lighthouse name should be given as an alternative name, in boldface, immediately after the Light name in the first sentence of the article. --Orlady (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'd defer to the decision of WP:Lighthouses. I like the suggestion of Orlady, above Einbierbitte (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Someone help me make sense of this. This article has been a few line stub since the beginning or like 13 years. I took an interest in it and now people that have not considered the article, decides the name is wrong if listed as a lighthouse. Certainly Mr. Dolcram Mangoe never edited this article, but now he in effect reverted what I have started and in the summary called it "rearrange and clean up citations". Look at my past edits. I do not just add sections just to move an article from stub to start. I have a lot of information for every section I added so why does he take interest now and why revert the article makeup? Will he continue the interest or will the article remain a glorified elevated stub? Certainly I do not mind constructive edits to articles but he has joined in where another editor has started so common courtesy would be some talk page discussions and not arbitrary edits. Has Wikipedia changed so that we want to stop editors from contributing? If a convention is wrong (in this instance and others with the same situation) it has to be corrected and that is the intent of Wikipedia.

Editors that start an article using current references and a common name should not have worry about the name being changed, against common usage, because a few editors has decided on a particular naming because it is "convenient", which is not even a consideration for article naming on Wikipedia anyway. Mr. Vegas references Mr. Dolcram's Mangoe's figures, apparently assuming they were correct, but added, "it is clear that while lighthouse is the most common, it is not the only choice". Wikipedia policy does have suggestions to use modern names. I understand Mr. Dolcram Mangoe using certain names such as Triton Light. I understand a title "Light Vessel" when it can involve more than just a ship. I could not understand moving any "Lightship" articles to light vessel when the article would involve a particular light vessel known as a ship, any more than I can understand moving specific lighthouse article names to "Light" article names. Even the USCG that uses "light" also uses "Lighthouse"here.

Look at the Tybee Island Light. The article is an elevated stub with no references. The naming and the article conflicts with each other and this does not follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The article is named as a light, certainly about a particular light known as a lighthouse, and mentions the lighthouse several times. According to Wikipedia standards either the title should be changed or every mention of the particular lighthouse would have to be changed to light (probably will now) to be consistent. This lighthouse is octagonal, as is the Sabine Pass Lighthouse, so I normally would have interest in expanding the article.

I don't understand Mr. Dolcrams Mangoe's intent nor the lighthouse project. Why would Wikipedia want to take a particular structure with a specific historical as well as current name, and rename it to fit some project criteria when the project had to change articles to fit the project naming? He (and others) have argued that the Coast Guard has given Sabine Pass Light as the "official name but here are some interesting figures:

The coast Guard took over in 1939 and this lighthouse was decommissioned in 1952 which is 13 years. The United States Lighthouse Board used the term lighthouse for this particular structure as early as 1849, but certainly since 1853 (an example here), which would be 86 to 90 years. As of today (2013) the Coast Guard has not had anything to do with the Sabine Pass Lighthouse for 61 years. As mentioned before, the "light" is not even in the lighthouse any more. With this information why would a project maintain some "official" name that was only official by a government entity for 13 years out of 160 years and never actually replaced the common given name? It should also be noted that the USCG does differentiate between different types of lights as does the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (here).

I feel a project does not need to go awry with some convention that does not make sense. A buoy or "light", specifically when maintained by the Coast Guard, should be called a light. If there is a common name to a structure then that should be the name and any project should support this. The same applies to a lighthouse or lightstation and would be consistent and using common sense.

Here are examples and and can show that the historical, local, as well as current name, according to sources and references, is Sabine Pass Lighthouse. This includes local newspapers from Texas (here), Louisiana to include the Lake Charles American Press with 1532 articles that I can access without a fee (here), information archieved at McNeese State University (here), The Lighthouse Bureau (here), the Texas State Historical Association (here), the National Register of Historic Places (here), The National Park Service (here), and other references (here). The Sabine Pass Lighthouse, and not Sabine Pass Light is a listed member of the U.S. Lighthouse Society and a passport tourist destination (here). I can provide many, many references if this is not enough. Many of them I had plans to use on the article. I would hope Mr. Dolcran or other project members are now going to expand it and not abandon it.

I think, according to past Wikipedia decisions and probably a closing editor, the more common name (especially if the historical and current name has not changed in 160 years) in usage should be the criteria, especially when there is no serious reference conflicts, and since a project has chosen a name for an internationally recognized structure (lighthouse) and chose to refer to it as a light, that is actually only a part of a working lighthouse. Otr500 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone back and done a complete overhaul on Tybee Island Light, which I agree was in pretty sad shape. I do not, however, see how the poor state of these articles is of any import here. Indeed, you could have fixed them yourself. I've been working on cleaning up the SC light but just haven't had time for them recently.

As far as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned, it is a guideline, and at that it couches its statements in such qualifiers as "often" and "not necessarily". We are not obligated to use what someone claims to be the most common name without regard to other considerations. We have chosen to prefer the USCG terminology of "X Light" because it is not incorrect (being official), because it is commonly used (even if not the most common usage), and because we feel that consistency in naming is more important than subservience to a principle which is not absolute anyway. I personally would be open to renaming all such articles, but I insist that such a renaming needs to be considered on those terms and not just on the basis of one structure. The choice between "Lighthouse" and "Light" is less important than avoiding a mixture of the two naming conventions. Mangoe (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that User:Otr500 makes no comment about the fact that, as I noted above, both Rowlett and the USCG Historical site use "Sabine Pass Light" and that there is good precedent for maintaining the official historical name in the face of local usage. I think Otr500 does not understand that the structures are collectively called "lighthouses", so we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses and Category:Lighthouses, but that the names of the individual structures are "X Light". Even the USCG Light Lists use "Lighthouse" in the collective sense in their introductory material. There are, in fact, only 13 lighthouses in the USA whose official name contains "Lighthouse" and they are all private aids.

• Cockspur Lighthouse
• Texas Maritime Museum Lighthouse
• Gulfport Harbor Lighthouse
• Ship Island Lighthouse
• Anthony's Lighthouse
• Clover Island Lighthouse
• Old Yaquina Bay Lighthouse
• Heceta Head Lighthouse
• South Manitou Island Lighthouse
• Mcgulpin Point Lighthouse
• Wawatam Lighthouse
• Mariner's Memorial Lighthouse
• Vermilion Museum Lighthouse

The discussion of the US Lighthouse Board is irrelevant, for three reasons:

• the last official name is what applies
• the citation offered is not, in fact, the name of a lighthouse, but the use of the word in the collective.
• the US Lighthouse Board was disestablished in 1910, so it is not clear why it is important here 100 years after its demise.

I strongly suspect (but cannot prove) that the US Lighthouse Board Light Lists used the same terminology as the Coast Guard. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of the old reports of the Light-house Board are available in Google Books. The Annual Report of 1891 is available [2] On page 472 (between pages 118 & 119 as printed in the book), is the Eighth District, shows a map with Sabine Pass Lt. Throughout the book, it uses the word "light-house" with the dash, showing an emphasis on light. I have not gone through other books that are available. Ahwiv (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. See the contents of Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Lighthouses in Louisiana; the use of "Light" is dominant to the point that it should be considered a convention. I've always found this rather awkward, and if the nominator had proposed that all of these Lights be moved to Lighthouses, I'd be strongly inclined to support the proposal, but moving just one isn't the way to go. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To Mr. Ahwiv; I read the entire report. I am not sure what you mean by "emphasis". Hyphenations (a dash), that are controversial at best, for inextricably linked words like book-case, as opposed to bookcase, as surely you are not alluding to some supposition that it was because "light" was actually the more important word. At anyrate, the report concerns general business for the Lighthouse (Light-house) Board that includes various navigational aids such as various buoys, lighthouses, lightships(page 7), and Keepers pay. Lighthouses in general and light stations (page 17) in particular, as well as day beacons range lights, and other such items are discussed. There are members of the project that believe things such as an 1891 report to be irrelevant anyway.

Mr. Jim, I have to start at the bottom and the top at the same time, as it is related and most incredulous, relating to the Lighthouse Board and your confusion. Of course the "lighthouses collectively are called lighthouses because that is what they are and not light. There is no amount of argument can change that against common usage and most reliable sources.

1. Lighthouse Board: If, as you state, a name given upon a structure by the original entity is not important, but maintain that a name given by a successor organization that is no longer in control is, I submit that you have given reason to certainly use the current common name, as it is by far the most recent (last) "official" name.
2. Citation offered: This is a bit confusing and an apparent circle. The US Bureau of Lighthouses , an entity for all plural collective lighthouses, was established in 1789. The Lighthouse board (U.S. Lighthouse Establishment) in 1952. This particular "collective" lighthouse was under that authority when named. As I might have been unclear I will reiterate that the USCG took over in 1939. By this time there were far more than just collective lighthouses and lightships (light vessels) with range lights, buoys and other forms of navigational aids, and the Coast Guard collectively call them all either lights or beacons. Sort of like the Lighthouse Project could do with lighthouses, and light stations that would include those lighted and those not lighted, and lights that would include all others especially those currently controlled by the USCG. Now, any conjecture as to the probable, possible, or definitive naming, collectively or not, of the Sabine Pass Lighthouse can be corrected by hundreds of references to prove or disprove your suspicions.
3. Circle completed: The Lighthouse Board was disestablished so according to you is now irrelevant. The Sabine Pass Lighthouse came under control of the Lighthouse Service. This entity ceased to exist in 1939, so I presume also becoming irrelevant. The USCG took control, and began the practice of using "lights" to collectivelyrefer to any type of lighted navigational aid. In 13 short years the lighthouse was decommissioned and disposed of by the USCG. Now I am to understand that the original naming entity and all before the USCG is irrelevant, but the Coast Guard name, as it was the "last" organization that gave the project used "official" Sabine Pass Light, is relevant. A problem is that the current entity, the Cameron Preservation Alliance-Sabine Pass Lighthouse Inc., a government approved and regulated non-profit organization, has chosen the name Sabine Pass Lighthouse. As far as references show this current entity is still in existence. At this time I am concerned with the correct title of an article that I was editing. I have not been biased in choosing some arbitrary name. The references I observed overwhelmingly referenced Sabine Pass Lighthouse. The USCG used Sabine Pass Light, as well as some entities that have mirrored it, and apparently because there was a ready made list to start from, so did the Lighthouse Project. The USCG is not the latest organization (only governmental) to name the lighthouse.
4. Other lighthouse named articles: With all due respect I highly doubt the authenticity of the source this information came from. I have not yet looked at the 13 articles you have listed, and the other many not listed, and I can do this if you like but it would take a while.

Mr. Mangoe is concerned with consistency and I can understand that. It would seem to me that it would be very consistent to use "lighthouse" on all articles that were designed to be manned, and "light" on all others, providing unmanned "lights" are also covered by the project. Since it appears that common as well as local usage as well as most references may not matter to some I suppose I could ask for a change to include all articles if that is what you wish? As evidenced we can name a convention anything we want but that does not mean it is correct. Otr500 (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You miss the point of my comments about the Coast Guard's use of the word "lighthouse" to describe lighthouses collectively, but "Light" in the name of all lighthouses. Unless you can show that the U.S. Lighthouse Board or the U.S. Lighthouse Service actually had any light with a name of the form "X Lighthouse", then all discussion of them is irrelevant, as I said above. We have no evidence whatever that the Coast Guard changed the form of lighthouse names throughout the country and considerable evidence that there was no change when they took over in 1939. You also have still not commented on our own precedents, and the other authoritative web sites which I have mentioned twice.

But, as I said above,none of us should have time for this sort of discussion, particularly when you refuse to address the issues raised. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 22:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not "miss" any point Mr. Jim. You are vainly trying to "ride the dead horse" that the nomenclature used by the coast guard is the only "official" name and this is simply not true. You stated, "We have no evidence whatever that the Coast Guard changed the form of lighthouse names throughout the country and considerable evidence that there was no change when they took over in 1939.", and your argument is exactly correct and my point. The USCG did not "change" the names of the lighthouse just referred "collectively" to all lighthouse (that includes what was mostly light stations) as "lights". I have shown this, to no persuasive avail, and you reply that I didn't addressed comments on "our own precedents, and the other authoritative web sites which I have mentioned twice.", and this blows my mind. My entire problem revolves around the projects use of a USCG "authoritative" website listing, which is against the common name, and I have addressed these multiple times so why would you state that?

I have given plenty of references. Even one that is used on project articles, Lighthousefriends.com here states, "During its life span of roughly a century and a half, Sabine Pass Lighthouse has survived...". lighthousepassportclub.org uses "official names" that are recognized by the US Fish and Wildlife Services in National Wildlife Refuges so this includes the Department of the Interior, and also State governments. Considering all that the project still allows and supports article names like Kilauea Light. This means that the Wikipedia Lighthouse project, using the USCG naming, is more correct than "current" federal and state government authorized names? Reference to this is found here to substanciate these statements. Really!, who does the Federal government as well as state governments think they are to try to be more "official" than the USCG and a naming convention? Wait! I was just concerned with one article that I was trying to edit, and the correct naming, and project members have stated that if one article is changed they all should be. SO--- how much evidence does the project need?, or does this "really" matter? The University of Alabama, supported by the Alabama State Dept. of Education here, uses 'lighthouse" in naming here. I did state that I could look at all references if that was sought and that is just a couple. Otr500 (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You have not only missed Jim's point, you've refused to address any of the points raised by him or Mangoe. Continuing to bang the table and say this group or that group call this light a lighthouse at some point doesn't address their points, nor does it change the consensus. It almost seems intentional, hoping that people will go away. The USCG is the current official owner of all aids to navigation, including lights in all their forms. Lights may exist not on property owned by USCG, but that doesn't change their ownership of the aid to navigation. The property could be private, or could be US Fish and Wildlife. Doesn't matter what USF&W call it, the light is still under the control of USCG. Ahwiv (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Ahwiv, I have no idea what you are referring to. I read somewhere on Wikipedia about such a thing like--I can't hear you-- when trying to avoid something. I will have to look it up. What I find amazing is that you, Mr. Mangoe, and Mr. Jim keep overlooking the facts concerning the most common name, used by the majority of references, the correct historical name, and the current "official" name. It has been stated that I should give up because I can not possible get the name of one article changed, and that I am intentionally "banging the table" in hopes that people will go away. Au contraire dear sir, just the opposite is that I hope more people come. I do not count chicks until the eggs hatch and that is when this closes. I have repeatedly addressed statements that are relevant, rebutted with an enormous amount of state, local, and internationally recognized references (against little opposition), that the correct and "official" name of the structure is the Sabine Pass Lighthouse, and none of that seems to matter to some members of a project, that appear to have predetermined what the name the structure will be called, Wikipedia policies and guidelines be damned. When you make statements like, "The USCG is the current official owner of all aids to navigation, including lights in all their forms. Lights may exist not on property owned by USCG, but that doesn't change their ownership of the aid to navigation.", and "Doesn't matter what USF&W call it, the light is still under the control of USCG.", you have mixed an absolute truth with a 100% false statement. I totally agree the USCG has ownership of all active navigational aids. You error gravely concerning the ownership of the lighthouse and the disposition, and this is listed plainly on the article page. 1)- The government of the United States deactivated the light in 1952, 2)- The light was removed, and 3)- The property was disposed of at auction. That is three obvious reasons to know the USCG has nothing to do with the Sabine Pass Lighthouse or the station that was there at the time. Asserting that an arcane name, used during only 13 years of USCG control, is a reason to claim an "official" name, is actually preposterous. By stating this wrong information in direct conflict with the article I might suggest reading it.

I do not know about all the other articles but this structure is not a navigational aid, is not under the control of the USCG, nor as I have stated, is there a light. Maybe now you can understand my consternation. The Sabine Pass Lighthouse is a structure owned by an organization that uses the same name that has been in common use for 156 years. Roughly six years of a wrongly titled stub does not change that. Concerning the NPS (if that is one of the points); The NPS (Maritime Heritage Program), along with the USCG under the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act, is in charge of surplus lighthouse property and disposition. Remembering that the USCG uses "light" for a general description covering almost all lighted navigational aids, here to include lighthouses or light stations. a)- Point Fermin Light Station here. If you click on all of them the majority, while generally listed as a light, give the proper designated name as a light station. Examples are; "Boon Island Light Station", "Offshore Halfway Rock Light Station", "The Graves Light Station", etc... It must be observed that these lighthouse properties can only be listed to be transferred using listings of the NRHP which is almost always what the local name uses. The properties are generally referred to by the USCG as a light, as I have shown with references, and specifically by the particular name. I also agree with you about certain "groups" giving a name to something because the common practice of Wikipedia is to name an article the most common name that is recognizable and natural. Just so it isn't missed I will repeat this very important aspect;

• This article is about a lighthouse that does not have a "light" in it. Even if it did it would be under law that it could not be used as there is a replacement "USCG light tower a few yards south of the lighthouse. What I really think you guys need to do is go for accuracy over a hard defended wrong name. If a structure is a lighthouse that is what it should be called, if it is a light station it should be called that (easy to distinguish with all the extra buildings), a tower is a tower, and so forth. "If" one of these is an active light it can be listed as a "USCG light". This would be easy, correct as 100% accurate, and give a project a criteria for naming articles.

Check this out! Even if a structure has a "light" in it, that is a historical structure with a working light, it falls under the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000 (NHLPA), 16 U.S.C. 470, which would include "The aid to navigation (ATON) will remain the personal property of the United States Coast Guard (USCG). The United States reserves an unrestricted right for ingress and egress to maintain, operate, repair, replace or relocate the Federal aid to navigation and any associated equipment, and an Arc of Visibility for said aid referenced here. Here is the criteria the NHLPA uses for the names of structures; "Determinations of Eligibility and National Register Listings: In order to be eligible for the NHLPA Program, light stations must receive a “historic” designation through a listing on the National Register of Historic Places (the Register) or being formally Determined Eligible for listing by NPS’s Keeper of the National Register (the Keeper)." referenced on page 5 here. This is a government criteria that includes instruction and naming for structures that should be used on Wikipedia as official.

I hope this clears up the confusion you have? I went to the lighthouse location today and took 435 pictures of Sabine Pass, the Sabine Pass Lighthouse, the Sabine Bank lantern house (even inside), and the Sabine Pass Battleground. There are 3 instances there of direct reference to the Sabine Pass Lighthouse provided by the State of Texas. Otr500 (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Just one response — consistency is crucial. Either this article is in the right place, like almost all of the other lighthouses, or it's in the wrong place like almost all of the other lighthouses. We need to decide whether we're using the right convention or not, because it's confusing to readers who find one lighthouse that's entitled differently from others; an examination of the convention will show that no pages should be moved or that they all should be. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Research: The Lighthouse project has the potential to be a very prominent project on Wikipedia. There are a multitude of articles that have an enormous amount of references that editors can draw on about lighthouses, lightstations, as well as lights, to fill hundreds of pages with information that would include rich historical content. Consistency is important but it can not be consistent at the expense of being in error.

Mr. Russ Rowlett has done a phenomenal service to the subject of lighthouses and uses the listing of "light" and the USCG also uses this classification. Wikipedia does not just follow one or two sources for a fundamental foundation to name articles, without very explicit reasons. The Wikipedia policy on article titles in that section states, " This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names. ". I have been looking at articles as well as following through with viewing Google hits. I have done this with the intent to prove that either the "light" naming is appropriate or not. What I have found, after several days of research, is that the project can be consistent as well as accurate with two listings.

1. It would be appropriate and accurate to use "light" in USCG owned and operated aid to navigation articles, and the common name on most other structures. If a structure is historical it should have the most common name and include in the opening lead sentence that it is an active USCG light. Articles such as Duluth North Pier Light is a current USCG listed light, is considered a tower, and is closed to the public thus a "light".
2. Lighthouse is far more common and referenced. To be consistent a "lightstation" could be referred to as a lighthouse in the title as all are usually referred this way, with lightstation in the lead. Latitude should be given if the local historical and common name references a lightstation. The Sabine Pass Lighthouse, since it was built as a lightstation would be listed as a lighthouse, especially since everything but a shell of a shed has been destroyed it could be referenced in the lead as an historical lightstation.

The "West Dennis Lighthouse" is currently known as the Lighthouse Inn. It was not listed that way because on the talk page it was determined that it did not have notability as such. I have found evidence that there is a large amount of references for the Lighthouse Inn but I would submit that for article consistency it be named West Dennis Lighthouse or Bass River Lighthouse (whichever is the more common) with the other name and "Lighthouse Inn" in the opening lead as well as the fact that it was an historical lightstation. This would be consistent with Wikipedia naming and better than that of Mr. Rowlett which is the "West Dennis (Bass River, Lighthouse Inn)". If the project determines they all need to be changed then, if it is compulsory to do ASAP, or over time is just a matter of decision.

I just feel, and on this it is just my opinion, that two criteria need to be met. If it was intended to be housed in or very near, it should be a lighthouse. If it was unmanned, especially if a tower, which actually means it was probably kept and automated under USCG control, it should be a light. Otr500 (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• What is an issue with one article is seemingly being stalled by a naming convention issue and references to questions of if all articles names should be changed. While I am open to discussions of other article naming, as I have shown, I think outside help should be sought. I can appreciate this mentality that "consistency is crucial" and I have offered a consistency of using two criteria that would involve two name endings. One would be a "lighthouse" for all articles involving such a structure, and the other would be articles involving a "light", as all I have seen can be categorized in one or the other. If there is a "one name only" minded drive, I would submit; "if" there is this "one way or the other" that I would be on the side of moving to "lighthouse". I think this would not be fair to any "light" articles but then I probably will not be interested in expanding any of these or would avoid them. I would suggest "(historical)" in the naming but I can not see how that would be a solution. A lighthouse is still a lighthouse currently as well as historically so that would only actually work on what was built as "light stations".

My struggle is with what appears to be desire to be "consistent" (one way or the other), over a desire to be "correct", regardless of the evidence. This puzzles me greatly and I am at a loss to figure out why. Do I need to seek other editors input? I think it is very possible so I will explore doing so later today. Otr500 (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: RESULT: Broad consensus to move, based on the WP:AT policy. I find the nominators argument persuasive, so based on "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in" and the WP:COMMON NAME evidence of Google books the article ought to be moved. I had to check myself because as Otr500 points out many false positives are thrown up in a simple string search because of an old habit of using "light-house". However searching on the Book publications since 1990 brings it down to a much more manageable number and largely removes the "light-house" false positives. I asked the opposer what was the naming convention that the opposer mentioned. It was not a written convention, but an argument based on consistency. However consistency should not usually be used to override the other At policy principles such as recognizability. -- PBS (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC) PBS (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Sabine Pass Light → Sabine Pass Lighthouse – Common name, historical name, and current "official" name. This is an historic structure that began as the Sabine Pass Light station. For a short time (like 13 years) it was an official USCG "light". It was abandoned by the USCG, sold several times, and fire and storms reduced it to the current structure commonly known as the Sabine Pass Lighthouse.

Google books show: "Sabine Pass Lighthouse"= 4,770 hits with books from 1882, 1903, 1913, to 2012. "Sabine Pass Light"= 7,800 hits. An overwhelming majority of these hits use the word lighthouse but in the hits the wording is Sabine Pass Lighthouse or Sabine Pass Light-house. 1 book was titled "Sabine Pass Light" here. From the very first search hit here using "Light" there are 3 entries and all contain "Lighthouse" here and this is a consistent finding.

A Google search of Sabine Pass Lighthouse (41,800) here returns this Wikipedia article as "Light" and almost all other hits use "Lighthouse". A Google search of "Sabine Pass Light" (249,000 hits) returns this Wikipedia article title and far too many to list use "Lighthouse" here. The word "lighthouse" being included in "light" makes it obvious that "house" or "-house" is included in "light" searches.

Rationale: The current "legal" name for the lighthouse is "Sabine Pass Lighthouse"; CAMERON PRESERVATION ALLIANCE- SABINE PASS LIGHTHOUSE INC here, website here, and it is commonly known as the Sabine Pass Lighthouse, here, here, The National Park Service uses "Lighthouse" here, Newspaper articles; here May 05, 2013, the Lake Charles American Press covered story posted by HoumaToday.com October 3, 2010, here titled "Sabine Pass Lighthouse stands tall through ages". The Texas State Historical Society refers to the structure here as the Sabine Pass Lighthouse. An historical writer uses "lighthouse" here. The Wikipedia article List of lighthouses in the United States uses "lighthouses" instead of "light" for disambiguation. The project is named Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses, , there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses/Assessment, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses/Resources. The National Register of Historic Places listings in Cameron Parish, Louisiana uses Sabine Pass lighthouse. The United States Postal Service issued a stamp 2008-07-23, here under the title Sabine Pass Lighthouse, along with 5 other here lighthouses. An Oklahoma TV station uses "lighthouse; here, in reference to the lighthouses that survived devastating hurricanes thus earning a US stamp. These would be "the Matagorda Island (TX), Sabine Pass (LA), Biloxi (MS), Sand Island (AL) and Fort Jefferson (FL) lighthouses." These are listed on Wikipedia as Matagorda Island Light, Sabine Pass Light, Biloxi Light, Sand Island Light (Alabama), and Garden Key Light. The article, using a project naming convention title, considered "official" by the USCG, has 7 references. The first; a United States Coast Guard reference uses "light" but the reference uses "lighthouse". The second; the National Park service uses "Light" (which is actually found here) under the caption "Historic Lighthouses and Light Stations in Louisiana". The remaining four use Lighthouse in the references.

Even IF the official name was "Sabine Pass Light" the lead states "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.". Official name rationale states "The preference for common names avoids several problems with official names: Obscurity, competing authorities, Changes to names.". It also states under valid use of official names "Official English names are candidates for what to call an article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used.". This is just an essay but has 22 editors to establish consensus. The use of "lighthouse" is common on Wikipedia even if there is a trend to change lighthouse articles to light.

If the majority of entities and media agree that the common, historical, and current name is Sabine Pass Lighthouse should there not be exceptions to a Wikipedia project that chooses to use a one time "official" USCG name? If a project creates a naming convention should all articles be renamed even against the common name? Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Article titles, suggests we use commonly recognizable names. The current title is ambiguous. The USCG light list pages 183 (search #218) to 188 (search #223 here shows many different types of lights: "light" (numbered), on a pile, daybeacons, pier lights, lighted buoy (including danger Buoy), range lights (front and rear), wharf and dock lights, range light on a tower, leading lights, Jetty Light, lake lights, and all are "lights" but a particular type just as the "Sabine Pass Lighthouse" denotes specificity thus disambiguation. Wikipedia:Article titles states "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.". There is no listing for a lighthouse because the Sabine Pass Lighthouse is not an active USCG light, has not been since 1952, there has been no "light" in the tower for many, many years, and there are at least two other USCG range "lights" on the property.

• Added comment: I think it is important that articles be properly named. The article was a long time stub and I took interest and expanded the article and changed the title with the intent to download pictures that I took and further expansion. Up until that point there was no other interest in any expansion and after my contributions the title was changed back, my edits were reverted while shown as improvements, thus effectively moving the article back to a glorified start class. I have been creating articles of historic value, and expanding those created, along the Sabine River for a long time. The first edit a person would consider, if interested in any article, would be to correct an improper, outdated, or wrong name, and that is presumably a given. I would think any editor would not have an interest in editing any article with what he or she considers an improper name. I don't just create stubs to leave them as such. In fact, I don't even like to create just a stub article and if I do it is with plans to expand it. I would really love to see the old lighthouse restored and incorporated into a park or state park. With that stated, and hopefully the evidence presented, I would like to see a name change to what I see as the far more common "Sabine Pass Lighthouse", of which there are certainly references that can be used. Otr500 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Moving this article would needlessly take the article away from our established naming convention, by which the vast majority of lighthouses are entitled "Light", and some of the exceptions are topics such as the Grand Lake St. Marys Lighthouse that have never functioned as normal lighthouses. If you disagree with the naming convention, try to get the convention changed. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply: I firmly believe that the project naming "standards" (not sure what "convention" you mean) go against many Wikipedia Policies and guidelines, to include Article naming particularly WP:RECOGNIZABLE "Use commonly recognizable names", which is common name.

I just wanted one article title name changed to the far more common name that just also happens to be the historical as well as current legal name. The name ending that the project has chosen, "light" reflects a name used by the USCG as "official" for only a 13 years out of 157 years. Even during those years the USCG still referred to lighthouses by name as such. The United States Lighthouse board, 1852 to 1910 (58 years), as well as the United States Lighthouse Service, 1910 to 1939 (29 years) use "Lighthouse". Even counting the time the General Service Administration had the property it was still the Sabine Pass Lighthouse I think my evidence would hold up in a Wikipedia court of law against a "naming convention" that I think has gone awry. There is good new which is that I am patient. The WikiProject Lighthouses has 21 members (including me) and 65 editors. The policy Article titles has 131 editors and as far as I can see generally supports the more common name. WIkiProject NRHP has 197 members, WikipediaProject Louisiana has 58 members, WikiProject United States History has 59 members. The WikiProject Military history has 1152 members. The Confederates removed the light, a skirmish was fought on the grounds, both side occupied the lighthouse at times so it is of minor military historical significance. Then there are countless editors not associated with any project that just make edits. What does all this mean? As long as I have a computer and edit Wikipedia I will be able to work to get the title changed. When I do, and I think this will happen, I will seek to rename all the articles that are "project" named against the Wikipedia community-wide consensus of naming, and of policies and guidelines, done by the "naming convention" as you called it. As for as references I have not even listed "The News" (Port Arthur); 1)-"Sabine Pass lighthouse lovers get their tasty read"; about The American Lighthouse Cookbook featuring the Sabine Pass Lighthouse - (October 19, 2009), 2)- "Sabine Pass Lighthouse still garners attention", about the nonprofit group Cameron Preservation Alliance-Sabine Pass Lighthouse Inc. (February 14, 2009), 3)- "Two men rescued from Sabine Pass lighthouse" (September 5, 2008) and, 4)- "Stamp to feature Sabine Pass Lighthouse, others" (December 30, 2008), 5)- "Sabine Pass group seeks members" (February 8, 2009).

With what I listed this time and the last time it is clear that the "naming convention" (project standard) is in error, at least on this article but I am going to review all of them. Instead of just seeing what is right and making corrections, hanging on--for some inexplicable reason that defies logic--blows my mind. Maybe there is some unearthly drive to change Wikipedia through chaos.

As for as getting your "naming convention" changed, which does not exist, how about doing right and going through Wikipedia to have an exception agreed upon, by the same community consensus that you and some project members have thus far circumvented, that will allow a renaming that is not in direct conflict with other policies. Wait! Since you are not going to do that I will not stop working to correct a travesty. To me it is not if this gets corrected but a matter of when and I am patient. What saddens me is that there is a drive to misname articles. Sort of reminds me of a joke I read on Wikipedia; Cabal! what Cabal? Anyway, you have taken one position and I have another so good luck to you and the others of the secret naming convention. Otr500 (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article expansion

I plan to expand this article to elevate it back to start class or better. My first attempt was categorically reverted as some sort of regressive improvement.

I would appreciate it, so there is not some conflict, that any issues be discussed before any reversions are made that are not actual improvements. Any help is always appreciated so please feel free to jump in with any constructive improvements. Otr500 (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sabine Pass Lighthouse. 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/20141209092924/http://www.cheniere.com/LNG_terminals/sabine_pass_lng.shtml to http://www.cheniere.com/LNG_terminals/sabine_pass_lng.shtml

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) 21:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)