Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Mississippi lighthouses

Mississippi is another case where there seem to be some significant omissions from the USCG list. I know there was an ill-fated St. Joseph Island Light (memo: don't build a stone tower in a swamp) and I think there may be some others. Unfortunately I haven't found a good source of information about these. If anyone can find something, it would be much appreciated. I'm working on Cat Island Light and Ship Island Light right now. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The article at Mississippi Lighthouses includes many sources.

Try these:

• Biloxi Light,

Pascagoula Area Lighthouses

• Horn Island Pass Range Rear Admiralty J3558.1; USCG 4-6830.
• Pascagoula Range D Rear (Petit Bois Island) Admiralty J3561.1; USCG 4-6935.
• Pascagoula Range B Rear Admiralty J3564.1; USCG 4-7070.
• Bayou Casotte Range A Rear Admiralty J3571.31; USCG 4-7360.
• Pascagoula Range A Rear Admiralty J3562.1; USCG 4-6960.
• Round Island (2) ARLHS USA-711.
• Ruins of Round Island Light after Katrina

Biloxi and Gulfport Area Lighthouses

• Biloxi East Channel Range Rear USCG 4-7580.
• Biloxi ARLHS USA-056; Admiralty J3578; USCG 4-7785.
• Broadwater Beach Marina ARLHS USA-1240; USCG 4-8375.
• Ship Island (2) (replica) ARLHS USA-756; USCG 4-0337.
• Ship Island (3) ARLHS USA-1141; Admiralty J3602.8; USCG 4-0335.
• Ship Island Pass Range Rear USCG 4-8506.1.
• Gulfport Upper Reach Inbound Range Rear Admiralty J3628.1; USCG 4-8650.

Pass Christian Area Lighthouse

• Square Handkerchief Shoal (Merrill's Shell Bank, Pass Marianne) (3) ARLHS USA-491; USCG 4-9080.

Information available on lost lighthouses:

• Cat Island (1831-1937). ARLHS USA-145.
• East Pascagoula River (1854-1906). ARLHS USA-260.
• Horn Island (1874-1908). ARLHS USA-379.
• Lake Borgne (1889-1937). ARLHS USA-424.
• Natchez (1828-1840), Mississippi River. ARLHS USA-1142.
• Pass Christian (1831-1882). ARLHS USA-581. Build a replica of this lighthouse is proposed.
• Proctorsville (1858-1860). ARLHS USA-1025.
• Saint Joseph Island (1861-1893). ARLHS USA-1026.
• Ship Island Range Lights (1898-?).

Notable faux lighthouses:

• Beau Rivage Resort and Casino

Hope that helps. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

References

Utility of outlines to wikiprojects

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maine

I've just finished stubbing out all of the Maine lighthouses on the list at http://www.uscg.mil/history/weblighthouses/LHMe.asp. See Category:Lighthouses in Maine or the template at the bottom of each Lighthouse page for a list. I'd appreciate a careful look by independent eyes and, if any of you are in Maine, photos. For names, in the case of existing lights I have used the USCG Light List as the official name and redirected some alternate names, but I'm sure more redirects are needed. For discontinued lights, I generally used the name shown on the USCG history site above. Many of both are different from the NRHP name; I have shown that name with the NRIS cite where applicable. Jameslwoodward (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A great resource

Historical Coast Guard light Lists, many books that are new to me, etc. Worth the look. An article on how to preserve a lighthouse. Great Lakes Light Keepers Association, List of Resources. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Lighthouse sources templates

Because so many sources end up being linked repeatedly throughout lighthouse articles either in 'Further reading' or 'External links', we thought that this might be easier to implement using some common templates. Although this is U.S.-specific, it can be done with any country, region, or state-specific lists.

There is a new universal template of U.S. Lighthouse sources which may be used in any U.S. lighthouse article. Likewise, there is now a Michigan lighthouse sources template which can be placed in any MI lighthouse article and the two templates may be used together or subnested and transcluded into existing lighthouse navigational templates. Alternatively, the templates may be placed in the 'Further reading' section.

• For example, the {{USLighthouseSources}} and {{MILighthouseSources}} templates may be seen in the Further reading section of the Au Sable Light.

The content of the respective lists may be edited on the template subpages Template:USLighthouseSources/sources and Template:MILighthouseSources/sources.

What do think? Comments & ideas welcome.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Having collaborated with you in the compilation, I think this would be a great addition. It would be a useful source and easily editable. Of course, it should not replace references that are specific to a particular light, and care must be made in adding this (lest we 'throw out the baby with the bath water.' 7&6=thirteen (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

I, too, helped with the creation and think it's great. I know that I could easily have included it in the Maine lights that I recently created. Instead, Stan (7&6=thirteen (talk)) added References to all of them, references that we have now decided aren't quite complete -- so much easier to change the template than each light.

If we've got that under our belt, I'd like to suggest that we reopen the question of a combined Lighthouse and NRHP template. About 3/4 of the Maine lights are on the NRHP. I've been adding the NRHP infobox to them (see Doubling Point Light), using the embed=yes function and it works fine, but has duplicate information (coords, year built) which needs to be harmonized during entry. It would be cleaner and more likely to be accurate if we could have a combined template. If there's any support for this, I think I'm probably up to modifying the NRHP infobox template (with a new name in a sandbox, of course) to include the lighthouse parameters. Jim . . . Jameslwoodward (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Having just added the template to Doubling Point Light, I ask, "Is there any way to get it to set higher -- that is directly below "Further Reading" rather than at the bottom of the infoboxes?" I suppose one could argue that once the article is filled out to non-stub status and particularly if we introduce a combined lighthouse/NRHP infobox, this won't be a problem, but for now it leaves a lot of white space. I could, of course, ask the same question about Lighthouses of Maine and the NRHP template, too. Jim . . . Jameslwoodward (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, we should be able to begin using these templates. About the NRHP, I would suggest starting a new thread here and then notify the separate NRHP project talk page with a link back here so that they are aware of your idea and can offer input as well. Let me get back to you about last question (unless someone else can answer it).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just created the Maine Resources template. While doing that, I noticed that when you open both the Michigan and the US Template, you get two titles for each, the first dark blue on light blue, the second underlined black. I used the same format for Maine, but I wonder if we need two titles? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussion linked by the OP, I've edited the {{USLighthouseSources}} template content addressing the concerns raised about mixed citation styles as well as added information missing from individual citations; for the most part MLA style had been used, so I made it consistent to that. Locating and formatting the extra parts took longer than it looks, but I hope it's helpful. Somebody else may wish to tackle the other templates in the same way, if the amended version's acceptable.

There was some debate there over criteria for inclusion and placement. I think more discussion is advantageous before rolling out their use on a wider scale, especially as the idea of extending their use onto thousands of articles was broached. A comment by User:DGG on an unrelated matter neatly highlights why taking time deciding how to approach larger-scale initiatives best ensures efforts from valued contributors integrate smoothly.

The WP:FURTHER guideline gives some advice on use of Further reading sections, which is effectively what these are; a current discussion on that talkpage shows some opposition toward a less conservative approach to them. Important areas of consideration might be: typically the sections are restricted to sources not already used as article references; an article should use the best references as sources; whether the individual works, being listed on the article, do provide substantive information on the article's topic e.g., a specific lighthouse ("if you liked reading the article & want to find out more about its subject than we could fit in here, try these…" sort've thing). Soliciting wider feedback, perhaps through asking on that Talkpage or, later, even WP:CENT could help ensure smooth running. –Whitehorse1 22:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

^{(Added a friendly notice on the MoS/Layout talkpgs pointing here.) Whitehorse1 14:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)}

Combined NRHP - Lighthouse Template

I'd like to suggest that we reopen the question of a combined Lighthouse and NRHP template. About 3/4 of the Maine lights are on the NRHP. I don't think any of us would be surprised if a similar ratio holds nationwide -- lighthouses are a conspicuous "natural" for NRHP nomination.... indeed I wonder why it's only 3/4.

I've been adding the NRHP infobox to the Maine NRHP lighthouses (see Doubling Point Light), using the embed=yes function built into the NRHP template and it works fine, but has duplicate information (coords, year built) which needs to be harmonized during entry. It would be cleaner and more likely to be accurate if we could have a combined template.

If there's any support for this, I think I'm probably up to modifying the NRHP infobox template (with a new name in a sandbox, of course) to include the lighthouse parameters, with a little rearrangement. Jim . . . Jameslwoodward (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As a member of WP:NRHP, I like this idea. In my mind, having a pile of infoboxes is problematic — for aesthetic reasons, as well as for duplication reasons — for lighthouses (and other types of buildings), so this would resolve problems without making it any harder for any of us. Perhaps you could create a new template, such as {{Infobox nrhp lighthouse}}? My only "must" about this is that, in my opinion, a combined infobox needs to have some place display the NRHP name for the property, regardless of what the Coast Guard's official name is; we don't want to subtract a major part of {{Infobox nrhp}}. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concept and the comments. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

First, sorry if I wasn't clear, yes, I'm proposing a new template, not a replacement for either of the existing ones. That seems simpler for all. I agree completely that we should keep the NRHP name -- it's usually different from the USCG name and it will reduce confusion if we show them both. I'm less interested in showing NRHP location information -- my experience is that it's often wrong (The Graves Light is within the limits of the City of Boston, but NRIS show nearest city=Hull) and often not useful in describing the lighthouse location. That leaves the following items from the NRHP infobox, I think:

• name = (the NRHP name, usually not the article title or the name at the top of the infobox)
• nrhp_type =
• nrhp_type2 = (Do we need more than one type? All four?)
• nrhp_type3 =
• nrhp_type4 =
• locmapin = (I think we'll keep the map, so that it looks like the NRHP infobox)
• built = (this will probably match one of the lighthouse infobox dates, but that's OK)
• architect =
• architecture =
• added =
• refnum =
• mpsub =
• governing_body =

I may have omitted some items that are important -- if so, except for location, it's inadvertance, not an opinion that they should be left off. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what is to be fixed by this new infobox. The embedding of the NRHP infobox, mainly set up by WikiProject NRHP programmer Dudemanfellabra, is working fine. I am concerned in particular that the above listing of selected fields from the NRHP infobox, with suggestion to drop nrhp type2 and other fields, reflects imperfect understanding of the reasons for having various fields in the NRHP infobox. These are documented in the extensive documentation for the NRHP infobox. (The NRHP type2 would allow for a lighthouse that is a National Historic Landmark and also a National Historic Site, for example. The designated_nrhp_type and designated_nrhp_type2 fields would allow for display of the corresponding NHL and NHS listing dates in such a case.) If a new infobox is created, that would require extensive overlapping documentation.

I do agree with Jameslwoodward that the coordinates information in the NRIS database (which is suggested for use in the Elkman NRHP infobox generator here, is often somewhat off, and is sometimes very far off. (See wp:NRIS info issues. The accuracy of the National Register database as a source is entirely a different issue than what fields the NRHP infobox should allow.

It seems easiest to me to develop any combined infobox by adding an Elkman-generated NRHP infobox to a lighthouse infobox using the embed=yes feature. And then editing down duplicative information. This approach has been working fine, as far as I know. If it's not broken, don't fix it! doncram (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

With lighthouses, we have tons of pages that would normally use both infoboxes. Why not combine them and make them simpler? James, I should note that Elkman has just (i.e. within the last 24 hours) added "area" to the data included in the results from the generator; it would be useful to include that. However, I believe that it would be quite useful to include the NRHP location information field: while there are often errors, it would be more helpful to include something on the location (unless the lighthouse infobox already has something for that; I don't know); after all, we can always fix the NRHP information. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's general agreement that usually there should just be one combined infobox. The question opened is how to make the combo infobox: use the existing solution which embeds an NRHP infobox or use a new third infobox which combines elements of both. The existing solution allows for the NRHP portion to be drafted by using the Elkman NRHP infobox generator, although then some stripping down of duplicative info is needed. There would be costs now and in the future to build and maintain a well-documented new infobox to keep up with changes in the main NRHP infobox, and I myself don't see the clear benefit.

Alternatively, would it help if there was some more guidance on how to embed and fill out the fields of the NRHP infobox, to be added to the lighthouse infobox documentation? Where is the lighthouse infobox documentation anyhow? I would be somewhat motivated to help with that, if it would substitute for developing a new third infobox. doncram (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Doncram asked me to comment over here. The main suggestion seems to be that embedding the nrhp infobox into the lighthouse infobox is cumbersome and somewhat complicated because you have to cherry pick through all the information in the boxes, and you have to learn the embed syntax and regurgitate it every time you want to embed.

Though it's not a perfect solution, I think my idea will accomplish what you want to do without having to create any new – only modify what's already there. What if we edited the lighthouse infobox's code to have a new parameter | nrhp = yes that would call Infobox nrhp directly from the code of the infobox? The most used parameters from the nrhp infobox could be hard-coded directly into the lighthouse infobox, so to an editor, it would appear that the infobox is seamless. Though this is not a full example, the following is a description of what I'm talking about:

 ...
 <!----------INFOBOX LIGHTHOUSE CODE HERE------->
 ...
 {{#if: {{{ARLHS <includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|
 ! [[Amateur Radio Lighthouse Society|ARLHS]] number:
 {{!}} {{{ARLHS}}} }}
 |-
 {{#if: {{{USCG<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
 ! [[United States Coast Guard|USCG]] number:
 {{!}} {{{USCG}}} }}
 <!----------NEW CODE STARTS HERE--------------->
 {{#if: {{{nrhp<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|
 {{Infobox nrhp
 | embed = yes
 | name = {{{name}}} <!-----USES PARAMETER FROM LIGHTHOUSE INFOBOX----->
 | lat_degrees = {{{lat_degrees|}}}
 | lat_minutes = {{{lat_minutes|}}}
 | lat_seconds = {{{lat_seconds|}}}
 | lat_direction = {{{lat_direction|}}}
 | long_degrees = {{{long_degrees|}}}
 | long_minutes = {{{long_minutes|}}}
 | long_seconds = {{{long_seconds|}}}
 | long_direction = {{{long_direction}}}
 | latitude = {{{latitude|}}}
 | longitude = {{{longitude|}}}
 <!----IF ANY OF THE COORD VALUES FOR THE NRHP INFOBOX ARE SPECIFIED, COORD DISPLAY IN THE LIGHTHOUSE INFOBOX WOULD BE DISABLED------>
 | locmapin = {{{locmapin|}}}
 | map_alt = {{{map_alt|}}}
 | area = {{{area|}}}
 | architect= {{{architect|}}}
 | added = {{{added|}}}
 | governing_body = {{{governing_body|}}}
 | mpsub= {{{mpsub|}}}
 | refnum= {{{refnum|}}}
 }} }}
 ...
 <!--------END OF INFOBOX LIGHTHOUSE CODE HERE------->

Calling the nrhp infobox directly from the code of the lighthouse infobox would reduce redundancy between the two infoboxes by limiting the nrhp infobox to only the parameters necessary for lighthouses. Sound good to you guys? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you DonCram for enlisting Dudemanfellabra and thanks to Dudemanfellabra for the effort. I'm an amateur in Wiki coding, so forgive naivete, please. I'm not sure how parameters are passed within the code above, and they need to meet the following consensus (which I think we have):

• We want the NRHP name and location to display, whether they are the same or different from the Lighthouse name and location.
• We also want all other NRHP parameters to display (presumably everything that comes out of the Elkman utility).
• We do not want the NRHP coords to display at all unless they are not specified in the Lighthouse section. This is the reverse of the suggestion above.
• We do want the map to display, using the Lighthouse section coords.

I offer an alternative, which might be easier, both to code and to use:

• Add the map function to the Lighthouse infobox. (I played with this, but I don't understand how to reconcile the widths -- map needs pixels, but Lighthouse specifies EMs). I like the idea of having the map available for all Lighthouses, not just NRHP (I tried adding it separately (see User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox3) but the width is an issue and it piles up the [edit] boxes at the bottom of the map.)
• Do a better job of documenting the NRHP embed = yes function in the lighthouse template documentation so that the average user understands it. (I could take a stab at this at the appropriate time).
• With the map in the Lighthouse template, we could simply edit out the coords provided by Elkman.

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow the nuances of the two alternatives now being talked about, but revisit in order to say I didn't mean to come on too strong in my initial posting above. Glad some progress/new understanding is being created. Offhand, it sounds like a good idea to include the map function to the Lighthouse infobox, for use in any lighthouse.

Also, I would like to respond a bit more to one of Jameslwoodward's initial questions: Jameslwoodward asked, about nrhp_type2, nrhp_type3, nrhp_type4: "Do we need more than one type? All four?" To respond more directly, there are a good number of lighthouses which are National Historic Landmarks, including Boston Light and Cape Ann Light Station in Massachusetts, and Portland Observatory in Maine. These need one nrhp_type parameter. A second or more parameters would be needed if any lighthouses are also designated National Historic Sites, or other higher-than-NRHP federal designations. However, now scanning List of areas in the United States National Park System, I do not see any lighthouses, so probably the 2nd, 3rd, 4th parameters would not be needed in any lighthouse infoboxes. If there is an exception, it could be dealt with using the embed=yes option. Note: the Elkman NRHP infobox generator does not include information for the nrhp_type fields, mainly because it is based on the National Register's NRIS database which lacks the information needed and/or is misleading where it does cover some of the information (about NHLs). The nrhp_type fields have been manually added. doncram (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. The Elkman utility shows nrhp_type=hd for 33 of the 99 NRHP lights in Massachusetts and Maine. It shows no other designator for any of them. Cape Ann shows as an "hd", Boston Light's type is blank. I understand that it's not sufficient, as Boston Light shows, but is the Elkman output generally correct when it shows "hd"? Or should we edit it out -- or ask Elkman to remove it from the output? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I wasn't clear about that. Yes, the Elkman generator does make the distinction between historic district (HD) ones vs. non-HD ones (which are buildings, structures, objects, and sites), and it uses the nrhp_type field for that. The historic district (United States) ones contain multiple legal parcels and/or multiple buildings, structures, etc. It's working as it should: the NRHP listing for the Boston Light is apparently not a historic district; the Cape Ann one is. Note the Cape Ann NRHP/NHL nomination document describes that it has 4 contributing buildings and 2 contributing structures, as well as 2 structures that do not contribute to the historic character of the district. What the Elkman generator does not provide is the further information of whether a place is further designated as a National Historic Landmark District or as a National Historic Landmark. If further designated that way, WikiProject NRHP editors have manually added "nhl" or changed "hd" to "nhld" in infoboxes. Elkman has from time to time agreed to make changes to the generator output, if a consensus emerges that there is a problem, but I see no problem here. Thanks for asking! doncram (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

NHL NRHP lighthouses cleanup

Perhaps it would be useful to revisit all the NHL lighthouse articles to ensure proper coverage, by browsing through List of NHLs. I just now revised the Boston Light article, which did not have the NRHP infobox at all, to add it and to manually edit in the NHL information. Currently it needs further revising to merge the infoboxes. All the NHLs are automatically NRHP-listed.

Also, perhaps it would be useful to create and/or to revisit all the other NRHP lighthouses as well. In order to facilitate that, I will paste a couple lists of NRHP lighthouses to this new WikiProject workspace: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses/NRHP lighthouses. Hope this is helpful. doncram (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There are currently maybe a couple hundred NRHP-listed lighthouses having articles, and 207 cases where the NRHP name shows now as a red-link. In many of the 207 cases, there may already be a lighthouse article, but a redirect from the NRHP name to the current lighthouse article name is needed. In others, a brand-new lighthouse article is justified. Altogether not too huge a list to visit them all and fix up their infoboxes, if several people joined in. I would be happy to help if there's interest. doncram (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been working through Maine on just the mission described above and will tackle Massachusetts next (I'm not ignoring New Hampshire, but there are only two and neither of them appear to be NRHP). As I see my role, it's to ensure that there is at least a stub article for every lighthouse in the List of lighthouses in the United States in the two states, including NRHP information when applicable, appropriate tags, and an image if available. After that, User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao wants me to go north to the Maritimes. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

VRB-25 article

I've sketched out a VRB-25 article and would appreciate other eyeballs on it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's got a good sense of flow and some decent material, though still can be improved. Instead of revolving 'lighthouse mechanism' perhaps you could try 'lighthouse optical apparatus'. Can you say something about the benefits over legacy automated systems? The start mentions it was designed with United States Coast Guard assistance to meet their requirements (only with them?), though never says what those requirements were. There are some small style issues, like the essay-ish "as noted above", and saying something's easy to describe or doesn't need to be described is redundant. To avoid peacock-phrasing, you could switch to 'The designers aimed for a simple yet elegant effectiveness' or 'The mechanism is one of elegant simplicity', which is at least less so; an independent claim of that cited to a reliable source would be better.

It reads "array of six or eight Fresnel lenses around a bulb". Do check if that's correct and if, when you say "all six lenses are used", you mean 6 not 8. You could also mention whether they're special proprietary or ordinary bulbs. The image caption states the VRB-25 is visible, but clarifying for readers who don't know what to look for would be good. The paragraph about its mechanism and lamp life varying with the 16th power is highly technical, veering toward whitepaper. The inclusion of an arbitrary 16 USCG examples is rather puzzling, if 600 units are in use worldwide. Is there further reliable source material covering the product? In short, I think what's there is good, though encourage clarifying and expanding to make it better. –Whitehorse1 15:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much; your comments are well taken. My principal concern was that there would be objection on the grounds that the article gives publicity to a commercial product. Some of the weaknesses come from the fact that while I have read the company literature, and have asked a couple of questions, I'm reluctant to involve the company too much in helping with the article.

As you'll see, I got lucky and found a USCG book with appropriate drawings. I also did a version of the Monhegan Light photo that shows only the lantern. That will have to do until we find (or take) a public domain photo closer up.

I'm not sure I understand your comment about the 16 lights I listed. I have no thought of listing a large number of them -- although I suppose we could add Category:VRB-25_System -- but I thought that a few representative examples would be good. They're all from Maine because that was easy for me -- once the article goes live, I would expect to search out all the "VRB-25" references and link them and, while doing that, pick a more representative dozen or so. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wouldn't worry about it being commercial. It didn't strike me as over-promotional. The new images look good, by the way. Hmm. Listing all or a huge number of them would probably fall outside content policy (WP:NOTDIRECTORY), as a miscellaneous list of information. As they are, as you say, intended as examples though, I'd say there are too many. Generally an example is typical of or representative of a class or group; we use them to illustrate while explaining something. Rarely will you have someone needing sixteen examples to understand something. Highlighting a couple/few drawn from various continents instead would likely better serve our international audience. –Whitehorse1 15:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Incidentally, these 2 pages on the mfr. site give different units-in-service figures: [1] & [2] ?

OK, fewer examples -- I did say "a dozen" above, but half that may be better. Not to be argumentative, but for my edification, explain to me, though, why a longer list wouldn't fall under the exemption "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference" In paragraph 1 at (WP:NOTDIRECTORY).

I noticed the 400/600 units in service. I had assumed that 600 was just from a later document, but both the ones you cite have 2009 dates, so I'll go with 400. Thanks again for your attention. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to prove a negative proposition. Among considerations in creating an article or list is show it is necessary to provide an encyclopedic understanding of its subject, as part of contributing a summary of accepted knowledge using reliable secondary sources. –Whitehorse1 17:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I wondered if one could be a typo as well, or if they'd just had a good year for sales! –Whitehorse1 17:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Project page improvements by Whitehorse1

Some aspects of the old page's organization confused me -- it's much improved, thanks. Questions:

• Should we retain the illustration of the templates -- show both the template to include and the template as it appears, for all templates, like this:

{{Lighthouse-stub}}

• Should we include the resource templates
  • {{USLighthouseResources}}
    
  • {{MALighthouseResources}}
    
  • {{MELighthouseResources}}
    
  • {{MILighthouseResources}}
    

and others (state, provincial, or national) as they come along? (or perhaps just one example of the individual states) If so, where?

• In the stub templates list, we show all the Canadian provinces. This troubles me as a precedent. If we decided to add stubs for the fifty states or each country, the list could get very long. Is there a better way?

• In the categories list, Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places is buried two layers down. While that's perfectly consistent with Wikipedia's international outlook, as a practical matter does it need more prominence? Maybe there could be a separate main category listing for "Categories for Lighthouses on National Lists of Historic Places" -- see Listed building and Canadian Register of Historic Places for two examples of other national lists which have lighthouses on them. Whether thay have categories analagous to Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places, I don't know.

• Should we show a list of tags that might appear in a typical lighthouse article, something like,

"The following is a list of tags that would appear for a stub article, about a lighthouse in Maine, built in 1808, on the United States National Register of Historic Places:
{{MELighthouseSources}}
{{USLighthouseSources}}
{{Lighthouses of Maine}}
{{National Register of Historic Places}}
[[Category:Lighthouses in Maine]]
[[Category:1808 architecture]]
[[Category:National Register of Historic Places in Maine]]
[[Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places]]
{{US-lighthouse-stub}}
{{lighthouse-stub}}
{{Maine-NRHP-stub}}
Each of these tags, with changes and deletions appropriate to location, date, stub status, and NRHP status, should be considered for each lighthouse article."

• Althought the question of exactly how we're going to use the NRHP infobox is under discussion (see next section above), should we be very explicit that anyone writing or editing an article on a lighthouse should check its status as a national historic place and include the appropriate information in the article?
  

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Ideally articles should select the single most relevant Category, and where applicable stub tag, from each subject-area hierarchy. A simple example is a church being an architecture stub and a religion stub. For instance, the {{US-lighthouse-stub}} and {{lighthouse-stub}} aren't to be used together: toplevel stub tags are used, unless a child stub tag exists that can be used instead.
Turning to resource templates, use of and composition of these is still being worked out. Wider involvement would really be great I think.

For the overhaul I looked at lots of other WikiProjects, to see their approaches. Most, list only the template names (e.g.: WP:CANADA, WP:NOVELS as well as slicker designs); for those including names plus the rendered image, they generally house them in a table for neatness. Incidentally, a problem with the prev. version, for those images it did display, was that sometimes custom parameters must be used on the templates to avoid causing all sorts of errors and miscategorizing of the project page (I included an example using a comment in the page); in some cases that may require adjustments to the templates themselves. I went with the most common style of listing titles initially, but am easy.

My first thought on creating stub templates for each country/state is that drilling down to that level of specificity is over-excess, and in most cases unnecessary due to lesser number of lighthouses in different places.
The {{Canada-lighthouse-stub}} and 8 descendant province stubs were created in the last few weeks, by a user that has since Retired from Wikipedia (at least under that username). There's a comment on the page linking the proposed-stub discussion; it wasn't advertised here, nor do any of the participants there concentratedly work on lighthouse articles or with this project. That may be something that needs looking at.

The remainder of your idea approaches the area of a style guide. That's a whole can o' worms right there. I think, at least for me, holding off from that for now is best, to allow us to tackle the other things. :)  –Whitehorse1 15:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Should Admiralty number: be Admiralty number: in the Lighthouse Infobox?

See Template talk:Infobox Lighthouse and please comment there, not here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Grand Lake St. Marys Lighthouse

Any idea where I can find a free picture of the Grand Lake St. Marys Lighthouse (the Northwood Lighthouse) in Ohio? I've looked on the Coast Guard website, but the only image of any type that I can find is from this website. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How about this one, licensed CC Attribution 2.0 Generic? –Whitehorse1 20:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll get that up. I don't understand Flickr very well, so I never thought to look there. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A possible resource

Coast Guard Museum/Northwest, Pier 36, ISC Seattle, 1519 Alaska Way South, Seattle, Washington. I've long known there was a museum there. What I didn't know is that they have a 3,000+ volume library, about 10% of which is works specifically about lighthouses. Potentially useful for anyone who is doing serious research in this area and not finding what they need in other libraries. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT

There's a discussion of a new, and, IMHO, disruptive bot that may affect our infoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#User:AnomieBOT . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Historic postcard images

Huelse, Klaus -- Meine Leuchtturm-Seite: Leuchttürme USA auf historischen Postkarten -- Historic postcard images of U.S. lighthouses, Historic Post Card Views. There are many incredible lighthouses from all over the world. The downside is that I cannot figure out how he names these cards, and absent finding them at Russ Rowlett Lighthouse directory (which occasionally has proper links), I can't find the links for particular lighthouses. As an example, there are more than a dozen Michigan lights, including really old cards for such disappeared historic lights as Belle Isle Light, Windmill Point Light and Mama Juda Light. Has a really good picture of the Harbor Beach Light, Old Mackinac Point Light and Bay City Lighthouse, for example. Would be great to be able to put links into our articles. I know he gives Rowlett permission and the links (Rowlett and some other site note that occasionally). Any thoughts would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Stan

Kõpu Lighthouse

The Kõpu Lighthouse article just finished its good article nomination and was promoted. I noticed however, that it has not received any assessment whatsoever by this WikiProject. Anyone interested in providing one? —Quibik (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Whitehorse1 00:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses#Sample articles

On the project page, we show Phare de la Vieille as example of coverage and structure.

I'm not sure I see it as a good example:

• The characteristic given (Fixed light, white-red-green cycle every twelve seconds) is impossible . A "fixed" light is one color constantly. This light is actually Occulting (2+1), 12 seconds with White, Red, and Green sectors.
• It has a "Properties" section that has a variety of information, most of which should be in the infobox -- that's what the infobox is for.
• The article is internally inconsistent on several points.
• It shows a pretty picture of a Fresnel lens, yet the article does not mention one in use there.
• It has no specific references even though various Light Lists, including the NGA List List, are on line and easily accessible.
• The heights given are inconsistent.

Perhaps we could agree on a better example, or several? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It may actually be a good example ... or at least it might be if it were fully translated ...which it never was.

Everything you said is right on the mark. The fixed light point, plus the 'duplicatory' Properties section was somewhat fixed on fr-wikip a while ago, I think. It has a few specific refs, though they were among the untranslated parts. From my vague recollection of adding examples, I think I chose it for its breadth: evaluating the need for one, construction, architecture, life inside it, coverage of different eras, etc. WikiProjects' examples are often rough around the edges. Here, your closer scrutiny has shown that was a little *too* rough! It's a featured article on the French Wikipedia, which is what led to somebody (partially) translating it here. As for the Fresnel lens pic, yeah. Looking at some fr-wiki lighthouse articles they, uhm, do seem to place it a lot there.

Shortly after you posted that, Jim, I worked on a draft copy of the article a bit. As much of that involved translation, I got in touch with an editor listing themself as available for proofreading translated french-english text, a pro translator, who agreed to look at it. I heard back from them yesterday; they've been swamped with a move & various offline stuff. They do hope to be able to look at it soon though. Today I migrated in my draft overhaul of it, having the edit history merged in. It probably still has kinks to iron out, something a good translator can help with. Hopefully it's now better than it was though? –Whitehorse1 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessments and rankings

Recently to try and help out I've overhauled the Assessment information page and project banner. One of the spruceups I did was on the generic article importance scale, which seemed hard to use and apply to this project's content. Here's my first take on it:

Article importance grading scheme

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	Subject is a "core" topic of the utmost importance for Lighthouses, or is generally notable to people other than pharologists. They define and determine the subject of the Lighthouses WikiProject. Very few subjects will carry this ranking.	Lighthouse, Pharos of Alexandria.
High	Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the field of lighthouses, but not necessarily outside it. Lighthouses with a recognized and lasting effect on lighthouses worldwide. Few subjects shall carry this ranking. It may be fewer than one per continent.	Kõpu, Eddystone
Mid	Subject is relatively important to the project. Many pharologists are knowledgeable of the topic. Subject may or may not be commonly known outside of the region or country. Provides more specific areas of knowledge that a serious reader would need to understand.	Cordouan, Peggys Cove
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of lighthouses. May be peripheral knowledge, or of mainly highly-specialist or regional interest. May have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic (such as all lighthouses in a country or region). Most subjects shall carry this ranking.	Lazaretto Cairn, Carcel lamp

---

I found putting together the importance scale difficult, so welcome thoughts from others. (Obviously I didn't go on any re-assessment sprees based on it.)

The project banner changes added fields for categories, books, images, disambigs, templates, project pages. This saves having swathes of n/a-quality rated pages such as those the software manages like categories heaped in with everything else, or that aren't regular article pages like disambig pages or project subpages. Hopefully it'll help make things easier to find.

Any feedback would be great—even if it's just to say it looks okay, that you've looked at it and haven't any opinion, dislike it, etc. Thanks! –Whitehorse1 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I should start by saying, "Thank You." Efforts like yours are often thankless, so let's avoid that, at least. Although I disagree mightily, I think it's great to start the discussion. I should also say that I have not really been conscious of importance ratings and don't know the rules, so forgive me if I'm way off base. If there's something I should read and then make new comments, please point me.

I think you're way too tough. There are roughly 1,000 lighthouses in the USA and 12,000 in the world (Russ Rowlett's list). Why have a scale that has only a handful of members of the top two classes and 12,000 (when we finish, in our dreams) in the bottom two? I might aim for ten in the Top class, a hundred in the High class, a thousand in the Mid class, and the remaining 11,000 in the Low class.

I'm not sure any of the USA lights would make "Top" on your scale. I think we'd have fights over the one per continent that made "High"

• Boston Light (first establishment)
• Sandy Hook Light (oldest existing structure)
• another?

Plainly if it's Top class, it has an article now. Almost all High class would, also, at least those in North America and the UK (I note, for example, that there are only six articles in Category:Lighthouses in Spain, so I assume there may be important lights there that don't have articles). There are certainly Mid class lights that don't have articles.

Maybe (these are examples -- if we can agree on examples, then we can write the text):

• Top (10 articles) -- Internationally known -- although Eddystone may be best known for its role in the shanty, it was, I think, the first offshore light, so I'd have to include it as top importance.

• High (100 articles) -- I'd include several of the Stevenson lights as well as both Boston and Sandy Hook and maybe Tybee Island Light, and their counterparts in other countries. I'd also include Fresnel lens, and Cordouan, where the lens was first used.

• Mid (1,000 articles, but not all of them exist) -- The first examples of important techniques -- Sparkplug lighthouses, Screwpile lighthouses, the first lighthouse in a country which didn't mark a harbor, or otherwise broke the mold. It would seem to me that any light that was a National Historic Landmark in the USA, a Grade I (England and Wales) or Grade A (Scotland and Northern Ireland) Listed building, one of the National Historic Sites of Canada, or the equivalent elsewhere ought to be at least Mid importance. (note that this is not all NRHP or Listed Buildings, which are much larger lists.) (I should note that there appears to be a lot of politics in nominations to various Historic lists -- I accept that, at this level. I also accept that the people who do the lists are not lighthouse experts.)

These probably don't add up to 1,000, but it seems to me that this should not be a really hard category to get into. As an example, I don't know why you ranked Peggy's Cove a Mid, it's not one of the 15 lights on National Historic Sites of Canada, but I wouldn't quarrel with it being a Mid, but I think the 15 others should also be....

• Low -- Everything else.

. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate the thoughtful feedback. I figured it might need work; deciding what principles to separate by was troublesome. I don't think there's any essential reading really (though if anyone else knows any any…), for whatever it's worth though: in addition to v.1.0: importance & an importance template , the other wikiprojects I looked at were: psychology, Canada, fraternities, comics, dr. who; as well as children's lit. w/talkpg, ports, and trains.

I thought the worldwide count's an order of magnitude higher than that figure, but your point's well taken. The thinking behind the 'may be fewer than one per continent' bit was about how importance assessing is independent of 'editor demographics or regional biases' (as one wikiproject puts it). So the High grade could have a few from one country or continent and none from another, since what matters is its *overall* importance rather than it being one of the most renowned, loved or oldest in a person's country.

Other wikiprojects that've customized the criteria seem to vaguely fall into two camps: separating separate by academic/research oriented (e.g psychology proj.) criteria vs. project significance or public well-knownedness. I think I tried for somewhere between the two. A few you brought up I'd thought about while putting it together (e.g Fresnel lens, Boston Light), and struggled to decide where they'd go.

I figured Top, while obviously including Lighthouse, would include the Pharos of Alexandria -- as that from which all lighthouses throughout aeons derive. Well, sort of. Looked at like that, others didn't seem to belong in the same group.

Eddystone, irrespective of it being well known internationally, I ranked as High due to its significant & prevailing influence on lighthouse design. The High-ranked Kõpu, rather than being "merely old" is the third oldest operating in the world. By contrast, Cordouan's a lavish monument to French imperialism; it's stood a few centuries, its interior has had a chapel, murals etc. It's significant even interesting, but is it of high significance for a definitive study of the subject of lighthouses? For that matter should that even be the basis we judge by?

I think a part of the difficulty might be the lack of a level between 'mid' and 'low', too. The Importance system has two optional grades 'bottom' and 'no' importance. I'm not sure anyone uses the latter; a handful use the former. Trouble is, bottom importance sounds kinda derogatory. Maybe it's fully customizable, I'm not sure.

As a great many lighthouses (at least manned ones) have given way to technology, they've been sold, adopted by preservation groups, or listed and the like. I do wonder if listed ones should go higher than they otherwise would if they were not listed? The Listed status should definitely be mentioned in the article though. Peggy's Cove I ranked mid as the article claims it's one of the most recognizable in the world, which another book I looked at backs up singling it out as one of the most famous lighthouses in the world. ...Which also brings us to the question of whether "fame" should affect the grade. The Little Red Lighthouse was made famous by a 1940s children's book, plus it's pretty (I preferred the pic you used by the way!). As lighthouses overall go though, it isn't out of the ordinary. ... –Whitehorse1 02:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good ideas, thanks Jim. Rating the 'first examples of important techniques' such as sparkplug lighthouses as Mid makes sense to me. Fresnel lens is a level above again, so High makes sense. Low (assuming 4 levels) was the rank I'd apply to 'your average lighthouse'.
  I'm still wondering if it's worth having an additional rank (can we change all the labels; should we?). The other day I saw the film wikiproj. don't rate by importance at all, but then it's a far larger project as well. This is a small wikiproject, so avoiding complexity is smart; if well defined an additional division could be doable, maybe. Thoughts? –Whitehorse1 19:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User Templates

A minor quibble:

We have two userbox templates that members may put on their user page to show that they are one of us. The larger one: {{ParticipantLighthouses}} automatically puts the user displaying it into Category:WikiProject Lighthouses participants.

The smaller one: {{User WikiProject Lighthouses}} does not.

Of the eight people in the category, only one has added the cat manually -- the rest come from the template. Unless anyone objects strenuously, I am going to add the automatic categorization to the smaller template. That will affect seven editors, including me.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good plan. I tagged the talkpages with the projbanner, too. –Whitehorse1 15:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Flashing lights

I stumbled across a broad selection of flashing lights made by User:Alvals, see here. He was kind enough to make one for me for Minot's Ledge Light, which seemed like a good place to start with using an actual example of a complicated characteristic.

Please take a look there and see what you think. It seems to me it might make some of the more complicated characteristics clear to a reader. I wouldn't propose using it for "Fl W 60s", but perhaps for lights like these:

• The Graves Light, Fl(2) W 12s
• Point Judith Light, Oc(3) W 15s
• Gay Head Light, Al WR 15s

and perhaps the isophase lights.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

One quick thought re accessibility, would we need to worry about epilepsy with these? –Whitehorse1 19:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your question; just waiting for an expert friend to respond. I'm inclined to think that there are a lot of flashing lights in the world and that these little dots won't be a problem, but I don't really have any idea. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

They don't flash at a rate that would set off epilepsy. But they also don't seem to flash at predictable rates. Personally I think the verbal descriptions are better and more reliable. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

TfDs: Our reference list templates

Someone is systematically nominating the source lists for lighthouses for deletion. Discussion is here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are five other links:

1. Template:GLLighthouseSources‎;
2. Template:MALighthouseSources‎;
3. Template:MELighthouseSources‎;
4. Template:MILighthouseSources‎;
5. Template:USLighthouseSources. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Stan

Are all lighthouses notable enough for their own articles?

I've recently been editing Burnham-on-Sea#Lighthouses & noticed on List_of_lighthouses_in_England#Somerset that each of the 3 lighthouses (2 disused) have their own redlinks. Are all lighthouses notable enough for their own articles?— Rod ^talk 17:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

US named lights still in operation have little question about their notability; if nothing else almost all of them are NHRP-listed. We've tended to take the view that discontinued named lights are notable too, though personally I have worked from the USCG lists. I would guess that active named lights in the UK would all be notable, but I'm not sure what would apply for discontinued lights. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think most of our colleagues at Project Lighthouses would defend any named light that was not simply a lattice or pole structure -- and even those can get in if they were historically significant in a different form, see Deer Island Light, for example. I've noticed that a lot of UK lights are Listed Buildings and, of course, that is another strong indicator of notability. If you're not familiar with Rowlett, take a look -- a good resource. I don't think the Admiralty Light Lists are on line, but the US NGA light lists are, and they cover the whole world for basic information. Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I've had a stab at the low lighthouse (the one still working) at User:Rodw/Sandbox/Burnham-on-Sea Low lighthouse but I can't work out what is required in the infobox & there is limited guidance at Template:Infobox lighthouse ie what are | focalheight = | lens = | currentlens = | intensity = | range = | characteristic = etc all about?— Rod ^talk 21:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of editing your talk page -- you were very much on the right track.

• Height - the total height of the structure above its foundation
• Focalheight -- the height of the actual light, usually above mean sea level. This is the height given in light lists (this is the Height listed above plus the distance of the foundation above mean sea level less the distance between the bulb and the top of the lantern)
• Lens - the type of lens originally used in the light, usually a Fresnel lens. Rowlett and some of the other refs may give you this.
• Currentlens - the lens now in use. In the USA (I don't know about the UK) most of the Fresnel lenses have been replaced by modern optics such as the VRB-25 which are easier to maintain and operate better on solar power.
• Intensity - some refs will give you candlepower, but it's not usually an accurate number, so I never use it
• Range - the distance at which the light can be seen. If the light has colors, there will be several ranges, one for each color. It's usually given in nautical miles (USCG, NGA, and Admiralty light lists, at least).
• Characteristic - the pattern of flashes, given in the light list, in this case Flashing White 7.5s

Take a look at The Graves Light where all of these (except intensity) are used. I should add that my preference and, I think, that of most of my colleagues here, is to use the Light List name as the article title. I don't have an Admiralty Light List or a chart that shows the light, so you're on your own there. As you've seen, the NGA calls it Burnham Light (the word "Light" is implied by the boldfaced type), so I'd probably go with that. Then the lead might read, "Burnham Light, also called Burnham-on-Sea Low is one of three lighthouses in Burnham-on-Sea, Somerset, England. Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - perhaps the details of what is required in the infobox could be put on the infobox page? I've also had first stabs at High Lighthouse and Round Tower which still need to have links between them, but you are welcome to edit - I will not be doing anything to them for a week as I'm going to be away.— Rod ^talk 15:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Details added to the infobox doumentation -- thanks for the shove in that direction.Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

These 3 articles are now at Burnham-on-Sea Round Tower, Burnham-on-Sea High Lighthouse and Burnham-on-Sea Low lighthouse. Further edits and improvements welcome.— Rod ^talk 20:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

US lighthouse state list articles

Please see Talk:List of lighthouses in the United States#Another level of hierarchy in USA lighthouse lists. Mangoe (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

USCG Web Site Reorganized

I note that the USCG has reorganized its web site, so that all hard coded refs to the Light Lists will need updating. May I suggest that as we do this, we use {{cite uscgll}}, which creates the complete {{cite book}} from the Volume, Year, and Page Number? I have already updated it for the new USCG URLs and changed it so the individual volumes are linked to the references. It took five minutes to update and test the template; updating the individual cites in several hundred articles could take hours, even with AWB.

• old: url=http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/LightLists/Lightlists.htm
• new (general): url=http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=lightLists
• new (Volume 1): url=http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/lightLists/LightList%20V1.pdf

. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Along the same line I have just written {{Cite ngall}} to cover the US National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's Lists of Lights for the rest of the world.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All occurances of the USCG website were converted to {{cite uscgll}}. I think these useful template (as well as any relevant ones if they exist) should be mentioned on the Project page. --Muhandes (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Some minor template changes

In the name of WP:BOLD I made two minor changes to templates.

• {{cite uscghist}} can now give the correct page name when used with PANAMA/CUBA/PACIFIC/AWI (See here, PR was already working). The template still does no error checking. I can easily add error checking if someone wishes, let me know if you'd find it useful.
• I added a references field to {{infobox lighthouse}}. It can be used to give a list of references supporting all the properties in the box, as is often the case when using rowlett. Individual references can still be added, and probably should. --Muhandes (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

None of these changes should interfere with existing pages. --Muhandes (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

{{cite uscghist}}

I'm in the process of moving the ~500 articles that use the USCG history website to the {{cite uscghist}} template. If you don't want me to do that to any set of articles let me know, I'll revert the ones I already did. I also use this opportunity to do minor cleanup like removing empty sections and repeating references. --Muhandes (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I finished my first run through the articles, I hope I didn't mess up anything, please let me know if I did. I'll do another quick run in several day, after the search engine database updates to the changes I've made. --Muhandes (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with that, next in line is to use {{cite rowlett}} which I will start when I'm done manually checking each and every of the links that template provides. --Muhandes (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sample US state light list article

I ran into some issues with Virginia, but I have finished Rhode Island. Please take a look at User:Mangoe/List of lighthouses in Rhode Island before I move it into article space. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you add sources. --Muhandes (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the process of doing that; be my guest in assisting. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that I'm back from vacation I'd be happy to help. Going to comment on the talk page. --Muhandes (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest lighthouses in the world

I did major c/e on List of tallest lighthouses in the world, as well as added sources for each and every number. In the process I also created or rewrote Phare de Gatteville, Jeddah Light, Lesnoy Mole Rear Range Light, Storozhenskiy Light, Osinovetskiy Light, Vittoria Light, Świnoujście Lighthouse, Recalada a Bahía Blanca Light, Planier Light, Maasvlakte Light, Roches-Douvres Light, Adziogol Lighthouse, Lange Jaap, Chipiona Light, Aveiro Light, Bari Light, El Rincón Light, Voslapp Range Rear Light, Borkum Großer Light, Phare d'Eckmühl, Nosy Alañaña Light and did major edits on Calcanhar Lighthouse, Campen Lighthouse. Mostly I've self-assessed them as low/stub, but if someone has the time to assess and perhaps give a quick read I'd be much obliged. --Muhandes (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lighthouses of Australia

I have been updating List_of_lighthouses_and_lightvessels_in_Australia with coordinates and such, what do you all think of the page so far? CybergothiChé (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Made some improvements and commented on the talk page. Do you also plan to create articles for any of these lights? I'd be happy to help, leave me a note. --Muhandes (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Muhandes! Thankyou for your help regarding the lighthouses of Australia. In respose to your questions :

as to an article on each lighthouse, I do hope to create an article for each lighthouse in Australia, but this may take some time. However there are already some articles about specific lighthouses, so the work is already started, and with the help of the Wikipedia community this goal will surely be accomplished.

as to inclusion criteria and whether a list is followed, the mainstay of the list of was already here (as per [3]), and I have added to the list some lighthouses that were not there previously that I have found through using http://www.lighthouse.net.au/ , http://www.seasidelights.com.au/ and also through incidental discoveries which I have cross checked with the two former sites.

Inclusion criteria is such:

If a lighthouse is located at the place where it was first built, whether it be operational or non-operational, it is included.

If a lighthouse was located at the place where it was first built, but has subsequently been destroyed, either by ship collision or other means, it is included, noting that it has been destroyed.

If a lighthouse is located at a different place from the place where it was first built, whether it be operational or non-operational, it is included, noting that is is not it's original location.

I think essentially, if there is or ever was a lighthouse at a location, that location and lighthouse are included.

note: I am considering reversing the third point above, and specifying the original location, and noting the change of location, possibly.

Again, thankyou for your help and I welcome your comments and critique. CybergothiChé (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we continue this discussion on the article's talk page. --Muhandes (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this page within project's purview?

I've just written Grand Lake St. Marys Lighthouse; would it be considered under this project's scope? It was built to be functional, and it operated under a US government license, but it's not operated for many years, and (as you can see from a comment I left on this page nearly a year ago) it's not included on the Coast Guard website. Nyttend (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. --Muhandes (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. While working on this article, I passed something in a subpage of this project that, if I remember rightly, suggested paying attention only to lighthouses that were operated by an official governmental authority, rather than ones like this that were privately operated and meant partially as gimmicks. Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Light characteristic

An article that you have been involved in editing, Light characteristic, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I also mostly rewrote the article, extending to all other light characteristics. Maybe someone would want to have a look? (and asses the article while at it) --Muhandes (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lighthouses articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Lighthouses articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi everyone. In the last several months I've written several dozens of lighthouse articles, and I really need some feedback. Many of them were obvious stub and start class articles, and that's all I could do. But there are quite a bunch which I think are C or even B class. I've added the ones which I am not sure about to the assessment page, but I realize this is much work. If someone is willing to assess one or two I'd be thankful (the ones at the bottom of the list are the more mature ones). I'd be willing to return the favour. But especially, if someone is willing to have a look at Norah Head Light - I think it is B class and might be a GA candidate. What do you think? Best regards, and thank in advance. --Muhandes (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Norah Head Light made GA. --Muhandes (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

List of lighthouses in Rhode Island published

I intend to use this as the model for other state lighthouse articles, so please get your comments in early. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Flashing pattern help needed

"a characteristic five second flash followed by a 55 second eclipse, every two minutes." (page 2.) Could someone explain to me what that means? Wouldn't it be every 60 seconds? –Moondyne 07:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You can see in the description that the apparatus has two sets of lamps. So one of the lamps will be visible for 5 seconds, then 55 seconds eclipse, then the other for 5 seconds, then 55 seconds eclipse. In terms of Light characteristic this is simple Fl.W. 60s (one white flash every minute), or sometimes denoted L.Fl. (long flash) since the flash is more than two seconds long. The heritage files tend to mix mechanics with characteristics quite a bit. --Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, the penny has dropped. Thanks for the speedy answer. –Moondyne 09:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Baker Shoal Range Lights

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. Both Baker Shoal Range Rear Light and Baker Shoal Range Front Light have been without sources for the past four years and might be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help find one or two good references. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, there is an easy source in "Historic Light Station Information and Photography: Delaware". United States Coast Guard Historian's Office. Archived from the original on 2017-05-01., I'll add that momentarily to both. --Muhandes (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Muhandes (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone up for a template for US Local Notice to Mariners?

I'm putting together a Maryland list article and find myself going through the LNMs (Sharps Island Light for instance was discontinued early in the year). Is there anyone who can help put together a template for these? Mangoe (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

First question: how many instances are we looking at? I got negative responses when I created external link templates which were not used much.

Second, assuming wide usage, do you need weekly NLMs only, or special notices as well? The addressing format for weekly NLMs seems simple, e.g. for http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/lnms/lnm13482010.pdf you will enter district=13|year=2010|week=48. Special NLMs (e.g. http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/lnms/GPS%20SPECIAL%20NOTICE%202010.pdf) will require a different format.

Let me know. --Muhandes (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I only see about four cites, so maybe I'll pass on this. At the moment I'm inclined to cite this as if it were a magazine, BTW; it is issued regularly and page numbers are obligatory for finding anything in one. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

{{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} will probably do, but I find that if a citation is not a strict journal or book it is best to use {{citation}} which has the most options. Happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The other Fuller Rock Light

I've created an article on the one in Rhode Island. However the USCG lists another "Fuller Rock Light" (actually it's the only one listed, as the RI one is now listed only by number though it is named on charts) at the east end of Casco Bay in Maine. I have been unsuccessful in finding anything out about this one other than the LL data; none of the usual sources acknowledges it. If anyone has any ideas where else to look, suggest away. I haven't disambiguated due to the impossibility of writing an article at this time (as for instance I cannot determine whether there has ever been anything other than the current unmanned skeleton tower). Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Maidens

Hello. For no reason I can really identify (except I've passed them many, many times), I've tried to expand this article which is way outside my normal territory. I know nothing about lighthouses so if someone could check I haven't done anything terrible, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything terrible, and with the state of other Irish lighthouse articles it's actually better than most. I added an infobox for the active East Maiden (could probably add one for the Western one too) and some wikilinks. --Muhandes (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ballast Point Light

I just added your Wikiproject Lighthouses template to the Ballast Point Light. The article is tagged as needing major attention, because the infobox refers only to the original light, which was torn down in 1960. It isn't clear to me whether a replacement was built or not, and if so, whether another infobox is needed for the replacement. As far as I can tell there does not appear to be any lighthouse operating there now. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

According to this book, there is now "a simple automated light" there; I don't know if that merits inclusion in your project or not. The lighthouse itself is no longer there based on my research. I changed the lead to past tense. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I use is that if the a new light would have merited an article on its own accord, it deserves an infobox, otherwise it does not. "a simple automated light" would usually not merit an article nor an infobox. It does however deserve to be mentioned. I usually add a "Current display" section describing the current status. According to the USCG list of lights, there is indeed a light at Ballast Point, number 1570 showing Fl W 4s (white flash every 4 seconds). I'll add those details to the article. --Muhandes (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Ponta das Contendas Lighthouse

Congrats on another DYK nomination, Ponta das Contendas Lighthouse! If any of you have specialized knowledge about lighthouse lenses, you might take a look and copyedit a bit here. Trilliumz (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I might have a look later, but first and foremost, it needs to use {{infobox lighthouse}}. It would help if you could add a footnote for the lens type. --Muhandes (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox and issued a C rating from scratch. Good work. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I can't access the source from some odd reason, but judging from the text it seems like a second-order light was never present, only planned. It seems like it was fifth-order originally. --Muhandes (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarrytown Light DYK nom

I just finished it and nominated it here. I'm not necessarily asking for a DYK review, just some comments from someone over here as while I've done many NRHP articles this is my first lighthouse, so I hope I got things right (I feel very good about how it turned out ... I don't see this as being too far from a GA). Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. I have one major concern with the name. I think it is better not to put alternative names in the title itself. I would personally move the article to Tarrytown Light. Another concern is the lead, which does not summarize all the sections. You may also want to rename "Building" with "Structure" and move it after the history section. I corrected miles to nautical miles in the infobox and also some in the text, I left some I was not sure about and you will want to check. You probably need to add the characteristics which are in shortened form (Fl. R etc.) somewhere in the article body. --Muhandes (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have not checked back here ... I've been busy offline. And thanks for making the move. Just one thing to respond to: I used "building" because under the NPS's definitions of property types for the National Register it's a building since it sheltered human activity, i.e. people lived in it. (I know the little montagein the top uses a lighthouse as an example of a structure, and indeed many are*, but this one is clearly a building(indeed, its historic notability comes partially from that aspect). Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps a bridge, which is always going to be a structure, should be depicted instead.

Thanks for the clarification regarding NRHP standards. Never having written any NRHP article, I did not know that, and I suppose for NRHP articles it is suitable. Personally, I'll stick with what I'm used to (see e.g. Norah Head Light#Structures, North Reef Light#Structure). I still think the order of sections is better with "History" first, but this may also be based on what I'm used to. --Muhandes (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For NRHP articles I usually describe the property first, since that's what the article's about; we haven't yet decided whether the history section should go before it or not. I think it's better to do it with the descriptive section first, like we do with road articles. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. I wrote a number of Australian lighthouse articles, and the Commonwealth Heritage List, Australian heritage places inventory etc. format starts with the history and end with the structure. I guess they think a structure is notable for its history, much less its construction, which is in many cases quite mundane. One would think readers will also find the history more interesting than the technical details of the structure. But if that's how NRHP articles go, of course both options are valid. --Muhandes (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In many cases it is the architecture, rather than the history, that confers notability for the heritage register's purposes, which does, of course, suggest prioritizing this differently if its the other way around. For instance, Terence V. Powderly House and Irving Langmuir House, not just on the Register but National Historic Landmarks, are so designated not because of their architecture, which the nominations describe as typical of their period and largely unexceptional, but because of the people who lived there (as you can see, I couldn't write much about either of them from an architectural perspective). Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"I'm a lighthouse. Your call."

I enjoyed the feedback I got here on Tarrytown Light enough that I wondered if I couldn't write a somewhat unusual article for this project, one of the few that would fit into it but not be about a specific lighthouse or aspects of lighthouse operations. I had been thinking about this hoary story that's been around for years, and I developed an article on it.

I will be nominating this one for DYK also. Feedback would again be appreciated. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well written. I made a minor improvement and may have a more thorough look tomorrow, but there is little to add. Regarding the see also, I think there is quite a number of lighthouses which were hit by ships, maybe a subject for a future list. I had a DYK for Moreton Bay Pile Light which is "special" in that it was actually hit twice, once by a barge towed by a tug and once by a tanker, though being the structure that it was, the damage was done to the lighthouse, not the ships. --Muhandes (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added that one to the see-also section as well. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Detroit River Light 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I started looking for more out of pure curiosity, I'm not sure it will ever mature to an article. I have found five so far, I'd be personally happy to hear of more. --Muhandes (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Cape Lighthouse photos

I've asked a question over at WT:AMH#Green Cape Lighthouse photos that maybe people in this project may be able to shed some light on. Thanks. —Akrabbim^talk 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 2#Peche Island Light

Please take a look at this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Article importance: Trinity House?

I noticed that the Trinity House article had no article importance rating, I've provisionally given it a "mid" rating but given the the nature and history of the Corporation of Trinity House I cannot help wondering if it should have a "high" rating but I also cannot help wondering if that is just my UK centric view of the world showing so could someone please give it an impartial rating? --Thefrood (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, I should think "high". And nobody has ranked United States Lighthouse Service either. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've rated United States Lighthouse Service as "mid" importance (I would of gone for "high" if it had been still currently active, but as there is very little guidance on rating General Lighthouse Authorities feel free to correct my guesstimate). Given Mangoe's comments I've also changed the Trinity House article to high importance . --Thefrood (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

NB 877 "???" articles at the moment :( --Thefrood (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The US list again

I've now managed to deal with List of lighthouses in Minnesota, so we're up to three state list articles, and I have two others in the works already. I think we really need to deal the main US list somehow here. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lists of lighthouses

May I humbly suggest that three subcategories be added to Category:Lists of lighthouses for Canada, United Kingdom and United States as each of these nation have in addition to the main national list further lists for specific regions/states. --Thefrood (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Frying Pan Shoals Light Tower in NC

Please see this article for an update to the wiki entry. http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/06/22/2154226/mecklenburg-man-opens-frying-pan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.7.176.123 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I updated the article. --Muhandes (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennebunkport Breakwater Light

Please see this discussion. Note that the article all but admits that this is not notable and that the sources are dubious. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Need to discuss range lights for Nantucket

See discussion here. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably misidentified image

I'm pretty sure that, despite what the USCG history page says, these are not the Spectacle Island Range Lights. Here's why:

• They are identified here as the "Broad Sound Channel Inner Range Lights", which I believe is correct.
• There were two ranges on Spectacle Island:

The five pointed stars are the Spectacle Island range; the six-pointed stars are the Broad Sound Channel range. They existed together for a decade from 1903-1913; therefore this picture could not have been taken during that period because there would be at least one more tower in the picture. This picture does not look like one taken pre-1903, before the Broad Sound Channel towers were built.

• Descriptions I've found all say that the Spectacle Island Range towers were octagonal, whereas the Broad Sound Channel towers were round as we see here.
• The angle of the light is inconsistent with the Spectacle Island range, which is oriented roughly east-west with the water to the north.

I'm almost certain that the Lighthouse Digest page is correct, and that these are the Broad Sound Channel Inner Range Lights (which I'm getting ready to write an article for). I invite others to consider the matter before I request renaming of the file. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

San Luis Obispo and Point San Luis lights

The San Luis Obispo Light talk page pointed out in May of 2011 that the article and Point San Luis Light were the same lights. I redirected the Obispo article to the Point article, removed Obispo from Template:Lighthouses of California, and added your project banner to the Point's talk page. If someone could take a look at the edits to make sure I did not screw them up (mostly I add images to articles), I would appreciate it. Thundersnow 16:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Southwold lighthouse

So, I just worked my way through this article adding a bunch of stuff that looks about right to me - up from one stubby paragraph. It'd be really helpful if someone who knows a bit more about what they're doing could take a look for me - particularly with regard to the technical data and the structure of the article. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's a real puzzle

So I decided to go back and get some more lights done. Here we have Croatan Shoal Light, attested to by the USCG historical page, and we have the same name used for a light on a Lighthouse Digest page, with completely different information. The problem is that the charts without exception disagree with this. There was a named light near Manns Harbor, and whenever it is given a name, it is inevitably referred to as "Croatan Light". I can't find a reference to "Croatan Shoal" anywhere except for places that appear to link back to the USCG or LD pages; indeed, I find no evidence that there was ever any such shoal. I also found a book hit [4] which is more in line with the LD version but which calls it "Croatan Lighthouse". The charts are also not consistent with the other sources, in that they show a light at this spot back as far as 1855. I'm finding it hard to write an article here. While I'm reasonably convinced that all the articles are talking about the same place, the name "Croatan" is really about all that they absolutely have in common. If anyone has any ideas for other sources or anything that could pull this all together, I'm all ears. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The ARLHS calls it Croatan Shoal Light, and their site comes with a chart. Apparently there's also a book that uses the name "Croatan Shoals", see here. De728631 (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the official charts that name the light in the position given by the ARLHS, it is always named "Croatan Light" when it is named at all. It's not clear that either the ARLHS or whichever book you mean is independent of the USCG site. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The book I meant is No. 14 on the list in the link above, Lighthouse Families by Cheryl Shelton-Roberts which is said there to include a portrait of the keepers at "Croatan Shoals Light". I don't have access to that particular book though, so I can only point at this vague hint. De728631 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC about identify "start date" in articles as the NRHP-listed built date

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Start date in NRHP articles, about running a bot to implement "start date" and "end date" microformatting into NRHP infoboxes. --doncram 01:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Another US "light" vs. "lighthouse" renaming discussion

This time it's at Talk:Sabine Pass Light#Requested move. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Trying to make a list of the past discussions in one place. (here) Most of the past discussions appear to have been part of List of lighthouses in the United States's talk page.

• Talk:List_of_lighthouses_in_the_United_States#Sabine_Pass_lighthouse_not_light
• Talk:List_of_lighthouses_in_the_United_States#Light_or_lighthouse.3F
• Talk:List_of_lighthouses_in_the_United_States#Naming_convention_for_lighthouses_in_this_list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahwiv (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Still not satisfied

I have been randomly looking at many articles and am not satisfied with the current project decision to mass name or rename all articles to a specific "project" decided "light". I have tried to ignore the several Wikipedia Policies and guidelines, that includes Wikipedia:Manual of Style, as well as WP:COMMON and continue to contribute but I can not. I have looked at the past discussions and I feel valid reasoning was not given due consideration. I have also noticed that several of the articles I reviewed were elevated to start but were actually, by Wikipedia standards, still a stub article. While there appears to be a commendable project desire to start as many stub articles as possible I choose to expand articles farther to provide more information. With all this in mind I am seeking to give this more exposure and seek a project re-examination of the current naming practice. Otr500 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

another move discussion

Another move to Lighthouse discussion at Talk:Charlotte–Genesee Light#Requested move 2 Ahwiv (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Cedar Point Light

Looking for help from anyone who has resources (preferably comprehensive books) on US lighthouses, and in particular the Great Lakes. National Register of Historic Places listings in Sandusky, Ohio lists two separate facilities at Cedar Point: the Cedar Point Light, and an additional building called the "U.S. Coast Guard Building", which according to its Ohio Historical Society profile has also been known as the "Cedar Point Rear Range Light". I'm wondering if the two might be the same building, for the following reasons:

• All sources I can find seem to speak of just one light at Cedar Point in recent decades; lights other than the Cedar Point Light always seem to have been destroyed.
• The property owner's website (a campground associated with the amusement park) speaks highly of the lighthouse (it's even named for it), and I can't imagine them knocking down the other one or otherwise having it destroyed.
• Both were built in 1862, and no other source mentions the construction of two lighthouses in 1862.
• Both are spoken of as being limestone with comparatively few descriptive details otherwise appearing.
• This story seems to say that the Cedar Point Light served as the rear range light for a time.
• Cedar Point Light and the Coast Guard Building were listed two years apart: the Coast Guard Building as part of a huge multiple property submission (MPS), and the Cedar Point Light individually a couple of years later. I've found one property that was listed twice: the Robert Reily House near Cincinnati was listed by itself, and then a few years later it was listed as "Twin Oaks" as part of an MPS. Basically, it's demonstrably possible for an MPS to produce enough bureaucratic confusion that a site gets double-listed.

All this being said, I would greatly appreciate it if someone could check a comprehensive list of current and former lighthouses on Lake Erie and attempt to resolve the situation. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The charts say that they are the same light. If you look at this 1898 chart you will see the range in action, with the rear light labelled "Cedar Point Light" and the front labelled "Beacon". This 1907 chart shows them discontinued and labels them as "Cedar Point Front Rage" and "Cedar Point Rear Range", but they are plainly the same two lights. Someone didn't compare them and assumed that because of two names, there were two lights. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't even think of looking for charts, and even if I had, I wouldn't have known where to start. I'll begin a discussion at WP:NRHP about how to resolve this. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Balasore Light House

I have been struggling with Balasore Light House. Perhaps someone with access to specialized databases can do a better job with it. I am doubtful of the location because it seems to be somewhat inland and doesn't show the shadow of a tower the way I would expect a lighthouse to. Perhaps the official name uses a different spelling (see Balasore for a variant spelling) or is something entirely different. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fake lighthouses

The US list right now has lots of phony lighthouses on it. I'm willing to include anything that is an actual aid to navigation (which generally would mean that it it is listed as a private aid somewhere. However there are many entries now that are just decorative structures. I'm really of the opinion that these ought to be deleted from the list; as a rule they are external links, and there is no real possibility of writing a substantial article on 95% of them. Right now there is a discussion of "Governor's Light" here which is a pretty typical example: it's a private tower on the edge of a neighborhood which is not on the charts at all. I'd like to come to some definite resolution on this if we could. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

External links shouldn't be used as list items anyway. And I agree with you that we should only list structures that are or once were real navigational aids or test facilities, but not someone's fancy custom-built home. De728631 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment in general, there is at least one that technically doesn't meet that criteria, but I believe should remain, Olcott Light. (conflict alert - I started the stub.) It was an AtoN, was shutdown, moved, burned down, and replaced with a exact replica. It may be a set of 1, but there may be similar situations if you make the criteria too narrow. Ahwiv (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The many examples where the original light has been replaced by a non-working fake are all OK because the articles are all going to talk about the the original light and at the end say "a replica was built...." The ones I'm concerned about are the fake-from-the-beginning examples. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

populating new Category:Aids to navigation

Since Category:Lighthouses is a sub cat of this, am I correct in deducing that lighthouse articles shouldn't be placed directly in this category? Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, individual lighthouse articles shouldn't be placed in this category. De728631 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet another "light" vs "lighthouse" move request...

... at Talk:Bodie Island Light. Please weigh in there if you care. —  AjaxSmack  03:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 22#Delaware Breakwater West End Light

The USCG researchers confuse two lights (I was confused too for a while). Please chime in if you please. A look at the historical charts from the early 1900s is helpful. Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Hook Range Front Light

Minor light deletion discussion. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing info boxes

I have noticed that there are a number of NRHP listed lighthouse articles that don't include the lighthouse infobox. So if someone has the time maybe they can update these. I have been going through virtually every lighthouse article, embeding the NRHP infobox if it was not already there, cleaning up the units and conversions and adding maps to the lighthouse infobox. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Lighthouse at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Revamp of European lighthouses

We are discussing adding tables. I started List of lighthouses and lightvessels in Finland as a sample.

I now think that the "lighthouse/lightvessel" column is not needed. Also, the sortability gets ruined if we have many tables for each region in each article. One big table in each article gives great sortability for location and date built etc. So, I thought that we could make multiple columns to show location. Here is a sample: User:Anna Frodesiak/Pink sandbox. Thoughts?

Original discussion: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Yet another lighthouse template

Feedback welcome here. (I will suggest at my talk, that the discussion be continued here.)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I like your sandbox version. And I agree that we don't need the lighthouse/lightvessel column since that will most likely become evident from the article titles and/or the image. While I started editing the Germany list I also thought of lumping together all those entries in one big table. For countries with more than one waterbody we do need that specific column, e.g. to distinguish between Black Sea and Mediterranean for List of lighthouses in Turkey, or Mediterranean vs Atlantic in the Spanish list. But I would omit for countries that have a coastline only at one sea. De728631 (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm, we could do columns "water body 1" and "water body 2" or maybe just make the sacrifice and have only 1 and make a note about the second one? How often do these lights sit on a border or serve two bodies equally? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't referring to any lights at a border between two seas, but I just wanted to point out that it's a good idea to have a "water body" column in general. If there are any special cases like, say, Gibraltar, I think we can always write something like "transition between Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean". De728631 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm a dumb-dumb. I didn't read it properly. A thousand pardons. Okay, so if I understand right, the table is fine. Where there is only one possible body of water, remove the water body column completely. I like it. I will get started! Yay! I'm like a kid in a candy shop. :) :) :) Of course, it will probably take a couple of decades for the cells to get filled in, but so what? No time limit. Right away, the table-styled new list articles will give visitors a good dose of what the lighthouse deal is in that country. And I'm certain the project will show an increase in the amount of new articles. Best wishes! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the samle here. It will be removed from my sandbox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

For List of lighthouses and lightvessels in Finland, I left in the Water body column because there are two sides, the Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Finland. Is it right to have the water body col there to distinguish? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you should add coordinates if you can source them. You might want to take a look at one of the US lists (e.g. List of lighthouses in Maryland) for other ideas. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the coords idea very much. I think adding them to the very end of each "Location" or "Notes" cell may be best. That info is valuable, but why an individual column? No sortability. No improved findability. No visual info conveyed. It is basically a click-and-see link, so can go anywhere. The downside to a coords column? An extra column which narrows others and clutters the page. Thoughts on that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

List of lighthouses in Maryland feedback: 1) So many USA users to expand it. I can see the European country tables ending up with so many cells unfilled for 100 years. Besides, the tables are there for an overview with links for more details at the articles. 2) I can see "Status" being useful because at a glance, visitors can sort and see how many are doing what, and that info would be available nowhere else at Wikipedia. That is really a main point of these tables. 3) Name then image then other stuff. That seems natural. They eyes don't want to see a bunch of coords and then the image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the benefits of the coordinates is the widget to put up a map with all the locations tagged. I'll consider you r suggestion to swap the columns around on the US lists (it's a lot of work, though). Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The coords are good for plenty or reasons and I am convinced that they should be there

Like I said at the bottom post, I am really surprised that a 2006-founded wikiproject can have such wildly inconsistent lists. If you want, I can automate the column swapping. I'll do Maryland, but really, I don't think it is worth it to tackle the lot. There must be zillions of these list articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that I inspect Category:Lists of lighthouses in the United States, I see it is pretty much the convention to have the images where they are. Maybe it is best that leave it and focus on Europe and other places. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

European country lighthouse and lightvessel list article convention

Unless others object, we can use this as the main model. The following has been suggested:

• The "Water body" column be omitted where only one water body exists.
• Wherever possible, one large table be created. This will improve sortability.
• The "Region" column can be renamed if needed to whatever is appropriate, such as State, Municipality, Arrondissement, etc.

This is a list of lighthouses and lightvessels in XXXXXX.

Name	Image	Water body	Region	Location	Built	Notes
Amrum		North Sea	Schleswig-Holstein	Amrum island 00.0000°N -00.0000°E / 00.0000; -00.0000	1873	Was a vital light. Cutbacks forced its sale. Became a fish restaurant. Great, homecooked food, reasonable prices. Closed six months later. Now a McDonalds. Bustling. Old lightkeeper now in treatment for serious depression.

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* {{Commons category-inline|Lighthouses in XXXXXX}}

{{Lighthouses in Europe}}
{{Lighthouses}}

[[Category:Lists of lighthouses|XXXXXX]]
[[Category:Lighthouses in XXXXXX|*]]
[[Category:XXXXXX transport-related lists|Lighthouses]]
[[Category:Lists of buildings and structures in XXXXXX]]

Talk banners:
{{WikiProject Lighthouses|class=list|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject XXXXXX|class=list|importance=low}}

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I, too, like the idea of displaying coordinates. And that proposed structure above looks quite alright. I would add though a few explanatory sentences for inland countries, e.g.

Austria is a landlocked country in central Europe. It includes, however, a number of navigable lakes and rivers that require the operation of lighthouses. This is a list of lighthouses in Austria.

De728631 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a note on referencing. I don't think we need to put inline references in every cell of the table since that would only clutter up the reflist. It is sufficient to have one reference for each row without a main article, and imo we should place it after the "notes" text. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Explanatory sentences, I like that. Good thinking. A lead is what I was forgetting. Sure. We can mention the water body arrangement in each lead.

Sorry about dropping the refs in too many places. I'm used to that for species articles. When the paragraphs get rearranged, it is nice to have each one hang on to the supporting ref. Plus, when reflinks runs, they all groups and there is no clutter in the references section. But, for these articles, not necessary as the items' content will not get split up.

Refs after the notes text, good. Agreed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked at most of what is here. Those are pretty much all of what is redlinked in the new euro navbox. Trouble is, most have only a few items to be found at commons. I made Russia. I will dig some more, but don't want to make list articles with three items. I've moved on to fixing up the Canadian lists. I will see from there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Objections

A user has made good points here: Talk:List of lighthouses in Portugal#The recent conversion to table format. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lighthouses and lightvessels in Europe

The one at the bottom of List of lighthouses and lightvessels in Germany. I can't make heads or tails of it when I click edit. :) I there a reason it is not normal? Is it hidden somewhere that I cannot find?

Anyway, another question about it: Some of the items are "List of lighthouses in XXXXX" and some are "List of lighthouses and lightvessels in XXXXX". Is there a reason for this? Should we make them all the same? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You should now be able to edit it because it has been recoded into a standard navbox. Before that you would probably have gotten the {{Europe topic}} main template because there was no way to click-edit the wrapper template at all.

As to the Lightvessels, I suppose some countries just didn't/don't operate lightvessels because you need to have a shallow shelf sea or estuaries where such ships can be moored offshore. So I can't see how, let's say, Portugal or Spain would have used lightvessels. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the navbox is all better now. :)

So, omit "and lightvessels" in the article name (and then lead of course) where appropriate. Okay. I will follow what you have set up at the navbox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

How I will try to help

I have decided to maybe take a new course. I will probably start the redlinks at Template:Lighthouses in Europe, but only add the names and images I find at commons to encourage article creation. I am not comfortable finding sources because the websites from most of those countries are too risky to visit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we trust in the lighthouse directory which has an extensive coverage of European lighthouses and its own reference template at Wikipedia: {{cite rowlett}}. :) De728631 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice. I love that site too. I probably won't use the cite template. There are limits to my IQ, and using such templates really draws the line. :)

You can track my efforts at User:Anna Frodesiak/Blue sandbox in case you want to see if I am doing anything horrendous.

Keep in mind, I tend to edit where the wind blows me. I arrive like a storm, do a bunch of work, cause all sorts of trouble, then move on. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I do plan to continue to turn the euro light list template redlinks into blue lists using the nice source you suggest. I'll do my best. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I made 8 lists and that's it for creating new lists from the navbox. All the commonscats have only 3 or so items for what's left. Sure, there are more items at www.unc.edu but what's a table with no images? I'm doing this for two reasons only: To nail down a convention and encourage article creation. No image = smaller chance of article creation. I'll still try to convert a few existing lists to table format. Other than that, I'm done. Thanks for the help everyone, and all the best. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's some excellent work, Anna. Thank you for bringing all this up and sparking the article creation process. Now I shall I go and ponder which article first to translate from de.wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help. I can see List of lighthouses in British Columbia developing, but I'm still concerned about the conversion to table format for Spain and Portugal. Any thoughts on the "objection" above? He makes good points. Maybe split them into smaller list articles?

Aside, what would you think if http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/lighthouse/ decided to donate all the content to Wikipedia? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had already dismissed the smaller lists option in favour of overall sortability (which is also the No. 1 argument pro tables). And I agree with your latest replies over there that information will be filled in come the time. I was actually starting to flesh out your Russian table but after that I could try and see what type of data mining I can do for the Iberian peninsula.

As to Rowlett's directory, I think it would be awesome to be able to copy and paste from his entries, but let's not duplicate his work. Wikipedia is not a directory. And donating his text would always have to include the free-for-all clause like commercial re-use etc. We can't use "Wikipedia only" texts. De728631 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

About pro-tables, good. If there are big objections, we can discuss then.

About Rowlett's. I actually meant that one day, he might CC the lot and we could mass-create articles with full attribution. I might write to him at some point to see if that would be an option for his site if ever in danger of going out of existence. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Conventions

I must say that I am surprised that a Wikiproject around since 2006 did not establish conventions for List of lighthouses in XXXXX. Not even a discussion about it. Now we have:

• List of lighthouses in the Netherlands
• List of lighthouses in Iceland
• List of lighthouses in Ireland

I would like to make them all more consistent, and add images to encourage article creation. I might do a bit of work there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible duplicate cat at commons

Same? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, they're twins [5]. De728631 (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

UNC external links

Am I allowed to do this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Eh, that's quite link-farm-like imho, so I've removed all the subpages. I think people can search the lighthouse directory for "Russia" on their own and will then see the various links. De728631 (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Rowlett template

By the way, {{cite rowlett}} needs to be updated. Mr Rowlett has changed the titles of some of his chapters, changed/dropped a few html page names and has also added a lot of html subpages that are not yet covered by our template. I'm adding more parameters as I come across them, but I could need some help over there. That said, you might want to the check preview before saving an edit with "cite rowlett" inside to see if your link really works. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sabine Pass Light requested move

I have requested a move from Sabine Pass Light to Sabine Pass Lighthouse. Please weigh in on the request. Otr500 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Dubh Artach

I've added the lighthouse template to a number of talk pages, including the existing GA article on the Scottish lighthouse Dubh Artach. I placed it the mid importance category, the same as Skerryvore - someone may want to check that fits OK with the project's importance assessment...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur. This should be a mid-importance article given that it has a lot of information. The construction took a lot of effort and the wave conditions may be exceptional but the tower itself seems not to be particularly notable in the world of lighthouses to give it a "high" importance rating. De728631 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)