Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Lighthouses (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Lighthouses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lighthouses and other water navigational aids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Discussion openEdit

Talk:List_of_lighthouses_in_China#Discussion_to_split_Lighthouses_of_Hong_Kong_and_Lighthouses_of_Macau_into_their_own_separate_articles. Members of this project are invited to participate in the discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 15:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Lists of lighthouses in Macau and in Hong KongEdit

Please refer to Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau#Lists of lighthouses in Macau and in Hong Kong. 19:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: move identifiers out of infoboxEdit

Lighthouses have several identifiers, like admiralty number, NGA ID, ARLHS ID, USCG number, and so on. Currently many of these are displayed in the infobox, but it may be more appropriate to move them out of the infobox into a "authority control" type template at the bottom of the article. The rationale: these identifiers are not human-readable, and not of interest to the casual reader. They are useful for editors or researchers, so should remain in the article, but at the more standard (and less prominent) place for identifiers used in other areas of the encyclopedia. I will make a mock-up so people can understand the proposal better. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The example below shows a lighthouse with 4 identifiers in the infobox, and how it could look with the authority control template at the bottom of the article instead — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Current (infobox)Edit

Puerto Morelos Lighthouse
CharacteristicFl W 6s  
Mexico no.CF-23-170

Proposed (authority control)Edit

The above is for illustration purposes only. I am not proposing to use the "Mexico number" because I am find no reliable sources to verify what it refers to. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
How do you propose to address articles with multiple infoboxen, e.g. Fitzroy Island Light? --Muhandes (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
That is a good question. Data can get rather confused when an article covers more than one lighthouse. Some editors try to mix data into one infobox using qualifiers like (first), (second), (current), etc. which can be quite hard to follow, whereas other editors use an additional infobox which is clearer. We can adopt the same approach with the authority control. If an article is mainly about one lighthouse, then its AC box would relate to that lighthouse. If its scope is two (or more) lighthouses then we could look at adding an additional box. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Noting discussion at Template talk:Authority control/Archive 11#Articles which cover more than one thing, clearly a generic approach is expected and the relation with Wikidata made clear. In case some more examples are needed: Pine Islet Light, Cape Bowling Green Light, Lady Elliot Island Light, Cleveland Point Light. --Muhandes (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the examples; there are indeed many of them. Thinking about this some more, I have noticed that in most cases, when a new lighthouse replaces an older one, it seems to inherit the identifiers from its predecessor (e.g. Admiralty number in both Fitzroy infoboxes is K3168). Is this true? If this is the case, then we probably don't need to worry so much about this, as the current/active lighthouse will provide the relevant identifiers. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't say this for sure as I never researched it thoroughly. There are some cases where a new identifier was issued, mainly I suppose when a light was moved. I see discussion is moving forward at Template talk:Authority control and maybe something will come out of it. I think the main concern should be how to make this change. You will obviously need a bot to do all the changes, and such a bot will need to mark pages with more than one infobox for manual handling. --Muhandes (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply. I have been working on other things which will eventually help this conversion to proceed. We still have 0 articles in need of a Wikidata item and I am working on resolving these. It will be much eaier if all the relevant identifiers are on Wikidata. If anyone is able to help with these, let me know! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: I don't know if you are still interested in this, but there is some progress to report. All the identifiers from the infobox have now been migrated to Wikidata. I believe I have resolved most (if not all) of the data conflicts caused by articles covering more than one lighthouse. And I have started adding some of these identifiers to the authority control template. For example, look at the bottom of Bjargtangar Lighthouse. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Yes, I noticed you good work on sorting the data for articles in my watchlist, and lately the addition of {{authority control}} to some of them. For sure there is no point in listing these identifiers in the infobox if they exist in the authority control. I haven't been following the discussions so I'm still not sure how multiple infobox situation are handled. For example see Fitzroy Island Light, where I don't seem to get the NGA listing. Can you comment on that? --Muhandes (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
There has not been any progress on adding separate items to the authority control, and I think it will be a long time (if ever) before this is supported, because there seems to be some resistance to the idea. I will resurrect the proposal, but it may be necessary to create a temporary fork of that template to achieve what we need for this project. Fitzroy Island Light is attached to Fitzroy Island Light (Q5455705) which is the 1973 light, and we are using a separate qid to add the infobox for Little Fitzroy Island Light (Q105885742) built in 1992. As the NGA and admiralty number correspond to the latter, they do not currently display in the authority control. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Sadly, this is exactly the concern I raised to begin with. I don't see how we can remove the data from the infobox before this issue is resolved. On the other hand, adding authority control without removing them from the infobox will reuslt in redundancy. --Muhandes (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This is my mock-up of how it could look like in the case of more than one lighthouse being covered by one article. I will propose it at the authority control talk page. If implementation is delayed we could in the meantime use a temporary version for lighthouse articles, and merge it later. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. --Muhandes (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Can I ask your opinion on linking to the USCG list (as in example above)? It is a very large PDF file in some cases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm not familiar enough with Authority Control to know if this is the standard way of handling the issue. --Muhandes (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Me neither. Quick update: all lighthouse articles now have {{authority control}} so I have removed the identifiers from the infoboxes which are covered by these. That leaves 508 articles which have a custom QID, which still need to be dealt with somehow. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: I've made finishing touches to the template. You can see results here: Template:Lighthouse identifiers/testcases. Do let me know if you have any suggestions because otherwise I am ready to deploy. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no further suggestions. --Muhandes (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Just a quick note that this is, I believe, now fully completed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Lighthouses articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussionEdit


Category:Lighthouses articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting help in sourcing for an articleEdit

An editor has offered a source that contradicts the sources used in Sand Key Light. Is anyone interested in sorting out the contradiction at Talk:Sand Key Light#Keeper in 1846? - Donald Albury 20:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I had a look and proposed a compromise. --Muhandes (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Naming convention Light vs LighthouseEdit

Jupiter Inlet Light uses "Light" in its title but official sites and use "Lighthouse". I was going to just move it until I noticed all of the Lighthouses of Florida also use "Light". Is there a naming convention that has a preference for this? I'd think lighthouse more accurately refers to the structure as a whole and should be used when the sources use it. Reywas92Talk 05:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Thanks for checking before moving. If you go through the archive you will see that this is not an uncommon issue in this small and dormant community, repeating every couple of years, the most recent one being probably two years ago. While this was never settled, the following is my understanding: mariners look at the aid to navigation, i.e. the primary source is Light List (or List of lights). They will most often use "Light". Landlubbers will look at the structure, and will often use "Lighthouse", following sources such as conservation lists. There might be more to it, but you will almost always find sources which use "Light" and ones which use "Lighthouse" (on a personal note, being navy originally but now more than 20 years away from sea, I find myself a bit conflicted). Since both views are valid, my understanding is that the "consensus" is to keep the status quo. If one writes a new article, one tries to conform to the standard used at that region. Otherwise, we let it rest as it is. You can see what most of us think in the small list of GA articles, with only one "Lighthouse" (as of 2021). I think this is as good a consensus as we can ever achieve on this subject. Again, thanks for checking before moving. --Muhandes (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Reywas92 and Muhandes:, having been involved on this discussion 15 years ago (and starting, and therefore naming, most of the articles about "lights" in Florida), I argued that the aid to navigation is the "light", while the structure supporting the light is a "lighthouse" (and many of the "lights" had more than one "lighthouse" over the years). The US Coast Guard tends to use "light" (or "light-station") for the aids to navigation that it maintains, while popular works aimed at the general public use "lighthouse". Just to complicate things, in the last 15 years the Coast Guard has shut down many of the lights, and has been transferring the structures to other agencies, or even selling them to the highest bidder. It seems that most people are more interested in the structures rather than the navigation aides, and many of the structures survive, even though no longer used as lights. In other words, I am leaning to not objecting to an RFC to rename those articles. - Donald Albury 23:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree with this sentiment, since many are better known for the building and in this case a legal designation for the natural area that includes it. I'm not sure it needs to be a whole RFC since I now see the essay Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(architecture)#Lighthouses doesn't show a preference (the prior discussion did not reach a conclusion to use Light), but I do think the Jupiter Inlet Light/house should have a name that conforms to its WP:COMMONNAME and any others shouldn't face resistance. Not that I need a bulk rename – I came here since this is one of three Outstanding Natural Area lighthouses. Reywas92Talk 22:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I tend towards the status quo but I certainly don't feel strong about it, and unless someone comes up with some convincing argument, I will not object. I think you can treat it as WP:RM#CM, and remember to leave a note here. --Muhandes (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally I favour "lighthouse" because our article is normally about the whole building not just the light. Indeed there are many lighthouses which house more than one light, and in these cases it could be quite confusing/misleading to call the article "light". However I agree with the above that, absent strong consensus either way, status quo should remain. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

But there are many cases which aren't "houses". (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
According to our article, a lighthouse is a tower, building, or other type of structure designed to emit light — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
In the Japanese lists on ja wiki there are buoys, lights on breakwaters, and so on and so forth. (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A couple of reasons for going slow on any renaming are, 1) there are a lot of articles affected, and 2) some editors who participated in the naming discussions years ago are still active, but may not have noticed this discussion, yet. One advantage of a formal RfC is that it should generate wider participation, and leave less room for any complaints about how a decision to rename a bunch of articles was reached. - Donald Albury 18:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Would it end up that some of the facilities previously listed would no longer be accepted for listing? (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Only if it is determined that the light/lighthouse never met the notability guidelines. A light/lighthouse does not lose its notability just because it is no longer in use. The General Notability Guideline states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - Donald Albury 22:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
What about some notable ones which may not be considered by some people as houses? (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
If reliable sources call something a lighthouse, then we call it a lighthouse. In common usage, that includes conical and skeletal towers as well as lanterns sitting directly on a building that looks like a house. In fact, I'm sure that most people first think of a conical tower when they hear the word "lighthouse". I do make a distinction between "light", which is an aid to navigation, and "lighthouse", which is a structure that supports, or used to support, a navigational light, but the structure does not have to resemble a "house". - Donald Albury 21:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes that's very true. But I'm worried that some editors may disagree. Some of them might only think about conical towers and not those with other form of structures. (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Anonymous, do you have some specific article in mind or are we theorizing? If we are only theorizing, as Donald explained, notability is independent of type of structure, it depends only on coverage in reliable sources. As Martin pointed out, the word "lighthoues" is defined broadly as "any structure designed to emit light". As a matter of convenience, I personally use Rowlett's list selection criteria: include any fixed (not floating) aid to navigation, displaying a light, having a height of at least 4 metres (13 ft) and a cross-section, at the base, of at least 4 square metres (43 sq ft). This is not a notability criteria and has nothing to do with the Light vs Lighthouse naming convention. On the latter, we all have different opinions and we all respect each other's opinion by keeping the status quo. --Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
As mentioned, some Japanese ones which are covered by the corresponding lists on Wikipedia Japanese. (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The Japanese Wikipedia has its own rules and guidelines, and there is no point in discussing those here on the English Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 16:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes but I am just mentioning those lighthouses as examples. And yes they got their own tiles and guidelines but other Wikipedia versions may sometimes serve as points of reference. It isn't going to be helpful to stop whenever we hit something which isn't part of Wikipedia English. We aren't talking about something from another planet afterall. (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
That's the concern I raised above too. (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Manning a lighthouseEdit

An editor has been mass-changing "manned" to "staffed", with the rationale of using non-gendered language (example). I don't think it sounds correct to talk about staffing a lighthouse. Are there any synomyms of "manned" which would be suitable replacement? Crewed? Some variant of "stationed at". What do people think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Staffed sounds alright to me. Why doesn't it sound correct? (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Dunno, sounds more like a 9-5 job and misses the continuous nature of the job of keeper. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Crewed sounds good. What about kept? (Still I don't think staffed isn't the right word.) (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I quite like "crewed" even though I haven't heard it used in this way before. But I was also happy with "manned" and suspect the relatively few female lighthouse keepers were not bothered by that term either! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
What about stationed? (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The noun form would be awkward - "station" refers to a place, "stationer" is someone who sells stationery, and "station keeper" invokes someone who keeps a vessel in proper position relative to other vessels. - Donald Albury 14:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
But there's probably northing to do with the noun forms. (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Dependent/overseas territoriesEdit

Should most if not all those territories marked green on the Lists of lighthouses have their own Lists of lighthouses in Foo? (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with this if there are several lighthouses in that region. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Say, two or more than two? (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
There is the precedent of List of lighthouses in Ascension Island. - Donald Albury 13:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Almost all these territories got their own lists already. But two were folded into the list of their respective sovereign state with no discussion. (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
There are lists of lighthouses in Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, the Åland Islands, the Falkland Islands, Isle of Man, the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, Greenland, Saint Martin, Curaçao, French Guiana, e.g. (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I see no problem with having these lists. --Muhandes (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree. It's simply peculiar to have the idea to (up)merge these lists. These are their own lists and have no where to be upmerged to. (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
If there are no opposite views this should be done. (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing to be done. The consensus was to leave lists of lighthouses in dependencies separate. The issue of whether Hong Kong and Macau are dependent territories is disputed and was not settled here. - Donald Albury 13:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Would RfC be needed?Edit

Would the discussion above (and along with those at, e.g., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries) be sufficient to serve as the basis already to retain the lists of lighthouses for those dependencies with (as Knowledgekid87 put it) "several" lighthouses? Or alternatively would RfC be the preferred way forward? (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless someone specifically proposes to delete/merge elsewhere those lists, and at least some other editors support the proposal, I see no need for an RfC. We don't need RfCs to maintain the status quo. - Donald Albury 18:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
FYI I suspect this whole thread is about getting support to split List of lighthouses in China into List of lighthouses in Hong Kong for which they have failed to get consensus on the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Further to what Martin mentioned, List of lighthouses in Macau and Lighthouses in Hong Kong were forcibly folded into the Chinese list undiscussed. In the former case an administrator was involved. The original proposal was meant to restore the status quo before that merger (i.e. separate lists for the territories), but then that progressed to forum shopping.[2][3] So the answer to Donald's question: No one specifically proposes to do so. It was simply done. The status quo was broken straightaway and the convention was just disregarded, and some of them, including an administrator, resist to restore the status quo. Do we need an RfC to retain the status quo in such case? The consensus above has been, imo, more than clear though, but it's always better to talk and see whether most of us would agree that's sufficient or otherwise. (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Without commenting on how the the change was made, I will note that while Hong Kong and Macau used to be dependencies of the UK and Portugal, respectively, they are now "Special Administrative Areas" of the PRC. There would be a stronger case for keeping "List of lighthouses in Hong Kong" and "List of lighthouses in Macau" if there were lists of lighthouses in various Chinese provinces, comparable to the lists of lighthouses in the various US states. Unfortunately, I strongly suspect that this issue is tied up with political views of the PRC, and crafting a neutral point of view solution will not be easy. - Donald Albury 12:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
They are still considered to be in the same category as all other inhabited dependencies and special territories and presented as such in publications. On the other hand they aren't according to the constitution of the People's Republic falling into the same group as provinces and special cities. So provinces and states aren't quite a comparable case. For the latter half of your comment: Wikipedia is known to be infiltrated and having "security risks" and the Wikimedia Foundation have recently gone that far to ban some editors and administrators from there. Hopefully things will get better soon. (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Who considers Hong Kong and Macau to still be dependencies? If the majority of reliable sources say so, then Wikipedia should follow them. However, we should not rely on sources that have a political bias on the question, one way or the other. The relevant policies are Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, including the section on due weight. - Donald Albury 13:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Donald you may perhaps want to take a look at articles like List of dependent territories and List of countries and territories by continent, and among the many many Lists of countries such as List of countries by GDP per capita. (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Here are some precedence cases on Wikipedia which we may look to: Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings, Talk:List of tallest buildings, and Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations. With these on hand we may decide on whether it would or would not be necessary to have just another RfC. (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
If the consensus here among participants is clear enough then RfC is probably not needed. (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
RFCs, if ever needed for this, would have to follow the relevant MOS, conventions and NPOV policies. Comments in contravention with these guidelines should be disregarded and these users should be advised to go to the talkpages of the corresponding guidelines. (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that many people turn a blind eye to these rules, and for some articles there are a group of editors staunchly defending their position, as if they own those particular articles. (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Matamoros LighthouseEdit

Hello! I've created a stub for Matamoros Lighthouse, but User:Tbhotch and I have also seen a couple sources describe the subject as a "beacon". I don't know much about beacons or lighthouses. I just want to make sure this article is appropriate for associating with this WikiProject and I welcome editors to make further improvements to the entry (and/or clarification re: beacon vs. lighthouse, if needed). Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

'Beacon' may refer to what is sometimes called an 'aerobeacon', which have been used as navigational lights, sometimes replacing the more traditional lantern and light in established lighthouses. The pictures I see in some of the sources are consistent with the base of an 'aerobeacon,' and the construction date of 1932 is within the period in which aerobeacons were being erected to guide aircraft and, sometimes, ships. While the structure is called a "faro" in the sources, what seems to be missing is an explicit statement that this beacon was intended as a navigational guide for ships. - Donald Albury 20:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
If it helps, the plaque of the one found at the Malecón reads: "This beacon was inaugurated on August 15, 1932. During the day it provided service with a black-and-white bar signaling system. At night it used a dioptric beacon with acetylene equipment. One hundred and ninety-three meters from this point is another [location] beacon, on Matamoros Street. Both concluded their service to the ships when the port in the estuary of El Salado came into operation, on August 20, 1970." (CC) Tbhotch 03:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be the lighthouse named by Rowlett as Puerto Vallarta Posterior (Range Rear).[1] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@MSGJ Thanks! See also: Malecón Lighthouse ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ Rowlett, Russ. "Lighthouses of Mexico: Northwest Coast". The Lighthouse Directory. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.


We have List of lighthouses in Norway and also Lighthouses in Norway, which is basically a list but organised slightly differently. I am thinking of merging these two articles. Does anyone have an opinion? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. --Muhandes (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Norway probably wasn't the only such case that two lists existed. But most if not all of them have since been merged. (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I got distracted from this, and I'm now working on lightvessels. But I will get to it one day ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


We currently link to the ARLHS's World List of Lights on almost every lighthouse article. It strikes me that this resource, although extensive, is not particularly useful in most cases, and not WP:RELIABLE either. I think it may be an appropriate external link, but I don't think we should (a) cite it as a reference, or (b) display it prominently in the infobox.

Three randomly chosen examples:

The first one has a photograph; the second two have nothing except very approximate coordinates of the position. What are people's opinion of this database? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of a single time I used ARLHS as a source. Is there a reason not to add it to the Authority Control? --Muhandes (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added it to authority control, as there was no opposition there. (No comments at all to any of these proposals actually.) I have to question if it should be there if it is not useful though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Cite ccgllEdit

I noticed that this citation template has been nominated for deletion. I thought this template (which links to the Canadian Coast Guard's List of Lights was in use, and I wonder why it is not used now. Does anyone know about this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ulenge Island Front Range LighthouseEdit

Hello, anybody out here being able to take a closer look at this file? If this is the one, the image could be added to the article. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lotje: Comparing to File:Bundesarchiv Bild 105-DOA0792, Deutsch-Ostafrika, Tanga, Leuchtturm.jpg, this looks like the same structure to me. The existing image looks better to me, though it needs cropping. --Muhandes (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
That image is from before 1918, as Germany lost German East Africa (Tanganyika) in World War I. The image that is already in the article seems to be of the same structure. The Lighthouses of Tanzania site, which is linked in the article about the lighthouse, says that the Ulenge Island Range Front was established in 1924, which, if correct, would mean that the photos are of another lighthouse at Ulenge. I think you need to dig around to try to figure out the history of lighthouses at Ulenge Island. - Donald Albury 14:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
We also have the stub Ulenge Island Rear Range Lighthouse, which is using the same image — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
According to Rowlett, these pictures are of the rear range light — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox for light stationEdit

Our current infobox {{Infobox lighthouse}} works really well for standalone lighthouse articles, but not so well on articles that cover multiple different lights. I came across one example where there were 7 different lighthouses which were operational at different times, and the information was confused and excessive. I'm thinking of designing a new template for use on leading lights, and light stations with multiple historical lighthouses. Will post further ideas shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It was actually 8 not 7 and I was thinking of the Dungeness Lighthouses. For an example of a confusing infobox with multiple different lighthouses at different times: Dog Island Light — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
At first I thought you were referring to Unmanned reef lights of the Florida Keys, which I cobbled together almost 16 years ago (about the same time I created the Dog Island Light article). Looking at 7 minor lights with similar structures and minimal history, I decided that creating a separate article for each light would be excessive. I will admit the article is awkward. Any ideas on how to improve it? - Donald Albury 22:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
What if making it a table, with columns like coordinates, power sources, focal heights? Like a table on the size, population, highest point, etc. of each island under the geography section of an article for an island group? (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The biggest problem I see with that is that it would require seven columns, many of which would have to be wide enough to make the table too wide to show on even large dispays, let alone mobile devices. Maybe there is a way to limit the column widths without looking too clunky. I may play with that later. - Donald Albury 15:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Cotonou Lighthouses  
LocationCotonou, Littoral, Benin  
Water bodyGulf of Guinea  
Coordinates6°21′06″N 2°26′28″E / 6.3517°N 2.4411°E / 6.3517; 2.4411
Operational dates
1910–1928 white stone tower  
1928–1968 red and white concrete tower  
1968–26 m grey concrete tower  
Active light
First lit1968  
Focal height31 m (102 ft)  
Range20 nmi (37 km; 23 mi)  
CharacteristicFl W 5s  
I've made a draft using a table, at User:Donald Albury/unmanned reef lights. I'm thinking that I should flip the table, putting the light names across the top, which would make it easier to add rows for things like tower color, depth of water the tower stands/stood in, fate, etc. - Donald Albury 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the table is a definite improvement. And personally I would stick with the orientation you have. You could combine coordinates with location, perhaps saving a column. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about an infobox with three sections:

  1. General information about the light station (e.g. location, coordinates, operator)
  2. Dates that each lighthouse was operational with summary of construction (further data available by clicking link to wikidata)
  3. Details on the active light (if applicable)

An example from Cotonou Lighthouse is shown. The current arrangement completely swamps the article; this version would be more succinct, I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I have tentatively started adding this to a few articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong imageEdit

Article about Manitoba's George Island Light has a wrong image on it, the one in the article is the image of lighthouse in Nova Scotia. --2001:14BB:A8:8503:5C09:F8F:8ABA:15AC (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed! I cannot figure where the infobox in that article is loading from, so I cannot remove the image. - Donald Albury 20:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The image was from the Wikidata, The issue seems to be resolved. --Muhandes (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the update. - Donald Albury 16:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox references to a coast guard site are all dead linksEdit

All of the infobox references which are named uscg7 go to a dead link. There is a template, cite uscgll, used for generating the references. I've been individually replacing them with the live link equivalents, but across all US lighthouses, that would be a lot of work. Who could fix it?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Please can you give an example? Hopefully we can just update the template so you will not need to edit each article separately. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Found from your contributions.

The first link to volume 7 of the list of lights works fine for me. The link you added is also good. Why did you remove the uscgll link? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover and MSGJ: I   Fixed {{cite uscgll}}. If it was removed from articles, it should be reinstated. --Muhandes (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I notice that the links from the authority control template are not currently working, e.g [4]. I'll make the same change on that template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you; I added the references back from the articles which earlier I had removed them from.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User adding extra map to infoboxEdit

Abune is adding an extra map to lots of lighthouse infoboxes (example). In my opinion two maps in one infobox is usually excessive. Even if this change was desired, it should be made at the template rather than tacking it on to each article. I have tried to discuss with this editor but they have carried out making these changes. What do others think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I'm with you, the infobox is already too crowded, a second map is excessive. --Muhandes (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)