Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses/Archive 2

Terminology, part 3

I am not fully aware regarding what translation I should use in English for a Finnish word tunnusmajakka (also known as pooki in Finnish, from Swedish word båk). Basically it is an un-lit tower structure made of wood or stone, with close to similar proportions as a regular lighthouse structure. Someone suggested that I should use the word cairn, however a cairn is considered as a different type of navigational aid an is much smaller. These structures were commonly built in the 18th and 19th century around Finnish coasts, but older structures of same type still survive. There is one in Hailuoto called Keskiniemen tunnusmajakka built in 1858, I thought to translate that into English. --213.216.199.6 (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One possibility is "daymark" or sea mark. "Sea mark" includes structures in the water. I'm not sure from your description if a "pooki" could be on land, but even so I think "daymark" or "sea mark" would convey the right idea. -- Donald Albury 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, pooki type of structures were built exclusively on land (coasts, islands, or sometimes inland at high elevations) and commonly close to the shoreline. I remember seeing a description "fixed beacon" somewhere, could this be used? --213.216.199.6 (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at daymark; it seems to me that these structures are exactly the sort of thing you are talking about. Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize "daymark" now had an article. One problem I have with it is that I have seen structures in the water called "daymarks". Oh, well. -- Donald Albury 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the article, I think we are seeing one of those Brit/American differences (possibly abetted by the chartmakers trying to pin down the terms more precisely). Back in the day when I sailed on the Chesapeake, we called the sign-on-post thing a "daymark", or maybe a "daybeacon"-- the important point was that it was something you navigated by when the sun was up. We also (as the daymark article says at the bottom) referred to the differentiating patterns painted on lighthouses as their "daymarks". As for the things depicted in the daymark article: we didn't have any of those, so we didn't have a name for them. I get the impression that they are extremely rare in American waters. We did refer to "landmarks", but by them we meant things not maintained as navigational aids. Mangoe (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been many years since I studied navigation or spent much time reading charts, but it seems to me that everything that had a light and/or a number board was a 'channel marker' or just a 'marker'. There were only two lighthouses around; the Cape Florida Lighthouse had been dark for 80 years and had no paint left at the time, and the Fowey Rocks Light was a skeletal tower and I don't remember ever getting close enough to see what colors it was painted. :-) -- Donald Albury 23:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The mentioned article has been translate, see Keskiniemi daybeacon. Not yet categorised since there seems to be no category for navigational aids other than lighthouses. —Karvo (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, daymarkers aren't lighthouses, but we should make a connection from here. Should we wait a while to see if other articles about daymarkers show up to decide how to link to them? -- Donald Albury 13:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In Finnish Wikipedia there is a category navigational aids under which the daybeacons as well as other smaller-than-lighthouse beacons are listed.~Also general descriptions are listed in that category. I would suggest that lighthouse-categories should be used for lights generally/officially considered as lighthouses, while all others (also auxiliary lights) should be categorized under "navigational aids" or "auxiliary lights and markers". —213.216.199.6 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We have Category:Navigation, but nothing under that for navigational aids other than lighthouses. I also notice that Daymark is classified as a lighthouse stub. -- Donald Albury 17:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How can I contribute to the Los Angeles Harbor Light page.

I served on the light in the early 1960's. I found little information on the Internet on L.A. light a few years ago and decided to take on the task of researching the history of the light and create a website exclusively all about the light. I spend a couple of years but only got about half way through when I had to put the project on hold. I haven't worked on it since 2004 so I removed the data at that time. I recently gave some thought to resuming the project. However, I realize that a website that I maintained would only be short term as I am getting along in age. I then found that there was one on Wikiipedia. I found some of the info came from my research that I sharred with others, which is good. I also found some info that was incorrect or was incomplete.

I have over 100 photos, some 30 pages of Word Documents (lots of raw data and resource information). I also have a PowerPoint presentation of over 70 slides.

Is there any intrest by the WikiProject Lighthouses project in my research?

Thank you. Jimbthom (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's great! I am working on historic sites in Los Angeles area, including the List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles that includes an entry on that Light. I would be very interested in talking with you and/or meeting towards using your research and photos. To reach me, please send an email to me by the email-to-me box on my User-page. doncram (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't This Be Called the Light Project?

I have posted several items in the talk page on Lighthouses in the United States disagreeing with the renaming of all lighthouses in the United States to "Lights" -- despite substantial local usage referring to specific individual lighthouses as lighthouses and not lights. I was motivated after a renaming of Montauk Point Lighthouse to Montauk Point Light (even though nobody refers to it as such). If there's a concerted attempt to ignore local usage to impose a wiki order, shouldn't this project also be called the "Light Project"? Americasroof (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Coordination with Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

As nearly every extant lighthouse is on the National Register of Historic Places, we have some potential conflicts. For instance, I'm looking at Bluff Point Light, which uses their infobox instead of ours. I think we need to do some sort of coordination-- maybe some way to combine the two boxes for the lights in question. Comments? Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a member of either project, but several infoboxe include a few select parameters for NRHP (usually register # and date of designations as a Historic place or National Historic Landmark). That would probably be a workable compromise. Circeus (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In WP:NRHP, we have discussed coordinating infoboxes with other projects, too. A way to include a full NRHP infobox within a wp:SHIPS infobox (which can be very long) was worked out recently. In shorter articles, it makes sense to use just one infobox. In some longer ship articles about certain ship museums, it seems to work better to let there be a ships infobox at one point in the article, and to include a separate NRHP infobox later in the recent history / museum status discussion. The lighthouse infobox seems simpler. A combined lighthouse-NRHP infobox, with some extra fields to allow for NRHP information, could be worked out too i am sure. Circeus is a frequent NRHP contributor, too, by the way. I have some involvement in NRHP infobox template programming; if someone here is ready to work on template programming, please leave a note on my talk page about that.

Another issue of coordination, related to this, may be the use of the NRHP program name for a site. I just noticed the discussion of lighthouse names at Point Reyes Lighthouse. In general, wp:NRHP wants to include the NRHP name for a site in the NRHP infobox, and to include mention of that name in the article as an alternative name. The NRHP name may differ from the common name for the site, which may be the article name. The NRHP program name is included in extensive NRHP nomination and other documentation available for any NRHP site. doncram (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I added an NRHP infobox to the Point Reyes Lighthouse article, below the existing Lighthouse infobox, to help in considering what should be put into a combined infobox. About the naming issue, I don't want to overstate any insistence that the NRHP name be used in an infobox. A light or lighthouse exists first, and then later it may or may not be designated a Registered Historic Place. So, the NRHP name is secondary and it may be best not to include it at all in the infobox (though I would usually want an NRHP name, if different, to be stated as a valid alternative name for the site in the text of the article). doncram (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For lighthouses that are also designated National Historic Landmarks (higher designation than NRHP), there usually are NRHP/NHL documents and photos available on-line. I just added links to such documents and photos (including an 1885 photo that is public domain and could be added to article), to Thomas Point Shoal Light. By the way, the NHL nomination document was prepared under a "U.S. Lighthouse Society Cooperative Agreement with the National Park Service's National Maritime Initiative", in 1996-1998. I also added another NRHP2 infobox, below the Lighthouse infobox. It provides more food for thought about how a combined infobox could look. The NRHP2-included map of the lighthouse's location within Maryland is pretty helpful, i think. doncram (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a sample infobox adding NRHP matter to the lighthouse infobox; please see User:Mangoe/Point Judith Light for an example. Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I, too, thought there should be a combined template. I looked at building one today and found that the NRHP Template supports a function "|embed=yes" which puts the NRHP template into the lighthouse infobox, see Tenants Harbor Light. See Template:Infobox NRHP for complete instructions, but basically you have to put the NRHP template after the last active line in the lighthouse infobox and add (as the first line) "|embed = yes".

Acroterion _(talk) recommends this as the source of NRHP infoboxes: http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php. That certainly makes it easy. The only disadvantage is that you have to put the coordinates in both infoboxes if you want them up top in the lighthouse data and want the locater map that comes with the NRHP template. Note that the NRHP coordinates are often off quite a bit, so it's a good idea to change them to the ones in the lighthouse template.

I like to use the official USCG name for lighthouses, from the Light List if it's in service or the name from the USCG History site if it's not. This is usually different from the NRHP name (often the addition of "Station", but sometimes other things). In using the embedded infobox, I would put the USCG name at the top and the NRHP name in the NRHP sub-box. Jameslwoodward (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Point Reyes Light

We have a naming problem in that The Point Reyes Light (a local newspaper in Marin County) has co-opted then article name for the Point Reyes Lighthouse. Please see the talk page of the latter for a move proposal. Mangoe (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We have to put a stop to this

On one side I've got someone insisting that Point Reyes Light is the "wrong" name for the lighthouse; on another side, I have someone moving Lighthouses in the United States without consensus; on yet another side, we have conflicting naming conventions with another project. We must get this settled somehow! Mangoe (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely my point! The name "Light" was unilaterally imposed ALL lighthouse in the United States without a true consensus and in defiance of all traditional wikipedia rules. This is 100 percent wrongheaded and among the worst and most arrogant decisions I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Every other country calls them lighthouses. The article itself calls them lighthouses. If it towers like a lighthouse and blinks like lighthouse and everybody calls it a ligthouse then it's a lighthouse. Americasroof (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not fully agree with the sentiment that "we have to put a stop to this". That implies a kind of wish for control, perhaps bureaucratic in the bad sense of the term. Also, conflicting naming conventions with another wikiproject is not something to "put a stop to", it just is reality. There are conflicting naming conventions so it cannot be argued that one should absolutely prevail in article names. I think that that any perceived conflict is overstated. Note, in any list of National Register of Historic Places places, it is appropriate to use the NRHP program name for each lighthouse (which often seems to use the phrase "Light Station" rather than either "Lighthouse" or "Light". In a list of operating lighthouses maintained by the US Coast Guard, it is appropriate to use the USCG name for each one. Each list can display an internal consistency, but can wikilink to widely varying actual article names that may follow widely varying local preferences.

On the other hand, Americasroof is overstating matters also. Not everyone calls Point Reyes Lighthouse that, some call it a Light and some call it a Light Station. To me it is clear that moving "Lighthouses in the United States" to "Lights in the United States" is indeed wp:POINTY in a bad way and should not be tolerated. In my view, Americasroof is "wrong" for doing that, although he/she has a real point that the renaming of lighthouses to lights seems to be based on a central, bureaucratic wish for uniformity, and that disregards local and/or common usage.

In my view, for article names, local usage should usually be deferred to (with the exception of locals adopting a weird local name in contravention to widely known naming convention, for example if northern New Jerseyites started calling the Statue of Liberty as "Miss Liberty Lighthouse" or something specifically to emphasize a differentiation vs. the widely known common name for the site).

(repeating a comment in Talk:Point Reyes Lighthouse:) For what it is worth, the NRHP program name (for one site under discussion) is Point Reyes Light Station. And, in my experience in adding NRHP infoboxes and otherwise editing articles on sites listed in the NRHP, I find it is usually not worthwhile or helpful to insist that article names be changed to the NRHP naming system. On the other hand, I do pretty much insist that the NRHP program name for a site be the title of an NRHP infobox, and I seek to include mention of the NRHP name as an alternative name for the site in the text of the article, as in "known also as Point Reyes Light Station". Perhaps a combined Lighthouse / NRHP infobox could reflect the official US Coast Guard name for the site, and the "known also as" phrase could also include Point Reyes Light. And then the article name itself doesn't matter as much. Note, in WikiProject Lighthouse lists of lighthouses, they can use whatever consistent naming system they want to, but wikilink to whatever non-standardized name is used for each lighthouse article.

Hopefully these comments are helpful. doncram (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Turtle Rock Lighthouse

• I think we need to get a better picture for the Turtle Rock Lighthouse. I've looked on the internet but they're all copyrighted. Another lighthouse article I started, the Lorain West Breakwater Light, needs a picture too. I don't want to violate Wikipedia rules and regulations or copyright laws, but articles look so much better with pictures. Would fair use qualify? Mrld (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

US Coast Guard has rearranged its website

The root of the light station lists is now here. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Combined lighthouse/NRHP infobox

I'm trying to put together a modified lighthouse infobox that has NRHP material in it. Please see User:Mangoe/Point Judith Light for a sample. The discussion seems to be taking place on the NRHP WP talk page here. Please contribute so that we can come up with something to eliminate the rampant duplication of infoboxes. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lightship naming

There is a discussion ongoing at WP:SHIPS over the conventions used in lightship naming. Since lightships are somewhat in the scope of this project, I wanted to drop a note here. JRP (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the discussion: WT:SHIPS#Lightship naming and standardization --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Three way merge proposed of range/leading lights

Discussion of merging range light, range lights, and leading lights is happening here. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lighthouse at Hook Head

I've been fleshing out the lighthouse on Hook Head, but it's not clear that it should be called Hook Lighthouse or Hook Head Lighthouse or something else. I'm inclined to move it to the latter name, but I'd rather have some confirmation before I do this. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

USCG verbatim transclusion

This section, Bodie Island Light#Timeline, is a word for word copy of the USCG source here. I don't see a copyright on the USCG site. Is it normal to use USCG data this way? If so, I'll cite it more properly as a quoted section. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The quotation is legal, since the material from the USCG is intrinsically PD. However the USCG articles are produced by amateurs and volunteers, and often contain mistakes. For instance, if you look in the infobox for the article in question, you'll see that the editor preferred the NPS date for automation over the USCG date.

I always edit the material from the various sources into a single narrative when I write these articles, but I haven't started taking the time to go back and do so for articles such as this one. It's easier to start from scratch, and at least there's some material in these articles, even if it isn't what I would consider well-writtem. Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As Mangoe says, US government (Federal only) produced material is in the public domain, but Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Plagiarism that does not infringe copyright is pertinent. Please do add proper citations to any such material you run across. -- Donald Albury 02:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. That helps. Are the changes that I did to this section acceptable for attribution? Cheers,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Lighthouses

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

El Morro or Port San Juan Light name

I happened to find this article while looking for any articles that might say "Port San Juan", which in my part of the globe is the harbour of Port Renfrew, British Columbia. Port San Juan is not yet an article but when it is should be a disambig, with one link going to this article, which obviously shoudl be either "El Morro" or "Port San Juan Light(house)".Skookum1 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsuccessfully trying to add a link about a pertinent article

The light is one of several that is up for sale/acquisition under the terms of the Lighthouse Preservation Act. The article is on the subject of Michigan Lighthouses on auction block.]</ref> This article is being deemed spam, and the edits are being blocked. It is not spam so far as I can tell. I can't put the link here, as it is "blacklisted" so we can't talk about it. This would seem to be a real conundrum. I tried to put it in the edit summary, and it's still blocked. This is b.s. from my viewpoint. I am putting the beginning of the hyper link in bold lettering, so perhaps we can dupe the filter so that somebody can take a look at this.

http://www.

associated

content

.com

the end of the link is as follows:

/article/955951/michigan_lighthouses_on_the_auction.html?cat=54

If you put together the bolded material, then you have the link. This is very frustrating.

The title of the article is Michigan Lighthouses on the Auction Block History for Sale, By Sandra Petersen, published Aug 22, 2008. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

Michigan Lighthouse pictures at Archives of Michigan

Fellow lighthouse editors: I have uncovered an awesome collection of Michigan lighthouse pictures, namely, the Archives of Michigan, which appear to be public domain, albeit requiring that they be credited as coming from the "Archives of Michigan." These could be wonderful additions to our lighthouse articles, if they are usable under wiki policy. These include pictures from many other states (e.g., Illinois, Wisconsin). Lots of lifesaving service pictures. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

Sand Island Light

Sadly that article is a copy violation from here. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've wiped all but the infobox and the lede, and will start work on a new version. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've also moved this to Sand Island Light (Alabama) because of the light in Wisconsin. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead links replaced

All of the articles under Lighthouses in California have the dead link (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBLIGHTHOUSES/LHCA.html} replaced with "live" link: http://www.uscg.mil/history/weblighthouses/LHCA.asp

Whew! Also, all articles have infobxes except Point San Luis Light. I hope I've helped in some small way. Thanks to User:Mangoe! Cheers, Marcia Wright (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is true on many lighthouse pages still. I'm trying to clean up the NY lighthouses for this an a few others. I don't know about CA, but the USCG page for NY also is "inaccurate" on a few things, specifically for http://www.uscg.mil/history/weblighthouses/LHNY.asp there are lights in Buffalo that are mixed up. Ahwiv (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

San Luis Obispo county lighthouses

What is the relationship between San Luis Obispo Light and Point San Luis Light? The article for the latter states that it is NRHP-listed, but it is the other one which is linked from National Register of Historic Places listings in San Luis Obispo County, California (which also includes Piedras Blancas Light Station in San Simeon.) Are these two San Luis ones the same, and then should the two articles be merged to the older wikipedia article? doncram (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii lighthouses attention requested

There are four lighthouses in Hawaii that are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, which I note when working with others to develop List of RHPs in HI. These are Kilauea Light, Diamond Head Lighthouse, U.S. Coast Guard Makapuu Point Light, U.S. Coast Guard Molokai Light. These seem not to have had attention of WikiProject Lighthouses. Help developing these articles would be appreciated! There may be NRHP infoboxes in some/all. I for one am very supportive of your adding a lighthouse infobox also, and/or merging the NRHP information into a combo infobox as has been done sometimes. Also I think the NRHP name should be retained in the article as an alternate name and shown as the NRHP name, but I think you should feel free to rename the article if appropriate. doncram (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been preparing to work on Makapuu Point Light but haven't had the time yet. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There are spelling issues with these lights. The Coast Guard in almost all cases prefers to omit the apostrophes. I am inclined to stick with this. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Given my experience with the editing errors in the Coast Guard names, descriptions, and even locations, I would agree with your assessment. Ahwiv (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mango for developing the Makapuu light article. About apostrophes, I don't follow exactly what Mangoe is referring to. The 4 article names do not have any apostrophes. If Mangoe is referring to local Hawaiians' usage of apostrophes, such as for the article named Makapu'u Point linked from the Makapuu Point Light article now, and for Kauaʻi and Hawaiʻi mentioned in the Kilauea Light article, I think that should not be a big concern of the Coast Guard or of wikiproject Lighthouses. Let the good people of Hawaii or Hawai'i spell their places however they like, is my opinion. :) doncram (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about article-moving fights. It seems that we do have a consensus to stick doggedly to the names on the USCG page, though, which means that the list on Lighthouses in the United States is going to have to be revised. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair concern, but is there consensus to stick doggedly to the USCG names? (I'm not trying to open the Light vs Lighthouse issue), but there are multiple USCG lights and they are not consistent with each other. For example, I've been trying to get the NY lighthouses in shape, and List 1, List 2, and List 3 are not consistent, and some things are just plain wrong. (I think list 3 is the one normally referenced) The Buffalo lights on list 3 are wrong and in one case describes a different light, list 2 has a daybeacon that I can find no evidence was ever a light, one light that is so far in New Jersey that it is sometimes listed in Delaware, one light that I can only find evidence was a fog station, not a light station, and so on. I think giving deference to the USCG is appropriate, but but not doggedly sticking to the list that might have errors. Ahwiv (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I apologize for overstating. What I meant about sticking doggedly to was the USCG names-- that is, preferring their spelling etc. Mangoe (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I was not understanding your point, and I just wanted to be clear why I'm unconvinced that USCG is not as much an authoritative source as any of us would like. That actually was a surprise to me. I'm going through several sources now trying to more clearly identify the NY lights, and document why I think they are. That would seem to me to be something this project should try to define, at least for WP. What is a light?(by any name) Do private ATON count? Does having a keeper a requirement? In most of the country it probably doesn't matter, but to which state does a light belong? In the NJ-NY-CT area, the understanding of the location of the state boundary has changed over the years, and lights that were thought to be in one state are actually in a different state. In one case, state1 passed legislation giving the "land" to the federal government to build the lighthouse, it was for years it was identified by the LHB as in state1, even the CG identified it as in state1, but today almost everyone knows it as in state2. State2 never passed legislation giving it to the US government. To which state should it be identified? Sorry to unload on you, but I find the pages upon pages of ranting about light vs lighthouse tedious, but other clarifications unrecognized and not discussed. If they are somewhere, I've certainly missed them. Ahwiv (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The "light vs. lighthouse" verbiage is because we are vulnerable to drive-by busybodies who want to invoke WP:COMMON to force us to rename some pet article (or everything). A lot of the other problems have gone unresolved for lack of unassailable resources. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the drive-by people. (Well, actually I don't understand them) I don't see an inherent value in one over the other, so I'm more than willing to let someone else decide, and live within the decision. I guess though that my complaints fall into the same boat, the lack of unassailable resource, though I would have used the word authoritative sources. Two sides of the same coin I guess. While I value all the work you've done and your opinion, I was hoping others would chime in too. I guess I scared them off. Didn't mean too. Well, I've taken us far from Hawaiian lighthouses. I'd guess I'd still suggest using the apostrophe, since that is the correct spelling locally. WP is inconsistent in use of local spelling vs generally known spelling. Munich is Munich and not Munchen, thought the latter redirects, and Makapuʻu is Makapuʻu and not Makapuu, though again the latter redirects. I think I'm also going to extract some of the above what defines a LH from above to a separate section to see if I can get anyone else engaged. Ahwiv (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like replying to yourself. Looking at Hawaiian_language#Glottal_stop would lean me to not use the apostrophe.('okina) Ahwiv (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

including NRHP infobox within Lighthouse infobox

Often it would be better to include an abbreviated version of the NRHP infobox in at the bottom of a lighthouse infobox, rather than having two separate infoboxes in the same article. I know that there exist one or two good examples where the NRHP infobox is included within the lighthouse infobox, but I can't find any. Could anyone please point me to examples? An example where the NRHP infobox is included in a ship infobox is USS Pampanito. I would put example of how to do it for lighthouses properly into documentation for the NRHP infobox. If it gets there, it will be at Template:Infobox nrhp/doc and/or template:infobox nrhp/testcases. Good candidates for merger include Point Judith Light, Point Reyes Lighthouse, and some of the 4 Hawaiian ones discussed above. doncram (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:21, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)