Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses

Discussion open

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 Kong

Please refer to Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau#Lists of lighthouses in Macau and in Hong Kong. 124.217.189.46 19:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wrong venue - the discussion is taking place at Talk:List_of_lighthouses_in_China#Discussion_to_split_Lighthouses_of_Hong_Kong_and_Lighthouses_of_Macau_into_their_own_separate_articles. Atsme 💬 📧 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No forum shopping please.[1] 124.217.189.46 20:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.189.46 (talk)

New subsection

Still not concluded? 219.76.24.205 (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion was not taking place here so this is not the place to query about it. --Muhandes (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

But this involves the general directions of this WikiProject with respect to countries which are territories. And after all it was forum shopping, as it had been pointed out above by some other learned editors. 219.76.24.205 (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous, whatever your cause is, be certain that meaningless necroing harms it. --Muhandes (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Manning a lighthouse

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? 219.76.24.198 (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.) 219.76.24.213 (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? 219.76.24.206 (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 nothing to do with the noun forms. 219.76.24.205 (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

What about based? Controlled? Served? 219.76.24.205 (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Dependent/overseas territories

Should most if not all those territories marked green on the Lists of lighthouses have their own Lists of lighthouses in Foo? 219.76.24.210 (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? 219.76.24.200 (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. 219.76.24.210 (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. 219.76.24.212 (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. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If there are no opposite views this should be done. 219.76.24.222 (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)

I'd love to hear why it is considered not settled. 219.76.24.205 (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Would RfC be needed?

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? 219.76.24.212 (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. 219.76.24.198 (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. 219.76.24.196 (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. 219.76.24.213 (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. 219.76.24.213 (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If the consensus here among participants is clear enough then RfC is probably not needed. 219.76.24.198 (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. 220.246.55.231 (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. 219.76.24.208 (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

User adding extra map to infobox

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)