Talk:List of lighthouses in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Completed States[edit]

  • Washington, Alaska, Arizonia, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, and most of California should have articles on all lighthouses. Hawaii should have all lighthouse entries. If there is a lighthouse missing from the list, please add it to the state and mention it here so I can make an article on it. --Digon3 15:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light or lighthouse?[edit]

Is there any kind of consensus on whether article titles should use lighthouse, or just light? The Coast Guard uses light in their lists. I ask because I started Carysfort Reef Light and someone immediately moved it to Carysfort Reef Lighthouse. As I plan to create articles for all of the lights/lighthouses in Florida that don't already have one, I want to be consistent in naming. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Use lighthouse. It is consistent with WP:Style. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was FireFox, btw, and it seems to have been due to his RC patrolling - I would have brougth him in on the discussion about light/Light/lighthouse etc, but he does not appear to have a Lighthouse interest, looks as though he was just fixing what he thought was a misnamed article. Concur? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For technical reasons I prefer Light rather than Lighthouse The history of lights sometimes involves more than one structure. The Sand Key Light, for instance, started out as a masonry tower, was replaced by a lightship when the tower was destroyed in a hurricane, and finaly was placed on a skeletal (open frame) tower on a screw-pile base. The Cape San Blas lighthousehas had four different structures, and the last one has been moved at least once. I would emphasize the difference between a light, which is a navigational aid, and a lighthouse, which is a structure housing a light, although I realize that most readers are looking for lighthouses. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For all the articles, move to Light as opposed to Light and Lighthouse? Pls. clarify - thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 19:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to use Light in the names of articles, and Lighthouse in the names of redirects. That would require some existing redirects to be deleted to allow the required move operations. I think I've already had my quota of Wiki battles for the month, so I'm not going to get too excited about this. :) -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its been over two weeks, does anyone else have a position? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would suggest using whatever the official name is by the organization that monitors and controls them... in this case "Light" for all USCG controlled lights. It's the official designation and the proper name for almost all USCG controlled lights. Plus "Light" gets on average 8x the Google hits then "lighthouse" when used as the search perameter on a lighthouse name. Also it can be argued that "Light" is proper in many cases such as Portland Head Light as the full proper noun is Portland Head Light or Portland Head Lighthouse... in either case it should be capitalized which for proper nouns is inline w/ WP:MOS. Other examples of similar structures would be Empire State Building and Golden Gate Bridge. Note that the generic term at the end is capitalized as part of the structure's proper name. Gateman1997 01:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further addition here the US Park Service which owns and controls many of the plots of land these lighthouses sit on also refers to them by their full proper noun names http://www.cr.nps.gov/maritime/light/me.htm. Gateman1997 01:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I thought the recent changes to lowercase "l" was ill-advised, but I was feeling unmotivated to put foward any disagreement. older≠wiser 03:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My error completely, apparently. Are there any I should move? In which case, I will want to wait until a clear consensus on names is arrived at, I don't want to be fixing redirects on lights and lighthouses ad infinitum, or making another error. - KillerChihuahua?!? 03:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with moving Cape Hatteras to "Lighthouse" seeing as that is the more common usage for it by locals. I admittedly am more familiar with West Coast and NE lights where "Light" is the norm in common use.Gateman1997 04:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my thought: different publications and organizations use different manuals of style - I know the WP MoS, but not the CG MoS. According to the WP MoS, lighthouse and light should be lower case. If there is discrepency, common useage trumps other MoS styles. In that instance, lighthouse and light are lower case, as they are usually not capped. Gateman1997 informs me lighthouse and light are part of the proper name, in which case they are capped. I believe Dalbury leans towards that position as well. My position: we need to decide, and be consistent. I know the WP MoS, I don't know lighthouses as well. It would be nice if we had a lighthouse project, but we don't, and capitalization was inconsistent. I made them consistent per WP MoS and what I thought trumped, which is WP MoS over differing styles. If the light is part of the proper name and there is significant reason to cap, I will go through and move all the lighthouse and light articles and fix the redirects. I just want to ensure we have consensus prior to doing that. Is there a situation where upper case L would not be appropriate? It may not be feasible to have consistency.
I appreciate your time and effort on this - thanks much for your input! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:KillerChihuahua (talk • contribs) .
I wish there had been more input when I first asked this question. USCG uses Light in the names of the structures[1], as does the NPS[2], but both also use lighthouse in informal and generic senses. More formally, a light is a navigational aid with specific characteristics that allow ships to identify them from a distance, while a lighthouse is a structure that raises a light to an appropriate heighth.
The common perception of a lighthouse is a tall tapering cylindrical (often described as conical) tower with a lantern at the top. Of course there are also lighthouses that consist of a lantern perched on top of a building that looks like a house, and there are skeletal framework 'lighthouses'. There are even some lights on skeletal towers that were never manned, and so never had living quarters or any kind of enclosed structure associated with them. I have some of that type of light on my todo list, but I have not made up my mind whether to actually create the articles.
As for capitalization, I would prefer Light (or Lighthouse} to be capitalized as part of the name of the structure, but I'm not going to fight over it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding capitalization, where does the WP MoS, indicate that lighthouse and light should be lowercase? If it does say that explicitly, then I think it is wrong. It does clearly indicate that proper names of things should be capitalized. I don't know much about CG usage, but in common usage here in Michigan, the "L" is almost always capitalized. older≠wiser 13:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) Lights and lighthouses are not specifically mentioned. I used WP:STYLE pages in several places, including Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Ambiguity_persists and WP:NAME. I apologise if my earlier post was unclear. I can post more references in the WP MoS series if you are interested. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do agree with your interpretation of this had their been persistant ambiguity. But seeing as we have the two entities in charge of these lighthouses referring to them as "Light"s I think the ambiguity has faded. And yes a LH WP would help solve that making it clear that at least in the US they are a full proper noun along the lines of Empire State Building or Yankee Stadium where the generic qualifier is actually part of the proper name.Gateman1997 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will put it on my to-do list to move all of them as soon as I can get to it - I have family in from out of state this weekend so my time is limited, but rest assured I will do it very soon. As I said before, I know MoS not lighthouses, and am more than willing to accept that my understanding of the "common use" terminology was off. Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 13:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. There is no rush to move them back seeing as their aren't that many anyway.Gateman1997 19:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am delighted to hear you are in no rush, because there are over 400, and I will be checking for redirects and fixing them as I go. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have started moving the lighthouses, are you not fixing links as well? I don't want to be duplicating effort or having edit conflicts. thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 14:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) Done except for FL and NC, and final QC. Waiting on Dal's input for FL, should be able to finish NC today or tomorrow - there are a lot of bluelinks. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is VERY inconsistent - If this is true, then why is this article referred to as "Lighthouses" rather than "Lights" I am objecting after Montauk Point Lighthouse was changed to Montuak Point Light. The USGS topo map (and therefore the official USGS name refers to it as "Lighthouse." Further most articles still point to the lighthouse designation which is the most common usage. Lights can mean lots of different things. Lighthouses are very clear.Americasroof (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have noticed, this was settled nearly 2.5 years ago. The synopsis of the above discussion is that Light is preferred over Lighthouse because
  • The official naming boards prefer Light (Coast Guard, Lighthouse committees).
  • Many navigational lights do not have a house.
  • The rest of the discussion revolves around the capitalization of the word.
As you note, the English word lighthouse is almost perfectly associated with the proper meaning in everyday usage, whereas light is associated 99.9% of the time with some other meaning. Unfortunately, that's how English works. The only alternative I've thought of is to call this article Marine navigational lights in the United States. What do you think of that? —EncMstr (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is ever really settled on Wikipedia just because some editors who happened to be online at a particular time agreed to it. ;-) I paid no attention to the debate (or was even aware of it) until a lighthouse I'm very familiar with got its name changed. I think there is an attempt to impose order via original research when in fact the naming is chaotic. The general lighthouse article can be whatever the consensus says (e.g., light or lighthouse or whatever). However the name of a specific lighthouse should follow precedents. The name in the U.S. should be derived in the following order 1). Official GNIS name 2) Official local usage particularly using the name of its owner/operator 3) Official USGS map 4) Other official lists (e.g., the U.S. Coast Guard). In the case of the Montauk Point Lighthouse, there is no "official" name on the GNIS database but there is the usage of the name "Montauk Point Lighthouse" by its [3] operators, and its name appears as "Lighthouse" on the official USGS map. We should not be forcing name changes on lighthouses that are different from local usage and local maps. If you're going to do that you might as well start changing city names. Americasroof (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up Sandy Point Light in the GNIS database, and it does not even acknowledge that Coast Guard assigns names to these things, though it does admit "Sandy Point Light" as a "variant", citing some pamphlet from the Maryland Office of Tourism. The Fort Carroll Light appears only under that name, with reference to the same pamphlet; presumably the USGS ignored it because it doesn't "exist". They list Drum Point Light as a "lighthouse" first, based on an article in Maryland magazine; and then goes to the pamphlet again. This does not instill confidence in me as to the worth of the GNIS in this instance.
As far as "official local usage of owner/operator": that would be the Coast Guard. The naming is NOT chaotic: the USCG calls them all "lights". The only reason it appears chaotic in the GNIS is that what appears there seems to be a hodgepodge of authorities assembled under a dubious methodology. The Coast Guard has to best claim to being the naming authority under the circumstances, and since they are completely consistent, they give us a simple rule rather than a lot of arguments. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems changing the name for the article on devices from to lighthouse or lights or whatever. But we're doing this bad ass backwards. There's a wiki lighthouse project, the article on the lighthouse is called lighthouse and not light. And so why in heaven's sake would we when it comes down to naming individual lighthouse would we totally ignore local usage and attempt to impose order. If there's a local name for a lighthouse the local name takes precedent. By the same logic should we rename Missouri City, Missouri to "Missouri Hamlet" because it doesn't meet the criteria for a city? Yes the names are chaotic but that's local usage. In New York we even have a Lighthouse Light. If you want to impose order then change the lighthouse article and lighthouse project names don't change the names of individual lighthouses. Millions of people call Montauk the Montauk Point Lighthouse and not the Montauk Point Light.Americasroof (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sombrero Key[edit]

The United States Geologic Survey sets official names for places. They call it an island that is ten feet above sea level called Sombrero Key. They have no entry for a Marathon Key, so I am not sure where the National Park Service got that name (which is where the "Sombrero Key Light, Near Marathon Key, Florida" originates). Stating it explains why the light is called Sombrero Key Light, not something Reef Light. Also Marathon, Florida seems to be the nearest town, not Key Vaca. Rmhermen 05:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dry land named Sombrero Key. Sombrero Key is a submerged reef. This Coast Guard site [4] refers to area as Sombrero Key, Dry Bank and Sombrero Shoal. The name goes back to the Spanish, and it appears that there was an island there when Florida was still Spanish, but by the 19th Century, when the lighthouse was built, the island had eroded away and the area was known as Dry Banks because portions of the reef were exposed at low tide. The Coast Guard has the lighthouse standing in four feet of water. I had removed the reference to Marathon Key because there is no such thing. The City of Marathon occupies Key Vaca and Boot Key. Key Vaca is the closest land to the Sombrero Key lighthouse. This Coast Guard site [5] refers to area as Sombrero Key, Dry Bank and Sombrero Shoal. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the best place to see the lighthouse from is the seven mile bridge in Marathon, I imagine people conflated "Marathon" and "key" and decided Marathon was a key. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS is sometimes wrong, you know - I lived on a mountain in Ga which they had two miles wrong - we contacted them, they told us they had our area on the schedule to be re-surveyed, in 10 years. It had last been surveyed in the 1950s. That was in a populated area. They don't get out to the reefs often. Some of these places have not been surveyed since the 1930s, and a lot of mistakes have been made. The darn thing is not on a key because there is no key there, there is a reef which the Spaniards called Sombrero key because at times they could see sand above water. That was in the 1600s, I think. There is no land there, and no key. Lets be accurate, shall we? USFS is not the best source for information on where a reef light is located. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Cockspur Lighthouse[edit]

I don't think the information is correct on the cockspur lighthouse. It is in Chatham County Georgia and I drive by it every day. I don't know much about it but I could provide the few details I can roust. Any opposers? JohnCub 21:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that I reread what I wrote it's not that the info isn't correct, there just isn't any there. I'll dig up what I can and start a page. JohnCub 21:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie help anyone?[edit]

I've been working on my first real wiki article, Cockspur Island Lighthouse and would love some input, comments, suggestions, critiques, what have you. I tried to mimic a lot of what I saw on other lighthouse pages but the truth is I know almost nothing about lighthouses. I just happened to have one near me that needed wiki'd. If all goes well I'll be working on the Tybee Island Lighthouse soon. JohnCub 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you've got a decent article there. [6] has some additional historical information you could incorporate, and a nice public domain (US government product) photo of the lighthouse. [7] doesn't look like it has anything you haven't already found, but does have another (older) public domain photo. In any case, web sites used as references are easy for other editors to check. I like to use both internet and printed references when I can find them. Both sites have information on other Georgia lighthouses, as well. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the info and criticism, I'll get on doing some of that as soon as these old bones get over the chill of traversing the Atlantic without a boat. :P Hoping to get a definite source on the newspaper article I have (I have the article, it is just not dated or stated that it is from the local paper. Will follow up on that this week.) JohnCub 23:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin section sorting[edit]

Is there any objection to me resorting the Wisconsin section to match the sorting on User:Dual_Freq/Lighthouses_in_Wisconsin. Note, that the list on that page is only links without pages or stubs and I've added some extra bits for some. I would like to sort the list into a couple sections, Lake Michigan / Lake Superior / Lake Winebago for the main section and subsections with sub subsections for Door County and Apostle Islands. I'd also like to use the pound (#) sign to number the Wisconsin list instead of bullet points. Let me know if there are any objections, otherwise I will implement this sorting at some point in the future. --Dual Freq 18:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think making an exception just for Wisconsin is a good idea. Alphabetical sorting is simple and obvious. What would the proposed numbering be? By age? By relative latitude? By order while walking counterclockwise around the lake? Rmhermen 19:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They would be still alphabetical, but instead of having to count how many are there in the state, the last number would tell the answer. As for the other states, I've only sorted to WI ones right now. For example:
  1. Fond du Lac Lighthouse, Fond du Lac
  2. Neenah Lighthouse, Neenah
  3. Rockwell Lighthouse, Oshkosh
See? Alphabetical and numbered indicating a total of 3. Somewhat more convenient than saying hmm, I wonder how many lighthouses are on Lake Winnebago, then manually count them. I actually wanted to number them by longitude, indicating which ones would need to be lit first at sun set. (yes that's sarcasm) --Dual Freq 20:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't they all lit 24 hours a day now? However I still disagree with sorting into bodies of water just for Wisconsin. Are you proposing to do the entire list? Rmhermen 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be pretty simple to change all *'s to #'s with a text editor and do a bulk find / replace, so yes, I guess I could do them all. Not quite what I had in mind, I thought it would add more functionality to the list if some of the states were broken down into groups. Like Michigan, that one is huge, maybe if it was sorted by Lakes it would be easier to read. --Dual Freq 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was so easy, I just did a find/replace and updated the list. Revert if you don't like it, but I kind of like it. The only problem was Michigan had a photo in the middle of it and any gaps between lines throws off the count. --Dual Freq 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did revert - but for a new reason. Notice Rhode Island - than check out Rhode Island in the external links. Huge numbers of lights are missing. This also effects other states' "totals" (although RI was the worst I noticed). Rmhermen 21:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point on how having a numbered list could misrepresent the completeness of the list, but it could also provide an incentive to people to help complete the list. Someone sees that RI is missing a bunch of lights, then they help out and add more to the list. The incomplete notice could be moved to the top of the page to further clarify this. I thought sorting them further within the states would help clarify things too, but I suppose we don't want a list that's sorted down to counties. --Dual Freq 21:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New section for Interesting Facts[edit]

I'm thinking of merging the List of tallest lighthouses in the United States to this page - it's a tiny page and it makes sense to me to expand this page rather than keep that one around. I'd like to add a section to this page for Interesting Facts about US Lighthouses or something, incorporate the list of tallest, and also include the faqs found here: [8].

If I do this, I think I should move the list of states under a Lighthouses by State level 2 heading to make the contents more navigable.

Sound good? RainbowCrane 03:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As List of tallest lighthouses in the United States has only three items, I would prefer to just mention them in a short paragraph at the top of this article. I'm wary of an Interesting facts list, as those kind of things tend to become useless trivia lists. There is a Notable Lighthouses section in the Lighthouse article. I think it would be better to handle what you want to do in that manner (i.e., in one or more paragraphs) rather than as a list or series of lists. In fact, I think it would be appropriate to have a brief summary in this article of areas such as the history of lighthouses in the United States, with links to articles like the United States Lighthouse Board and United States Lighthouse Service, to give some context. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive red links[edit]

Per the Manual of Style on links, an article may be considered overlinked if ... more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I intend to start unlinking non-existent articles in this list. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an appropriate criteria for a list. Any list item which should have an article (and generally any link which should have an article) should be linked. This is what makes lists different than categories - there ability to include as-yet-unwritten articles and, therefore, be complete. Rmhermen 14:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about the list criteria, but if any delinking goes on, please hold off on Oregon--they are only four and I can whip up stubs on them tonight. Katr67 14:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article is a case where the red links point to articles that would be valuable to create. The red links also prompt people reading this article to create stubs when they hit a red link for a lighthouse they're interested in. RainbowCrane 14:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's why I posted here first. One problem with red-links is that the red-link may not be the title the article gets created under. There have been a couple of debates about what form lighthouse article names should take in the nine months I've been active, with large numbers of article names being changed (moving existing articles and modifying red-linked titles) more than once. Whether a non-existant article is red-linked or not linked, it is still obvious that it does not exist. I will admit that the lighthouse list is one of the better examples of a list, not least because it can be verifiably completed. I also posted my proposal before I saw the lighthouse project tag. If an active project is overseeing this list, I'm less concerned about maintenance problems. Alright, I'm withdrawing my notice of intent. I have enough other things to do, anyway. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I've been modifying the redlinks slowly to the names they should be at which in the US is "XX Light". I've just got Florida and one other big state left and they should all be where they belong. I just haven't had time to move articles involved w/ Florida so if anyone wants to help and move Florida lights to their correct XX Light name I'd appreciate the hand. Gateman1997 16:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since many of the Florida lighthouse articles were moved at least once before, you will need to get the redirects deleted before you can move the articles back. I might add that I originally created several of the articles with Light in the name, only to see them moved to lighthouse. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the moves you mention would have happened when KillerChiuaha made his ill advised move to lighthouse from Light and Lighthouse. He's since changed his opinion on the matter. Gateman1997 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles where there are now red links is the goal of the lighthouses WikiProject. Please continue to create those articles! --Draugen 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Michigan has more lights and more red links. Rmhermen 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a complete list? --Digon3 02:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created several articles but it is slow going. --- Skapur 20:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of 10/06/06, 8 states have complete lists and no red links (except for locations)--Digon3 18:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external links to USCG list[edit]

I think putting a link to the USCG list at the top of each state is ugly. In the case of Florida, it was also completely unnecessary, as every light station on the USCG list already has an article and is listed here. If you want the USCG list as a guide to what needs to be added, at least hide it. Better yet, go ahead and add all the lights from the list to each state. -- Donald Albury 13:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very useful to have those links. As articles are added, the need for them reduces but I refer to them a lot. Florida is an exception as articles exist but the links are a substitute for Red links in the meantime --- Skapur 20:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every lighthouse in Washington State and Alaska also has an article. USCG list is completely unnecessary and ugly. California also has every lighthouse listed but not an article for every lighthouse (that will be changed soon, hopefully) --Digon3 17:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The USCG links can be removed when the articles are added but as long as a state has red links or missing entries, the USCG link is a very useful reference. Sometimes beauty has to be sacrificed for functionality. Also, Ediz Point light and Semiahmoo Harbor light is listed in the USCG list but NOT under Washington State in the article. Similarily Cape Sarichef light, Fairway island light, Lincoln Rocks light and Scotch Cap light are in the USCG list but NOT under Alaska in the article. --- Skapur 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for putting them up there Skapur, I have created articles for them. WA and AK should NOW have a complete list of all lighthouses. --Digon3
Thank you! --- Skapur 00:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've masked the links, making them appear as
"USCG's complete list of STATENAME lights."
—wwoods 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Liberty is a Lighthouse[edit]

I have reverted the removal of the Statue of Liberty from NY lighthouses. See http://www.lighthousefriends.com/pull-state.asp?state=NY&Submit=Go , http://www.lighthousemuseum.org/harbor.htm , http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/lighthouse/ny.htm which all include them in a list of NY lighthouses. Apparently it was maintained by the US Lighthouse service in the later part of the nineteenth century and had a lighthouse keeper and a light that could be seen for 24 miles. --- Skapur 17:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch.Gateman1997 16:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Can some please start these, I am having trouble starting articles on them:

Santa Cruz was destroyed and Mark Abbott Memorial Light was built in its place in memorial for a surfer who died.

I have started the rest in CA, Thanks--Digon3 16:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Lights[edit]

I added the Florida Lights with the information from the Inventory of Historic Light Stations. Is it too much information for the list, badly formatted, just ugly? Looking for feedback, before I do any other states. Rmhermen 17:52, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • Do you mean the infobox? If you do then it looks good, but try to keep short statments only. --Digon3 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Light[edit]

I've added Triton Light to the Maryland section. It's not on the USCG's list, but it seems to be a Maryland lighthouse indeed... So is the USCG list incomplete, or is my addition mistaken? --zenohockey 01:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The USCG list is not complete, although some people think it is. I regularly find lighthouses not on their list. Triton Light is probably not mantained by the Coast Guard, so its not on their list.

P.S for your article, can you please provide the infobox, its the format we are trying to use here. Thank you --Digon3

I am not sure I would call a light bulb atop a ten foot pedestal a "Lighthouse". If that were the case, there are literally tens of thousands of lighthouses in the United States. For scale, see picture on top of page 8 of this PDF: http://www.usna.edu/CharacterDevelopment/charquart/cqv5n4web.pdf A Navigational Beacon, yes, A Lighthouse, No. The USCG Lighthouse list is pretty good despite your opinion of it. It is not complete as far as non USCG lighthouses are concerned but is still a very good public domain encyclopedic reference. For quite a few lighthouses in the states that you have removed the link to the USCG list, there is a lot of information in the USCG list that is not in the Wikipedia articles on the same lighthouse. Also, most of the Hawaii structures that you cite are more lighpoles than lighthouses.--- Skapur 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought I had reached the limit of what should be counted as a lighthouse with Unmanned reef lights of the Florida Keys. After hesitation, I did include those lights because they were originally equipped with lighthouse-style lanterns (and because they were about 50 feet tall, although height is not definitive for a lighthouse). I did not include at least two private 'lighthouses' in Florida that I know of, because they are not recognized by the CG as navigational aides (one marks a privately owned island, the other is part of the decoration at a marina and campground). And I agree, the CG list is pretty definitive. I would be leary of including any 'lighthouse' that isn't on the CG list. -- Donald Albury 11:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I'd actually rather someone more knowledgable than me do the content work...I don't know anything about that lighthouse, nor lighthouses in general; I only visited that page to fix a template. --zenohockey 02:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did, however, place an {{Infobox Lighthouse}} tag on the page. And since, even with all this controversy over whether it's even a lighthouse, Triton Light is still in Category:Lighthouses in Maryland, I modified the category description to cover navigational beacons as well.
Okay, now I'm done with lighthouses... --zenohockey 20:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact definition of a lighthouse?? Definition of lightbeacon?? Wheres the line? Triton Light is pretty obvious, but some other are not. As for Hawaii, I hadn't looked at the descriptions yet, so I didnt know some were lightbeacons, now I do :) Digon3 16:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lighthouse article is a pretty good starting point. All lighthouses are lighted beacons but not all lighted beacons are lighthouses. The United States Coast Guard lights list glossary is of not much use as it simply defines a lighthouse to be "a lighted beacon of major importance". It also defines a beacon to be "A lighted or unlighted fixed aid to navigation attached directly to the earth’s surface." --- Skapur 03:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what should I do about Hawaii? If someone put all the names of what they think are lighthouses in hawaii on the list I will create articles for them.
There's no point in trying to create articles unless you can find enough material in reliable sources to make more than one sentence stubs. -- Donald Albury 17:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do, and I create the articles with alot more than one sentance. See the states from alabama to georgia. Put the names of what you think are lighthouses in hawaii and I will create articles for them. --Digon3 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needed: citation for "The most photographed lighthouse in the world"[edit]

Lots of lighthouses make that claim (Google it). How could this be verified? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.78.109 (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC). Marsh 15:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this on Portland Head Light.. While the claim is impossible to verify, it probably is noteworthy inside the article if a lot of people 'claim' it to be true.--Dk69 15:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another sorting point[edit]

It seems to me that it would make sense to sort according to active/inactive/demolished, seeing as how in Maryland (for instance) probably half fall into the last group and less than a quarter fall into the first. Mangoe 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania list[edit]

Could someone explain why the list in the article and the USCG list are almost entirely disjoint? Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no one has updated this article. Be bold. —EncMstr 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I had some clue about the discrepancy I would, but seeing as how there's only one light that's on both lists, I would rather someone who had some actual knowledge look at it. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is wholly inadequate if that's all there is. See Rowlett, Russ, Lighthouse Directory, Pennsylvania Lighthouses University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

A good source on U.S. lighthouses and part of the rest of the world[edit]

List of lighthouses and interactive map for entire U.S.A. Check it out. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]

Turning this article into a table[edit]

Per discussion on the "list of tallest" article, I would like to consider turning the bulk of this article into a sortable table. I would suggest the following columns:

  • Name (linked)
  • State
  • Location (text? lat/long?)
  • Status (e.g., extant, moved, deactivated, etc. -- we need to come up with a standard list)
  • Dates (illuminated, automated, deactivated)
  • tower and FP heights
  • type (screw-pile, tower, house, etc. -- again we would need to standardize this)

Discussion please? Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this would be valuable. Additional column ideas:
  • location by state + county (in that order, so sorting groups the states first)
  • location by coord
  • location by type (ocean, bay, river)
  • lens type
  • range (visibility distance to horizon from infobox)
  • access (open to public, closed, B&B guests only, extremely limited, etc.)
I wonder about putting a tiny thumbnail image, but that probably wouldn't be practical. —EncMstr 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of location:
  • "County" strikes me as being less useful, as for one thing we don't record it now in the infobox. Also, the maps we have generally don't show county lines out into the water. FInally, we have some offshore lights that aren't in counties.
  • "Lat/long" is potentially accurate but unilluminating.
  • "loc. by type" I think makes most sense but should be location by body name (e.g. James River, Chesapeake Bay).
I don't think lens type is very helpful. All the older lights have gone through at least one lens change, and there are a few cases they have been through four. We would have to pick which one to record. Range on the other hand is possible.
I'm not too keen on access because it is likely to become dated. It is also leaning in the direction of a fannish directory.
With literally hundreds to load, images would be a bad idea. This thing is going to be huge as it is.
Thanks for the suggestions. Shortly I shall put up some samples which we can discuss further. Mangoe (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An exceptional source on lighthouses[edit]

Rename this article to Lights in the United States[edit]

Per the logic in the above discussion that we should unilaterally name all lightships, light beacons and lighthouses in the United States to "lights" totally ignoring local usage. Then this article should be renamed "Lights in the United States." Americasroof (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention for lighthouses in this list[edit]

I noticed (Americasroof comment above, although i don't see the prior discussion about an effort to "name all lightships, light beacons and lighthouses in the United States to 'lights' totally ignoring local usage", which would indeed be a concern. I do note that the naming of lighthouses in this list looks bizarre to me, i cannot believe that the common name for all the lighthouses would be so consistent. It strikes me that the list becomes Original Research, if it reflects an naming convention that is the outcome of a decision by wikipedians to impose an "orderly" or otherwise desirable naming system that is not used in practice.

Perhaps it could be helpful to note, however, that if there does exist a list of lighthouses put out by some entity, it can be okay to use that one source's set of names for list-article like this, with appropriate sourcing. What is displayed in this list can be the names from that source, but the wikilinks can go to the actual articles that can retain their local, current, common names.

I speak from having worked on many list-articles of places listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and on many list-articles of National Historic Landmarks (for example List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles and List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina). As a general principle, in these lists we use the NRHP program name for sites in the NRHP lists, and we use the NHL program name (which may differ) for sites in the NHL lists. Hope this is helpful. doncram (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i see the Talk:Lighthouses in the United States#Light or lighthouse? discussion section above dating from 2005. Again, it seems to me that the article names should follow local, common names (which will vary, some will be Lighthouse some will be Light). List-articles, with appropriate explanation upfront and in footnotes to definitive sources, can follow the convention of the USCG or the NRHP or whichever, and display a different, consistent set of names, although wikilink to the disparately named common names for individual lighthouses. doncram (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, shouldn't they follow national, universally recognized names? Anyway, I've yet to find any concrete evidence that this local preference for "light" or "lighthouse" is anything but the fantasy of this or that contributor. Mangoe (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to decommissioned lights being labeled as "lighthouse" if there is infact evidence to support such a change. But with regard to active USCG operated light stations, "light" is the appropriate label regardless of local usage. Similar to how sports stadiums are listed on Wikipedia by their official names, not local names, nicknames, or previous names.Gateman1997 (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So let's go to Exhibit A which is what got me posting. Look at the page http://www.montauklighthouse.com/ It is the page of the Montauk Point Lighthouse by the owners and operators of the lighthouse. As I have posted it appears on USGS maps as "Lighthouse" No where is it ever referred to as "Light" There lights and lighthouse on Long Island. If there was any commitment to the argument that they are all aribtrarily called lights then this article should be named "Lights in the United States." But there is no movement to do that because it would raise an uproar. Maybe I should just go ahead and make the move and see what happens. Americasroof (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, WP:POINT. And besides, right in our article on the light, it is admitted that it is still an active light named "Montauk Point Light". Mangoe (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you are throwing out WP:POINT. My point is that in just one example on one very prominent lighthouse, it is called a lighthouse. The article even still has Lighthouse in bold and the light was not even changed. My point on all this is that there is no accepted name for ALL lighthouses and this change is trying to impose order when order is impossible to impose. If your argument has any integrity whatsoever change the name of this article as well as the Lighthouse Project itself. Americasroof (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually your topo map reference above doesn't really support using "lighthouse" over "light". On that map, "lighthouse" is being used in the generic sense to indicate that indeed a lighthouse does exist at that part of the point. However it doesn't list the lighthouse by name. You'll notice where the USCG does infact list that lighthouse by name the official name is MONTAUK POINT LIGHT http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBLIGHTHOUSES/LHNY.html. And as an active light station the owners and operators are the official name is designated by the US Government, regardless of what some locals call it. Alot of locals call the stadium in Oakland, The Coliseum, doesn't mean the official name isn't McAfee Coliseum. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off I acknowledge the NOAA maps consistently show an abbreviated and consistent "Light" However the Coast Guard introduction actually calls them "light stations" and then lists them as "lighthouses." http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBLIGHTHOUSES/USCGLightList.html I suspect the Coast Guard is merely shortening them for map purposes. To follow on your example of McAfee Coliseum we don't change the name to McAfee Stadium because we want to standardize the names of all athletic venues. The operator of Montauk calls it a Lighthouse. Americasroof (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing that the coast guard lists them as "lighthouses" though? If you read the NAMES of the lighthouses/stations/lights they are specifically listed in the proper noun form as "Lights" with a capital L. Lighthouse is used by the USCG along with Light station as a generic identifier of the structures, but when identifying them by name "Light" is used. And they're very consistent about it. The National Park Service uses the exact same structure in reference to lights/lighthouses/light stations trasferred to their jurisdiction http://www.nps.gov/history/maritime/light/montauk.htm. Montauk is currently under the USCG's jurisdiction and as such the official name should be used. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Americasroof, your best argument for Montauk would be to use the Google test. It does bear out your opinion on that particular light station. I'd be amenable to taking lights on a case by case basis, and if the common usage does in fact support such a move making it if agreed upon. Would this compromise be acceptable? Gateman1997 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not foaming at the mouth quite as much as when this discussion started. I do understand the "Light" logic given the coastal navigation maps (although I still suspect the "Light" was used as shorthand for map purposes). The much quoted Coast Guard list http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBLIGHTHOUSES/USCGLightList.html is entitled "Historic Light Stations" and makes several references to Light Stations in the paragraph. Using "Light" avoids the thorny issue of the proper name. The third graf of the article refers to them as "lighthouse" and the state by state list is entitled "LIGHTHOUSES BY STATE OR TERRITORY:" While I'm using Montauk as an example another prominent Long Island Lighthouse Fire Island Lighthouse should be referred to as "lighthouse" as that is what it is called by the NPS. In New York some lighthouses have a proper lighthouse name and "light" nickname (Jeffrey's Hook Lighthouse http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/parks_divisions/historic_houses/hh_little_red_light.html (the Little Red Light) and Long Beach Bar Lighthouse in Orient, New York. http://scroope.net/lighthouses/longisland/longbeachbar/ which is nicknamed "Bug Light." I suspect that virtually all major lighthouses are properly called lighthouses. Check out Cape Hatteras http://www.nps.gov/archive/caha/livecam.htm. My point in all this is that a wholesale renaming of lighthouses should never have occurred. I suspect that most of the articles were probably written by people familiar with the common name for the lighthouse and initially used the proper name until the wholesale renaming occurred. Americasroof (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By and large I'd say your wrong in that final assertion. Most of the articles didn't exist until the lighthouse project created them. And Light was used when they were created. Were some renamed, sure but at the time that was the consensus. Consensus can change and if consensus is to move select articles to Lighthouse or even Light Station where supported by common usage (or even Little Red Lighthouse as in your example above) then by all means lets do it on a case by case basis. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this article has a link to each state's list of lights from the Coast Guard (e.g. North Carolina); if you will stop for a minute and look at the lighthouses in those lists, you will see that every single one of them is named "Light", not "Lighthouse". There's no need for assuming or supposing or suspecting.
And while we're approaching this from a reality angle: of the 48 entries in Category:Lighthouses in Maryland, I created 30 of them. Another member of the project created all but a handful of the rest. Two of that handful-- only two-- started as "X Lighthouse", and both were moved two years ago. Attempts to change several of the others have been undone. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google tests[edit]

As suggested above, here are the results of Google searches for possible names for the Montauk Point facility, first for the groups of search terms and then for the phrases in quotes.

Here are a few results from searches of the news archive.

This is a very clear indication to me that Montauk Point Lighthouse is the most common usage. Unlike the Point Reyes Lighthouse v. Point Reyes Light test, where the latter name gets many exta hits from the newspaper of that name. Montalk is not even close. --Hjal (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New lights in New Jersey[edit]

For some reason, the Elbow of Cross Ledge Light was not copied in from the USCG list. I have also added an entry for the Cross Ledge Light, which for some other reason the USCG doesn't list. Its remains show up on charts, though, and lighthousefriends has a article it. Mangoe (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii[edit]

It is unclear where the list for Hawaii was derived. For now, I have commented out those that are not on the USCG page. I have also altered the spelling to match that page. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moved Romer Shoal Light from New York to New Jersey[edit]

The Coast Guard history site http://www.uscg.mil/history/weblighthouses/LHny.asp shows Romer Shoal in New York, which is probably why it ended up in this list in New York. However, the National Register of Historic Places puts it in New Jersey, so I checked it out. NOAA charts don't show state boundaries, so I looked at the USGS topo quad, which does. The light is in New Jersey by about 500 feet, hence the change here. Since it's a redlink now, it doesn't matter much, but perhaps when it becomes an article, it should be shown in this list in both states? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be listed in New Jersey, with a note somewhere that the USCG page incorrectly places it in New York. The Coast Guard data are not infallible; they were mostly compiled by civilian volunteers. Mangoe (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another level of hierarchy in USA lighthouse lists[edit]

User:PGPirate has created List of lighthouses in North Carolina, which is a tabular presentation of some basic info with images. It's not bad. The problem is that it completely obviates the North Carolina section of List of lighthouses in the United States, where he has linked to the new list as well as leaving the present list in place.

I see the following points in dealing with this:

  • I think there is no hope of pushing through a decision to not have articles like the new one. If it went through AFD we would be buried in "Keep useful" votes.
  • Since it is likely to be kept, we need to find some way of dealing with the country-wide list. What would be nice would be if the USA list somehow rolled up the state lists, the way the AFD by-day logs roll up the articles within them.
  • We need to decide how to organize the lists, especially for cases where there has been more than one light at the same location, but also what data to list.
  • Creating the lists properly is going to be a lot of work. The small work is tabularizing the data; the large work is citing all the data.
  • We need to work out how to deal with the secondary use of the current lists as a repository for articles that haven't been written yet.

If we go through with this, I'll make the Maryland and Virginia articles since I wrote most of them. Mangoe (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I initially reacted negatively to the North Carolina list -- why duplicate the national list? It seems to me, though, there are two very good reason to do both. The first is that we have seen at various lists of National Register of Historic Places sites that {{coord}} takes a long time to evaluate -- so long that in long (200+) NRHP lists it slows down loading dramatically. Therefore we could never include coords in a national list of lights. We can, however, include them in the state lists, which would give us the opportunity of producing a Google or Bing map with all the lights in a state. The second is photographs. We could never put a thousand photographs up in one list, but the by state articles can easily be illustrated.
I agree that it needs thought. My knee jerk is to prefer focal height to height, as the former is available for every active light while the latter, depending on source, may be structure height above ground, structure height above water, or focal height. Also is "year first lit" the current structure or the date the station was established? I find it interesting that North Carolina cites neither of:
  • "Historic Light Station Information and Photography: North Carolina". United States Coast Guard Historian's Office. Archived from the original on 2017-09-23.
  • Light List, Volume II, Atlantic Coast, Shrewsbury River, New Jersey to Little River, South Carolina (PDF). Light List. United States Coast Guard. 2009.
which I would think would be the primary sources.
As a starting point for discussion, I propose that we consider including
  • Name
  • Photo
  • Location (descriptive)
  • Location (coords)
  • Year the station was established
  • Year this structure was built
  • Status (active/deactivated but still standing with date of deactivation/destroyed or demolished with date
  • Focal height
  • Reference -- It's tempting to omit the reference, but for redlinks it would be useful

. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be year last structure was built? And I'm not so sure about focal height; I think most people are more interested in the height of the structure itself. In any case, I'm going to make a trial run of Delaware (since it's all done and there's not too many entries). Mangoe (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Last structure", yes, of course (maybe "latest" would be better). As for focal height:
  • As a mariner I have little interest in the height of the structure except as it helps to identify it. Note that the Light List does not generally show height of the structure.
  • Except for the Great Lakes there aren't good refs that consistently show structure height.
Maybe we should have both columns and use whatever we have.....
. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to keep this from getting too wide, so we may need to think about letting some of these columns go. Anyway, I'm playing with User:Mangoe/List of lighthouses in Virginia right now (Delaware, it turns out, has lots of stubs). Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting "Automated" in its own column since essentially all lights are now either automated or somehow deactivated. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the sample now. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Next issue: how to fit this with the all-encompassing national list. I personally don't think there is a use for it once we get all the state lists put together, at least not in its present form. There's also the lingering issue of the "by height" list. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mock lighthouses[edit]

There are increasing numbers of entries in the lists for structures that are not and never were and never will be actual navigational aids (e.g. everything listed for Arizona and Nebraska). I'm inclined to either remove these or otherwise segregate them. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about non-state US lights?[edit]

I've come across the fact that there are lighthouses (generally inactive) on at least four US Minor Islands. Do we want to include them? It's going to be hard to come up with real articles on any of them, as far as I can tell. Mangoe (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many are we talking about? Gateman1997 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least four, probably less than ten. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know who is administering these lights? If they're under the auspices of the Coast Guard I'd have no problem with going on the list. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know the one or two still active are private; as far as I know the Coast Guard never administered any lights outside the state proper. Mangoe (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean, here

"as far as I know the Coast Guard never administered any lights outside the state proper"

as the Coast Guard has had lights outside the US proper, see:

and

Since there aren't very many of them, I would add them all, including Puerto Rico, to this list. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I hadn't seen those pages, or maybe I forgot about them. Let me see... Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know PR is linked, I'm suggesting it be included in line along with the rest. We're talking about a 1 or 2% increase in size here, and it's not going to grow much more since we have almost all of the possibles on the list. The National Register of Historic Places has many lists that are significantly larger than 73k and they suffer from the fact that {tl|coords}} is very slow, so they take a long time to load. I'd say this list is all right. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 19:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Pass lighthouse not light[edit]

I live less than 45 minutes from the Sabine Pass Lighthouse that is NOT the Sabine Bank light, nor the Sabine Light as it has now has been reverted back to. Someone changed the Sabine Pass Lighthouse article title supposedly to reflect some "convention" agreement and I hope it will be common knowledge that this will not win out

  • I would really prefer not to get into some pissing contest with someone that wants to rename an important local historical building, because someone, somewhere, decided it should be called a light and not a lighthouse, in place of the common name. In fact, the Sabine Pass Lighthouse is what remains of what was designed, built, and operated until closure, as a light station. I do not know what "naming convention", the editor that reverted my change reflecting the proper and common name of the Sabine Pass Lighthouse, is referring to, but I would much rather spend time researching and working on articles than having to successfully fight a wrong name. However, since I have learned that for whatever reasonings there seems to lurk in the minds of some to do things that do not make any sense, I submit:
IF any editor wishes to contest the proper naming of the article as the Sabine Pass Lighthouse, I can spare the time, research, effort, and verbiage, to effect a Wikipedia consensus and proper naming to reflect what is "commonly known" as the Sabine Pass Lighthouse and not the Sabine Pass Light. I would like to ask the reverting editor, probably in vain, to change the redirect back to the article name as a courtesy. It would take minimum effort to realize the revert was a mistake. Any naming convention that was decided on by some past editors, that resulted in the misnaming of articles because of certain "likes" (here) can be corrected per Wikipedia actual guidelines. Also please note (here) that advice was given that, "As a general principle, in these lists we use the NRHP program name for sites in the NRHP lists, and we use the NHL program name (which may differ) for sites in the NHL lists.". and also, "But with regard to active USCG operated light stations, "light" is the appropriate label regardless of local usage.", will fall afoul of a majority of editors if the "local usage" is the more common name.
I may have to look at other articles that may refer to a convention chosen name instead of the "actual common and proper name" of a particular location or structure to see if the articles are actually properly named according to history and common usage. At this point I am concerned with one particular lighthouse and the use of the common and proper name of that lighthouse.
Since I live here, and plan to edit the articles, I can produce hundreds of references, to include local newspaper articles past and present from Texas and Louisiana, that will not support the lighthouse that is currently sitting on Brant Point, on the Louisiana side of the Sabine River next to the Sabine Bayou, as any common and proper name but the Sabine Pass Lighthouse. Please note that the historical name as well as the name used by the current "Cameron Preservation Alliance", as well as the government of the United States, and many branches that were and are involved, as well as the NHRP, reflects the name Sabine Pass Lighthouse. By-the-way the road leading to the location is named "Lighthouse road". Can we change the title back without a lot of drama please? Otr500 (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can see above a lot of discussion about this point, and in the end we have gone back to using the USCG names preferentially. Its a relentlessly consistent and authoritative standard that, if followed, saves a great deal of to-and-fro over whether any particular tower/beacon/house/whatever is more commonly called a "light" or a "lighthouse". You're trying to claim ownership of that particular article, which is never going to be permitted. If you want to present a WP:RFC to rename all the US lighthouse articles, be my guest. But don't see any reason to open up naming for these articles to allow a fight over renaming every last one of them individually. Life is too short. Mangoe (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the issue about the name appearing in this list-article or is it about the article name for the actual article about the lighthouse? To Otr500, I agree whole-heartedly that the common name should be used for the actual article name. I am a fairly prolific creator of NRHP articles, usually using the NRHP listing name as the article title, but I and other NRHP editors do agree that a different common name should be used for articles if the local common name is different, deferring to local knowledge of what is the common name. But, in an NRHP list-article like National Register of Historic Places listings in Louisiana#Cameron Parish, we want the official NRHP name to appear, which happens to be "Sabine Pass Lighthouse". And in the List of lighthouses in the United States, I am willing to defer to Mangoe's preference to use the U.S.Coast Guard official names for what appear, apparently "Sabine Pass Light" for this one. I do agree the individual article should be moved from Sabine Pass Light to Sabine Pass Lighthouse based on the latter being the actual common name. That is a simple application of basic Wikipedia article naming policy. --doncram 20:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But, Otr500, the way to get a rename/move done, where there is any disagreement possible, is to use the wp:RM requested move process. Follow instructions there to open a move discussion. It is a reasonable unhurried process that almost always works well to establish consensus by bringing in other uninvolved editors, and in two weeks or so (the usual time for a closure of a RM) the article will be moved, I predict. Don't do a cut-and-paste move, as you apparently did, because that loses the article editing history. Mangoe was technically right to revert your cut-and-paste move. Previous contributors to an article should have their contributions visible in the edit history. Hey, I'll go ahead and start the RM process at Talk:Sabine Pass Light this time. That will settle this issue. (I see Otr500 did try to have discussion there, but not by use of the RM process which attracts uninvolved others.) --doncram 21:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will exude all the civility I can muster. Because I see an error with an article that I am attempting to resolve, that does involve the more common name to be the correct name of an article, and I present these especially on the article talk page, and have more than one editor, in my opinion, fail to demonstrate good faith by stating things like, " You're trying to claim ownership of that particular article, which is never going to be permitted.", or "I would also suggest you dismount from your elevate perch", and "if you want to press the issue, but there isn't a snowball's chance in, well, the Gulf Coast that you will prevail in getting this one lighthouse named against the convention applied to the several hundred others, at least not on the terms you're using now.", then I tend to change my thinking. If you will look I started out by a bold edit. Now an error was performed on my part but that was not the main reason for the revert. It does not take a RM in all instances to change a name. On April 28th I started a new section concerning the name change. There was no adverse comments so on May 9th I changed the name. Of course I made an error and that is reversible, however, the edit summary did not mention any error on the revert only, "(→‎Name Change: we've been over this for many other lights,a nd this one is not any different. take it to the wikiprojects if you disagree with the convention) by Mr. Mangoe. It is an appearance of hostility to make the statements in a summary that are not in line with Wikipedia's intent. In fact, even with a naming convention a RM can be requested so permission is not necessary and actually against Wikipedia's intent and guidelines.
Start over; Because I live near the lighthouse in question I am well aware of the local name that actually spans two states. The revert summary was a major cause for concern and set a tone that could have been avoided. His, "If you want to present a WP:RFC to rename all the US lighthouse articles, be my guest.", actually was not constructive to solving any issue and gave the appearance to me that there might be a Kabal concerning renaming articles. I have concerns with ensuring Wikipedia being a trusted vehicle for information but I am specifically concerned with any articles I edit. Now, I will back up and tone down if I am not being attacked as the evidence suggested.
I would like to state for future reference it only takes a small amount of time to check if there is a common name, and very likely there will be, and I will surmise that a vast majority of the time it will include lighthouse and not just light. Just because one entity refers to something a certain way does not mean it is concrete that the name must be used that way. There would be less problems with a lighthouse, a lightship, and a beacon naming but if there is historical significance it will probably be a lighthouse or a lightship. Ladies and gentlemen; it is pretty simply that renaming a lighthouse, historical or not, to a light, is not common at least in the US. Almost every article will likely have a picture of what is commonly referred to as a lighthouse. If you show this picture to a child, young adult, or even a grownup, even a member of the coast guard, and ask what it is, I will assure you that the answer will not be a light. While the naming is well intentioned, common sense must also be applied. Concerning the lighthouse list, I did not really care about what it was named there but was simply performing correct procedures of correcting redirects. Otr500 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks yes for exuding civility. I dunno who you think is not assuming good faith. :) Seriously, there is nothing but good will here, though Mangoe does not agree with you. Mangoe has not been incivil, and Mangoe has done a ton for lighthouse coverage all over Wikipedia. I suggest you simply state your view, give your support about "Lighthouse" being the common name, in the Requested Move that has been opened, and let time go by. Cheers, --doncram 02:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Governor's Light[edit]

This keeps being removed because it isn't an AtoN (presumably an aid to navigation). But this is not listed as a requirement of this list. The lead doesn't even mention the term, much less restrict the list in any manner. Rmhermen (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not an aid to navigation, it's not a lighthouse. Frankly the whole thing needs to be pruned of decorative towers that have nothing to do with navigation. Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Per definition, "a lighthouse is a tower, building, or other type of structure ... used as an aid to navigation for maritime pilots at sea or on inland waterways." Buildings that only look like lighthouses but have never been used for navigational purposes should not be listed here. De728631 (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia[edit]

Now that the only entry has been identified it's clear that it's a decorative light and not even remotely an aid to navigation. Therefore I've removed the state section. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

new tables[edit]

I commend User:Knowledgekid87 for beginning to table-ize this list-article. It's great to bring in photos and years constructed and more information; this is an obvious improvement. I wonder if the table format should be refined, though. Knowledgekid87, can you please comment on alternatives that you might be thinking of, for columns to be included and for colors? I hope others might make suggestions, also.

For example, I find the use of reddish color of entire rows, being used to indicate which lighthouses no longer exist, to be overwhelming however. It seems to elevate the importance of the no-longer-extant lighthouses above all others. Could the fact be indicated more mildly? Perhaps light gray shading of just the first cell in the row, for example? Gray is funeral-like, and for that reason was settled upon by the NRHP Wikiproject to indicate delisted status, i.e. formerly listed status, of properties (which usually had been demolished) in comparable lists of places listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Shading the entire row seems more than is necessary, too.

What about having a description or notes column? The facts of whether or when a lighthouse was demolished could be mentioned there.

For comparison (though not saying these are perfect):

But unless better specific alternative achieves some support here, I do support Knowledgekid87's proceeding with the tabulation in the current format. Refinements of the table can easily be done later, and the most difficult work is the initial tabulation. Keep up the good work! --doncram 17:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the good thing about tables is that info can always be added/removed. I haven't thought of any colors yet long term but would be open to discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the coordinates column be merged into the column of other location information, to eliminate a lot of unnecessary whitespace in the tables, and reduce the number of columns by one. I am commenting on the format of the current Alabama table. And I suggest that the height of towers and the height of focal plane be added as two additional columns. That way this comprehensive list can support and complement the List of tallest lighthouses in the United States (currently a redirect) that will be created by move/rename of List of lighthouses in the United States by height (see Requested move discussion at Talk:List of lighthouses in the United States#Requested move 22 July 2016). --doncram 19:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regions versus States[edit]

I was thinking that if the table looks too big afterwards they can always be divided back into states. @Mangoe: I know you were not warm to the idea but please at least give it a chance. The information is all going to be the same as it was before order-wise just in table format that is sortable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see what you were saying, I never saw the list articles already made as they were not linked anywhere. So my question would be, why have overlapping lists? Even if I didn't create the tables, I don't see the benefit of having the same info included twice on two different lists in two different forms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think grouping by region then by state, with, for example, New England as a region, is good. In the version before Knowledgekid87 began editing here, there was no link from this list-article to the separate, tabulated List of lighthouses in Connecticut, and perhaps not to some other separate state lists that may exist. For Florida, there oddly are two overlapping state lists (that were both linked from here), the List of lighthouses in Florida and the List of operating lighthouses in Florida. The latter should be redirected into the former as all its information is covered in the bigger list. The info in the bigger list should be checked first, and any discrepancies might be noted at its Talk page for further research. But no Merger discussion is needed, any editor can just do the redirect/merger. The Connecticut and Florida sections here should have (before) and should now also just give a very brief summary at most, then link to the split-out Connecticut and Florida articles. The tables should not appear in here at all, IMHO, whether by templating (less bad because at least there is only one place for updates to be edited) or by copying (bad because besides showing the same data twice it also invites introduction of errors/discrepancies in two versions). Unless the size of this list, after tabulation is completed, is not too large, then split-out states could be merged back in (but the separate state lists should then be redirects, there should not be 2 copies of all the info). That's my two cents. :) --doncram 19:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at how long the article is getting, my thought is to split out different articles by region. This will NOT effect the by state FA articles that have been created. What will be left will have to be summed up with prose, the good thing with this is a region gives more details. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regions by drainage area, and order lighthouses naturally[edit]

Developing this by region, and including (duplicative) tables for states that have separated-out articles (even some Featured Article ones I gather, from mention of "FA" somewhere here? or are they Featured Lists?) is growing on me. One big advantage of regional grouping is that the linked {{GeoGroup}} OSM/Google/Bing maps will show all of the lighthouses in the region, rather than just the ones in states not-yet-separated out. And if there is going to be duplication, then it also okay for the columns of this list-article (and its split-out regions) to be different than the columns in the separate state list-articles, and different from the columns in the List of tallest lighthouses in the United States.

I like the good start made on grouping states by region: New England, Mid-Atlantic, Mid-West, Pacific, South, Territories. But from the perspective of ships needing lighthouses to navigate in regions, and from the perspective of some sources (e.g. books with titles like "Lighthouses of the Great Lakes"), would the regions be better refined to focus on main bodies of water served, plus inland from them? So it could perhaps be:

  • Great Lakes,
  • Atlantic coast,
  • Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean,
  • Pacific (including Guam etc. with WA, OR, CA?).

Note this would split some states, including NY and PA which have lighthouses on Lake Erie and lighthouses on the Atlantic Ocean or waterways inland. Again I am glad to see this being developed any which way, and developing tables by state first can be a good way forward....again it is relatively easy to divide out developed material later (like splitting out NY and PA rows for lighthouses on Lake Erie). --doncram 18:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the ordering of lighthouses within a region should be in their physical order along the coastlines, rather than alphabetically, right? As that is more natural. (By the way that would make their numbering in Bing maps to be sequential.)
I favor putting them in order by their physical location. This would be a lot better for someone who wanted to travel along and see several of them. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about "St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes" as one region? This will then include all(?) of Vermont's, as Lake Champlain etc. drain to the St. Lawrence.
Are there any Alaska lighthouses on the Arctic Ocean? Or on the Red River of the North (which drains to the north) within North Dakota?
--doncram 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Canada?[edit]

How about broaden this to be List of lighthouses in the United States and Canada, broken out naturally into regional lists by (hydrographic regions? hydrological regions? ) watersheds:

North America's major watersheds

I kinda think it would be good to merge List of lighthouses in Canada with this list, and to combine the corresponding regions, as it would properly ignore political boundaries and follow Nature instead. Mexico is sufficiently separate that I would leave it alone. But U.S. and Canada overlap in multiple natural regions Pacific coast, Atlantic coast, St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes, and possibly Arctic Ocean. It also would not bother me if the region articles had disparate names, as long as they were well-defined natural regions. It is not necessary for the titles to describe everything: an Atlantic seaboard lighthouses article can be explained in its lede to cover lighthouses on inland bays and rivers (like the lighthouse in Philadelphia on the Delaware River(?), and Chesapeake Bay, etc.). It is not necessary for the title to convey that one U.S. lighthouse in Cuba (not a U.S. territory) is included along with PR territory and VI territory ones in a "List of lighthouses in the U.S. territories of the Caribbean". To merge would require broader discussion in an RFC, and could be done later. But what do editors here think? --doncram 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the article to be too long though it is going to make it hard for editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but no article should be too long, as this would cover more but would be divided into more regions. For example the Atlantic coast would still be divided into 3 or 4 region list-articles, depending on numbers (e.g. Canada's Atlantic coast (part of Quebec, all of Newfoundland, PEI, and more); Atlantic coast of New England; Atlantic coast of mid-Atlantic; Atlantic coast of U.S. South). The Great Lakes would be divided by lakes if necessary. Any region too big would be divided. There would be one highest level List of lighthouses in the United States and Canada that lists all the region list-articles. --doncram 23:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia[edit]

I'm happy to see User:Bubba73 table-zing the Georgia section in the article. I was going to add to what they did, didn't realize they were still editing. --doncram 18:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't realize that you had done this [added info for one row]- yes, I was working on Georgia, but I'm through for now. I've seen all existing Georgia lighthouses (and photographed them) and been up a couple, so I was familiar with them. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neat. I have taken pics of just the Tybee Island one. Me and a friend once (2013?) got pics of all the not-then-illustrated NRHP places in Savannah's Chatham County, including hard-to-reach Ossabaw Island (by long-range but pretty pic of it, as the sun rose over it, from a landing overlooking marshes which i think was at dead-end of Kilkenny Road). I didn't upload the pics and others since have gotten those ones covered, which is fine. --doncram 19:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had to do a similar long shot over the water to get Eureka Club/Farr's Point for NRHP places in Savannah's Chatham County. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map all coordinates[edit]

"Map all coordinates using OSM" seems to show all of them, but "Map all coordinates using Google" doesn't show Georgia. Why? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It must not have updated for you. For me, now, I can see the GA ones in the linked Google map. I don't know how to force updating of the Google maps link any more. It used to be like forcing update in Bing maps (modify the URL so "usecache" is zero not one, literally in the URL change string "usecache%3D1" to "usecache%3D0"). As you have noticed, though, the Bing map only shows first 200 coordinates appearing in the article, so Georgia's are not displayed. Anyhow, I think the Google display will always update in a day or two or three. --doncram 02:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no! --doncram 02:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of lighthouses in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of lighthouses in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of lighthouses in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia[edit]

The table of Georgia lighthouses is almost completely redundant with List of lighthouses in Georgia (U.S. state), but there are some differences in the data between the two tables. Should the table here be eliminated and any info be merged into the other article? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just got rid of it, I am in the process of making all of the lighthouses easily accessed via tables per state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tybee Island Light - how tall?[edit]

This "Lighthouse Listing By Tower height". www.us-lighthouses.com. Retrieved September 14, 2017. says 154 feet but Tybee Island Light says 144. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Tybee Island Light article needs to be updated as the number 144 is un-sourced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lighthouse website says 145 feet. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of lighthouses in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the "Oldest" section[edit]

I've noticed this section gives precedence to when a lighthouse was first created in an area rather than the actual age of the currently existing structure. This is misleading to blatantly inaccurate. I'll added the actual date of these structures so people don't get a false perception that these structures are far older than they actually are.

In the future, maybe there should be a separate section of the first light in an area versus the current light's actual age.

The Soldier of Peace (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any changes yet, but many of these lights had "massive renovation", and are basically different structures. I don't know if this is a Ship of Theseus-like dilemma, but it seems there are different standards applied for different lights.
The Soldier of Peace (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course work has been done on the structures over the years, we go by what the WP:RS say though. If x source says that y is the oldest in z state then it would be WP:OR to include when the tower was modified without adding a WP:RS. For finding WP:RS I am using "oldest lighthouse in x state" as a search option. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_lighthouses_in_the_United_States&oldid=1199734786"