Talk:Charlotte–Genesee Lighthouse

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Western NY

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western New York (assessed as Mid-importance).

Lighthouses Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lighthouses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lighthouses and other water navigational aids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LighthousesWikipedia:WikiProject LighthousesTemplate:WikiProject LighthousesLighthouses articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Nominator has withdrawn the request. Favonian (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte–Genesee Lighthouse → Charlotte-Genesee Lighthouse – Now, let it be known I'm a big proponent of MOS:DASH and I generally support its provisions. However, I think they were misapplied when this article was moved most recently from Charlotte-Genesee Lighthouse to Charlotte–Genesee Lighthouse. The punctuation mark here is not used to indicate disjunction, nor a range, nor any sort of "to-from" relationship. Indeed MOS:HYPHEN specifically says "Hyphens ... indicate conjunction". In this title, "Charlotte" is the surrounding community, and "Genesee" is the adjacent body of water; thus, I believe conjunction is what we should be indicating, not disjunction. Powers ^T 23:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ per comprehensive nomination. I would also be considered a proponent of MOS:DASH, but I think it has been misapplied in this case. Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my support. Not sure about this anymore. Dick makes some good points below. Jenks24 (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I never understood what "conjunction" and "disjunction" were supposed to mean either, but this is exactly the kind of two-body relationship for which a hyphen is inappropriate and the en dash is used instead; it's a parallel relationship, where Charlotte does not modify Genesee. Many guides try to pin down words for such relationships; this might be roughly "and" or "between". And it does appear with en dash in at least some sources, like this book and this book and this book. There is one other possible way to go; if it's a Genesee Lighthouse, specialized by the being the Charlotte one, then Charlotte modifies Genesee Lighthouse; in that case, the correct punctuation would be a space, which you also find in some sources. The sources that use a hyphen don't really mean to indicate that Charlotte modifies Genesee; they just use a style that doesn't make the distinction; WP does make the distinction between these meanings of punctuation. Dicklyon (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree it's not a "modify" relationship. But modification is not the only use for the hyphen, as illustrated by its use in compound names like Wilkes-Barre and Bowes-Lyon. This doesn't seem to be a "parallel relationship", to use your phrase, because they are two different types of geographical location (one a river, the other a neighborhood). But it's possible I'm misunderstanding. Powers ^T 18:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's quite parallel, structurally. The two parts retain their identity, and it would mean the same thing in the other order. There is not a single entity named Charlotte-Genesse as in the hyphenated family names, but rather a lighthouse named for the two entities (essentially for the interface or interaction between the two entities – "tension" is involved as one source puts it, in trying to keep boats off the land). Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I am not an expert at conjunction vs. disjunction either, but my understanding is that since Charlotte and Genesee are two independent entities, the en dash is appropriate here. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a tough one, so my reaction would be to leave it hyphenated unless we have clear reason to dash it. But the sources Dicklyon provides (or two of them, anyway) show that a dash is understood. (It would be nice if the Society newsletter did as well, but they even sub hyphens for em dashes.) — kwami (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean leave it dashed or go back to the hyphenated version? –CWenger (^ • @) 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to withdraw the requested move pending clarification from Kwami. Powers ^T 01:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte–Genesee Light → Charlotte–Genesee Lighthouse – The page was moved to the current name due to "naming conventions", but assuming the conventions apply, they clearly are in conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. It's important to note that no one calls this the Charlotte—Genesee Light except within the lighthouse enthusiast community. To the general public, and indeed to the proprietors of the lighthouse itself, it's been the Charlotte–Genesee Lighthouse for years. Furthermore, naming it just "Light" implies that it's only the light that's notable, but the entire property, including both light and separate house, is on the National Register.

I also note that since the previous title stood for years, there should be a clear consensus to name this article "Light"; absent that, it should be moved back to the longstanding status quo. Powers ^T 16:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that its official listing on the National Register is as the "Genesee Lighthouse", and the property's address is on Lighthouse street. Powers ^T 23:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Lighthouse is much more common in books for this one. Almost all occurrences of "Genesee Light" are in "Genesee Light and Power" or "Genesee Light" beer. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy support Red Slash 17:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I noticed this one and will note that I have probably edited and read more of these articles then any other editor, however that does not make me an expert. The NRHP is a database with no quality control so using that as a WP:RS for the common name simply has no traction. On what basis are we determining that lighthouse is the common name? Has anyone sought advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lighthouses or Wikipedia:WikiProject United States or Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport or Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing? Also light seems to be the name used in the US for these articles. The NRHP appears to use station or lighthouse in a lot of the US articles named as a light. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can find, there are exactly zero 20th-century books that call it Charlotte Genesee Light (with any punctuation); most the 21st century books that do so are probably getting their info from wikipedia. The common name clearly includes "lighthouse", as their historical society does. The few older sources with "Genesee light" use lowercase "light"; it's a generic nautical term, not part of the name. Sailors care about the light, not the house. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears (from discussion here and elsewhere) that the "Light" naming convention is based on current U.S. Coast Guard practice. That's okay as far as it goes (though arguable), but it has absolutely no applicability to this particular case, as the Coast Guard hasn't had any interest in it for well over a hundred years. But even the folks at WPLIGHTHOUSE agree that "Light" refers to the beacon itself, while "lighthouse" is the surrounding structure. Since this article is not about "the various devices that have illuminated the mouth of the Genesee at Charlotte over the years" but rather about the structures which once held that navigational beacon, naming the article after the light, rather than the building, makes no sense. (I also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses#New articles lists several articles named "Lighthouse", putting paid to the notion that the "Light" convention is somehow set in stone. Powers ^T 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. WP:COMMONNAME must take precedence over convention (any naming convention here is certainly unknown to the average reader). bobrayner (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Lighthouse" is the commonly recognized name for a lighthouse, and "light" is not. Usage of "light" is in-crowd jargon. If the light is on something that is not a house-like building, such as a mast, then the light is called a beacon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have just closed a RM on anther American light[house] at talk:Bodie Island .... I will leave it to another admin to close this one. -- PBS (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charlotte–Genesee Lighthouse. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]