Template talk:Infobox lighthouse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merged

This template's history was merged with a very similar one. Edits from 8 January 2006 by Rport are from that duplicate, and I've encorporated those elements into the older one. -- Netoholic @ 07:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible Modification

I modified the template to include thumb instead of 250px. I also included Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale. See the example code here:User:Dual Freq/Template:Infobox Lighthouse. See sample implementation here:User:Dual Freq/Cape May Lighthouse, compare with Cape May Lighthouse and let me know what you think. I'd like to incorporate the changes to this infobox. If the thumb portion doesn't look right, then how about the Geolink section? --Dual Freq 04:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Using a "template within a template" is a practice that should be avoided aggressively. Copy the code from the Geolinks template directly into this template, if that is desirable. Personally, I think you should have just one link, to the kvaleberg.com site, because it looks too cluttered. As for the image, I don't like the thumb fram around the image. Are you using that just to limit the vertical size of the image? -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was unaware of the template within a template rule, I've updated my version with the code from the Geolinks template. I was inspired by the Template:Infobox Bridge and I thought that since this infobox already has lat and long info in the infobox, why not add a link to some images like topos and aerial photos. As for the number of links, some times an area doesn't have all types of imagery available so having only one line might exclude some areas. I thought it would save the effort of adding the geolinks template to the external links section of each lighthouse. As for the thumb issue, yes I was trying to limit the height. I'm open to other suggestions. --Dual Freq 05:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I made another attempt, using Template:Infobox U.S. City as inspiration. I replaced Lat and long with Coordinates and a single link to the kvaleberg.com site. I still don't know what to do about the image height, but I would like to implement the coordinate part of it. --Dual Freq 15:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the hemispheres and location of the link is hard-coded for the US only. Perhaps you can use the {{[[Temlate:coor d|}} template as a parameter in the article, not the template. I'll demonstrate on your test page. -- Netoholic @ 18:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to maintain the usage of latitude and longitude so that all the other pages that use this template will not be greatly affected. I thought of the hemisphere issue, but I wasn't sure what percentage of lighthouses linking this template would be west hem vs east hem. I assumed, probably incorrectly, that most of the lighthouses linking the template would be in the west hem. I was planning to add lat and longs from USCG light lists, so the ones I enter will all be west hem. Is it better to keep the lat long or change all the rest linking here to 'coor d' or 'coor dms'? --Dual Freq 19:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"coor dms" is a good choice. I'm not a fan of how the decimal coordinates look. -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no negative comments, I decided to implement the changes to the template. I've added the coordinante and characteristic elements. I think those are important for the lighthouse infobox. I also added a sample coor dms to the top of the talk page. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, we're supposed to 'Be Bold' right?. --Dual Freq 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no field for the engineer responsible?--JBellis 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

USCG Light lists number

To uniquely identify lighthouses in the United States, would it make sense to add another row with the USCG light lists number? --- Skapur 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Added USCG number to infobox. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Year Built and Current lens

Quite often, especially for older lighthouses, the year it was first lit may be quite different from when it was first built. Also, the current lens may be very different from the original lens. I have added both the fields to the template. --- Skapur 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Markings

I have added a field for markings/pattern --- Skapur 23:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tower height vs. Focal height

After noticing discrepancies amongst the list of tallest lighthouses in the US, I suggest that the "Height" input be broken up into "Focal Height" and "Tower Height" to represent the height at which the lens is situated and the total height of the entire structure, respectively. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at the NPS website on the Cape Hatteras Light, they claim that the tower is 193 ft. tall from the ground to the top of the lantern. Looking at the various USCG lists of lights, they do not in general say which figure they are reporting. I think it's going to be hard to make this distinction, frankly. Mangoe 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, for completeness we should be listing both. While some lights are located on the beach and the difference is minor, many lights are located on a high bluff and the differences between the numbers can be major.Jjegers 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a completeness that cannot be achieved. I recently went over every article for lighthouses in Maryland (and wrote half of them myself). In most cases the only "height" I could find was in the USCG list, and they do not in general specify which number they're giving. The lighthousefriends articles are scattershot, and de Gast never gives that datum. I think we're better off just giving a "height" and trying to resolve inconsistencies as best we can (and in the case of Hatteras, trying to give both numbers doesn't appear to do that). Mangoe 14:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In many of the Michigan lighthouse articles I have been working on, we have access to tower height and focal plane. I started putting the focal plane info under "elevation" but I would prefer that the infobox say "Focal Height" and "Tower Height". Also, there seems to be a problem using the template within an article not specifically about the lighthouse. The infobox takes on the name of the article, which is not accurate. As an example, see Manitou Island (Lake Superior) and Granite Island (Michigan)----Asher196 (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not much activity here.Asher196 (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the designations for "Height" and "Focal Plane" have been changed. That is fine, and an improvement. Although I still think that "tower height" might be more exact for the former. I have seen editors put in the elevation (above sea level), and there is the problem of where do you start the measurement (the base of the tower, not the base of the foundation, etc.) and where do you end it (the tip of the ventilator ball). FWIW, in the Michigan lighthouse articles that I have worked on, we have previously put into the infobox "foscal plane" and "tower". See, e.g., White Shoal Light (Michigan). My observation is that "height" is to some extent ambiguous. Focal height is measured from the mean high water mark to the center of the lens. A good discussion is available at Terry Pepper Seeing the Light. A problem is that changing these templates effectively messes with existing articles, and they will now all have to be changed. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

For backwards compatibility the template should contain both fields as accepted variables; but only document the use of the prefered term. FYI: The recent change from using "elevation" to instead use "focalheight" was only made in the template, not in the documentation for the template, which causes even more confusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Barek: I'm confused. My detractors might say 'easily confused.' I could not make White Shoal Light (Michigan) work, for example. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

I updated the article; I'll also update the documentation for the template. And, for backwards compatibility, I'll re-enable the "elevation" field - so that field should be removed if you add the "focalheight" field. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

Request for Locator Map Support

It would be nice if this template supported locator maps that would place the dot based on the coordinates. Thanks! Americasroof (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Registry numbers

I count several registry numbers for lighthouses that should be accomodated in the template, namely:

• ARLHS
• NF (Norwegian specific; like US NGA and other national registers)
• Admiralty numbers

Unless there are objections, within the next few days I'll add ARLHS and Admiralty - which appear to be international - as optional; and then a separate field or two for national registry numbers. --Leifern (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather see a generic "Registry numbers" or similarly named fields ... when filling in the template, it could show both the registry type and the number, adding a <br/> to list multiple ones (if applicable). --15:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Another useful field could be "ownership", to help differentiate between publicly owned and privately owned lights - for privately owned, the same field could show the owning foundation or business. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

{{{name}}}

Can't someone include an optional naming/titling function for the box? Especially with disambiguation pages like "Blahblah Island (lighthouse)" you'll get those nasty brackets into the title bar. De728631 (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to do if for you, but it turns out it already exists, but was undocumented - see Marblehead Light (Ohio) for an example. Wongm (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have gone though, and I think I haver fixed up all articles with brackets in them. Wongm (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Now if we could just change "elevation" to "focal height".....Asher196 (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fog signal

I added a row for fog signals. It should be interesting for offshore facilities. De728631 (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On the Michigan lights, I have been putting it under characteristic. See e.g., White Shoal Light (Michigan). 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

Yeah, but "Characteristic" links to Light characteristic, hence my new row and wikilink. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. You are right. I'll try it. It worked! See White Shoal Light (Michigan)7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

What about Racon? See Poe Reef Light. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

Name Field Problem

While adding a number of stubs for Maine, I noticed a problem in the name field. If I attach a ref tag there, it makes the field too high in IE6 (it's OK in Firefox), conflicting with the next item in the list (see Tenants Harbor Light). This is true whether there is an image or not. Is there an easy way to make the field taller or should we just work around?

I should add that in most cases I put the ref tag or tags at the bottom of the infobox (see Bear Island Light), but where the light no longer exists that's a problem -- I delete the four registry number fields because there can't be any, but leave the descriptive fields blank in case someone in the future is moved to fill in more of them than I can. The ref tag at the end then causes the Fog Signal field to show, even though it's blank. So I've been attaching the ref tag to the date built, but that's not completely satisfactory because the ref usually covers all the fields in the box (see Pumpkin Island Light).... Jameslwoodward (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A great resource

Historical Coast Guard light Lists, many books that are new to me, etc. Worth the look. An article on how to preserve a lighthouse. Great Lakes Light Keepers Association, List of Resources. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Should "Admiralty" be Admiralty?

We link each of USCG, ARLHS, and NGA, but not Admiralty. Unless there's objection, I'm going to change the 4th from the last line in the output to Admiralty number: Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no comment, I've done it. I've also added Canada. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

New map

The new map is great, thank you very much. However, I'd like to eliminate the name from the map or at least make it optional, and at least have the option to have a red pushpin rather than the lighthouse icon.

My reason is simple -- 75% of USA lighthouses are NRHP and will therefore have an NRHP infobox. When that's the case, I, at least, will put the image in the lighthouse box and the map in the NRHP infobox -- I think that looks better. Therefore, I'd like the maps in the non-NRHP lighthouses to have the same look as the NRHP ones. Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I too noticed the redundancy with the NRHP box. I will make some adjustments. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have updated the template and the code. The default is now the standard red pin with no label. The lighthouse pin can be enabled using the pushpin = lighthouse option. Other options are listed in the doc. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's quick, many thanks. It looks good at Bishop and Clerks Light. May I suggest you post a summary of all the changes you made to the template here, with a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses? Thanks again, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried the lighthouse pin and it turned out that the icon is put centered onto the exact location in the map. I think it would look much less confusing and would be more precise if the lighthouse would "stand" on the location, i.e. its baseline being put on the coordinates, not the centre. This might be achieved by coding a standard offset into the lat parameter when using this pin or simply by using a shifted icon file. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I think a shifted icon file would be the best solution, since we want something that is robust to rescaling. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how is that? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That works great now. Thanks a lot :) De728631 (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Need some smaller scale maps

I tried out a Virginia light and discovered that the dot is pretty useless, since the scale of the map is so large. Can we get smaller scale maps of some areas (e.g. VA portion of the bay)? Mangoe (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this should better be asked on the talk page of {{Location map}} since that template is nested in our infobox. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Small Bug

If you have two lighthouse infoboxes in the same article and call out

• coordinates_display =title,inline in the first infobox
• coordinates_display =inline in the second infbox

then both sets of coords display in the title, on top of each other.

There's an easy work around, just use:

• coordinates_display =title,inline
• coordinates_display =

. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "inline" should mean "inline" and not title. I will see if there is an easy work around. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it should now work with coordinates_display = inline. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Tested at Burlington Breakwater Lights, where I noticed the problem. It's now fine, thanks. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates: decimal vs. DMS

Can the map be made to work with decimal lat/long? Right now it only works with DMS. Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Use latd= and longd= with decimals but without the min and sec and direction NS/EW parameters. Southern latitudes and western longitudes are denoted by a negative sign, i.e. latd=-45.5 would be 45.5°S. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

References field

Since some valid concerns have been raised about usage of references for the entire infobox, and the cost to amend this was minimal, I added a references field, as used in many other infoboxes (e.g. {{Infobox mineral}}). For example, see Akko Light. This is not mandatory, and one can still tag every single field if necessary. In fact, if a source is relevant to only one field one SHOULD tag it. --Muhandes (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need that at all. General references should be placed in the article's section as a bullet list, there's no need to create footnotes in an infobox. De728631 (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need it, but I think you misunderstand -- it doesn't create a new place for a reflist, just a place to collect the references used throughout the infobox -- compare Boston Light, without the Reference line, to Akko Light, with it. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What Jim said. I think one case in which it is crucial is if one uses the same source for all items in the infobox, but does not have an ARLHS number. Compare Reading Light and older version (funny name that light has), and also note that one of the facts is from a different source so I tagged it separately. Anyway, it isn't a must, but in some cases I think it looks better, so I see no harm. It is also not unprecedented, and used in several cases where it is common to use one reference for the entire box. If you still oppose I'll revert. --Muhandes (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it would create a new refliust. But my problem with all that is that footnotes have generally become overrated imho. For an infobox that is just a mere factsheet I think it is totally sufficient to put the references in a bullet list outside the infobox, we don't need to source everything inline. And I think the box at Reading Light looks quite strange with a "References" line and the second ref just above that. I'm sure sooner or later someone would think it needs cleaning up and move the extra ref down "where it belongs". On another note to avoid more confusion, I'd say we should use "characteristic" in the box only for active lights, not for retired ones like Reading. De728631 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a position one way or the other on the reference question. I do, however, on the characteristic -- if the light is clearly shown as inactive, why not show its former characteristic, particularly as at Reading Light which showed a Morse "A", common on buoys but not lighthouses? Where we know it we often show the historical characteristics of lights, which gives a pattern to their change over the years.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As 'the new guy' I'm not the one to say if reference tags belong in the infobox at all or not, which seems to be what De728631 argument is about (though I do have a clear opinion on that). This is not the issue I added this field for. The issue is that if one decides to use references, as many editors do, there is no good place for it. The previous solution was to put a <br> or a newline on the last data point, followed by a list of references. This, IMHO, is not a good way to do it, so I added the references field for it. As this is clearly a problem with all infoboxes I looked around and the solutions I see are either tag everything, or add a field. --Muhandes (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My problem with a "References" parameter in an infobox is that the infobox should be representative of the entire article. So if we put a list of References in the infobox only for the refs used in the box, we leave out the rest of the article, so to speak. So if you really need to source facts in the box, why not do it the traditional way with a footnote that appears in the main References section? I find it disturbing rather than helpful to have an "extra" References in the box. De728631 (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've now removed the References parameter from the template and also edited the Israel lighthouses accordingly. As I said, I don't see any need at all for a separate "References" entry in the infobox. General references of the box can go directly into the article's section without footnotes. De728631 (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess you do feel strongly about this. Thanks for taking care of my pages. --Muhandes (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Other number

What do you think about adding another number? Many countries have their own numbering systems. It can work with two fields. "additional_number" and "additional_number_type". For example "additional_number=0986", "additional_number_type=Netherlands<ref>{{Cite web |url= http://www.vuurtorens.net/ |title=Vuurtorens in Nederland |work=vuurtorens.net |accessdate=11 August 2010 }}</ref>".--Muhandes (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but I would have it a two-variable parameter:

| Countrynumber = 12345

| Country = Netherlands

Which would display as:

Netherlands = 12345

. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 10:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that was the idea, sorry if I wasn't clear. --Muhandes (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done I also added "countrylink" to enable linking to the list. --Muhandes (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Light characteristic standardization

I noticed some of us use shorthand to list the light characteristic, while others use prose. I propose we standardize on the shorthand to save space. Interested parties probably know what it means, and otherwise can follow the link. --Muhandes (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you cite some examples? Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

See Light characteristic. Examples, just on the two articles I created, Nobbys Head Light uses "Fl.(2+1) W. 20s." A bit shorter than "group of two flashes, then one flash, white, cycle 20 seconds". Robertson Point Light on the other hand uses "green light, occulting every 3s", where I'd prefer "Oc. G. 3s". The reason I myself use both is that I usually don't start with nothing so I continue with what was there before. I propose to standardize on the shorthand when used in the template, as people in the area know what it is about, and we supply a link to Light characteristic very near for those who don't. --Muhandes (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a prefernce. However. . .

Whatever you decide to do, I think that there should be appropriate wiki links for Occulting and []Flashing]] (or to their abbreviated equivalent), so that the terms are explicated somewhere. We are writing article that can be accessed by readers of varied expertise, and should take this into account and try to make it at lest accessible to users with the lowest common denominator of expertise. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Stan

That's why such things should always be explained in full prose in the text. The infobox shall provide a quick-look overview on facts and statistics. It's surely good practice to link the abbreviations too, but a light characteristic should not be restricted to the infobox in the first place. After all one point why we write about lighthouses is to explain how their light works. But I'm all for using abbreviations for the characteristic in the box; it saves space and introduces the reader to nautical customs. I suggest writing it out in the text with additional abbreviations in parentheses and then repeat the abbreviated characteristic in the box. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that abbreviated is better. Note that the USCG Light List does not use periods -- it would be "Oc G 3s" -- I propose we use the USCG Light List description for US lights. For non-US lights, use the local light list abbreviations, if it is referenced, otherwise the USCG abbreviations. Note that we have used the NIMA light list for a number of foreign lights -- in my case, because it is on line and the Admiralty Light List, for example, is not. The NIMA system is different -- "Oc. G. period 3s", which I propose we do not use. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 22:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a consensus about using shorthand, I added a note to the documentation. I don't feel strongly about the exact format, as long as it's clear what was meant. Personally, as I use List of Lights almost exclusively, I use their format, dropping "period" which is quite redundant. If/when I find the time I'll start going over the infoboxes and move then to shorthand. --Muhandes (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Change in header size

We either need the prior larger font for the title, or some sort of distinguishing background or border for it. Small and bold isn't enough, particularly for the ones without a picture. Mangoe (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note to the editor who changed it, he might have just made a mistake. --Muhandes (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. For now I've set it to 125% which seems like the de-facto standard used by {{tl:infobox}}. --Muhandes (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Caption doesn't work

I notice that "caption" doesn't work, as shown in Brant Point Light. Would someone fix it, please? - Denimadept (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone has been messing with the code. It seemed harmless so I did not comment, but that seems to be one outcome. I corrected it. --Muhandes (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you muchly. I suppose I should learn how. - Denimadept (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

pushpin=lighthouse - can the contrast be improved?

A number of lighthouse articles on my watchlist have recently had "pushpin=lighthouse" added. Now I am fine with the idea of marking the lighthouse with a lighthouse icon, but unfortunately many of them are almost impossible to see on my screen as the icon is white, black and yellow and being put on a map with yellow background and black regional borders, e.g. Cleveland Point Light. The previous revision with red dot had much better contrast and was much more evident where the lighthouse was. Is there any chance to make this icon a bit more high-contrast? Could it be a red lighthouse? Kerry (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The icon has been File:Lighthouse icon shifted.svg since this edit in May 2010, and has not changed since. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

lighthouse pushpin misplaced

Thank y'all for your work on the technical side, but there's a UI problem.

It's fine if a viewer already knows the correct placement of the lighthouse and therefore understands that the icon is marking its bottom-right corner, but that's non-intuitive. Is it impossible to correctly position the icon so that the GPS point being marked is at the intuitive location at the center of its base? If that's impossible, the icon is cute but so misleading it should really be removed and replaced with one of the accurately-placed dots.

See, e.g., the difference between these two revisions of an article on a North Korean headland whose original GPS image was replaced by this template. The "lighthouse" pushpin not only makes it appear that the lighthouse is located miles inland but that the cape being referenced is an entirely different one from the truth. The "dot" pushpin, however, is completely accurate. — LlywelynII 23:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Llywelyn, I centered the base of the lighthouse in a derivative version of the icon on commons. so, the base should be correctly centered now. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate Wikidata junk

The article Smith Island Light contains two instances of Infobox lighthouse—one for the eponymous lighthouse and one for the Skunk Bay Memorial Lighthouse, to which part of the Smith Island Light was moved before its destruction (and about which we lack an article). The latter one is, however, picking up from Wikidata an image and some information that applies not to the Skunk Bay Memorial Lighthouse but to the Smith Island Light. Is there some way of getting this template to ignore the stuff on Wikidata when it's inapplicable? Or is the only solution to just delete the second template? Deor (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Deor: I've tried solving this by adding |fetchwikidata= (no value) and removing the Wikidata link in the template if the aforementioned parameter is empty. The template documentation should mention this. Jc86035 (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Jc86035. Deor (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox not rendering properly, hiding entered data.

Would someone please have a look at this article for me to see why the Infobox Lighthouse is not rendering properly, and so is hiding some of the entered data. The image won't display either. I think most of this was rendering properly earlier today, at least the image was: Grandique Point Lighthouse

In comparison, this lighthouse article I did a few years ago is displaying the Infobox Lighthouse correctly.: Low Point Lighthouse I may be doing something wrong but I can't see what it is. Thank you. Ken Heaton (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's weird, the infobox for Grandique Point Lighthouse displays correctly today.Ken Heaton (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Mapframe maps?

{{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox shopping mall}} have both recently been updated to automatically show dynamic mapframe maps by default. I am proposing to similarly show such maps by default for this template, with the same optional parameters to adjust the size, frame center point, initial zoom level, and marker icon; and to similarly allow the mapframe map to be turned off using |mapframe=no. See Template:Infobox building#Mapframe maps and Template talk:Infobox building#Change to the map parameter so Kartographer works for further information. (FYI: I'm making similar proposal for other buildings infobox templates) - Evad37 [talk] 15:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Support, I agree about this update. angys (Talk Talk) 11:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 01:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove deprecated parameter; adjust labeltext

1. Parameter |elevation= is deprecated (since 2008). Per October 1st, 173 articles used it [1]. I have replaced all instances |elevation= with the appropriate |focusheight=, with an extra visual check on whether the "elevation" actually meant focal height (check with tower height). Parameter |elevation= is no more needed. I propose removing it from the template (into "non existing parameter", i.e. reported unkown when used). When present, I removed parameter input text "Focal plane: ..." from these, as this is clear from lefthand labeltext so don't repeat in righthand side.

2. Parameter |height= is intended for construction height (tower height). To avoid confusion, I propose to make change the label (lefthand text) fror thid parameter: from "Height" into "Tower height". Did remove "Tower: .." text from input parameter (should not be in righthand side).

Both changes are in {{Infobox lighthouse/sandbox}} diff, as proposal. Comments? - DePiep (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

Please replace all code with the code from {{Infobox lighthouse/sandbox}}. Changes: 1. Parameter |elevation= removed (was deprecated for 10 years, not used in articles). 2. Write lefthand label "Tower height" to disambiguatie from "elevation height". Proposed here 2 weeks ago, with no comments. DePiep (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've removed elevation from the list of known parameters as a first step. I'd rather wait 'til the report you referenced above refreshes in a couple of days before going the whole way. Which isn't to say there aren't folks who may feel bolder than I do, and who feel like doing the whole request right now. Cabayi (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

..or wait a few hours for any changes to show up in Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with unknown parameters of course. Cabayi (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) No, that was not what is requested, and incorrect at that. Had you done the full edit as requested, any offending articles would show up in the maintenance category for correction -- no problem. And you omitted the second part completely, even not mentioning here. -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"that was not what is requested"? Reverted myself. Cabayi (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

re: wait a few hours: yes, that is the process anyway. -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Cabayi Anything wrong with the request? What are you trying to say? Is asked for an update, and you cannot think about rewarding that request as is? -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

DePiep I'm not inclined to remove a parameter without first checking that it's not in use. You objected and said that it wasn't what you'd requested, so I reinstated the previous version. Cabayi (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

As you could understand from the previous section, I already have worked on that check. Also, you yourself noted that any remaining issue would be categorised, and so the covering would work out all right. I find it strange that you throw away the process & work I described, and started all over (showing a distrust in my work, while not being able to point out any errors). On top of this, you totally skipped the "Tower height" my change had, unexplained.

All in all, your intervention does not follow from WP:EDITREQ. I request that you or some other editor perform the edit as proposed. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC) @Cabayi: -DePiep (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC))

DePiep As you could understand from my reply (had you bothered to read it), I did that as a first step. There's no way I'll accept an unverified proof by assertion. Cabayi (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said, this does not follow from WP:EDITREQ. The request was not to redo my editing process, babysitting. Note that the report (TD m.e.r. that is) is unrelated to the edit you did make (it does not read template code); it will report usage anyway (seven days after the editrequest that is). Did you read my "Tower height" note btw? -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• DePiep, T.D. m.e.r.?? I was referring to the report you cited which, I presume, will update on Thursday.
• Rather than wait 'til Thursday, I removed elevation from the list of accepted paramters so that any oversights would show up at Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with unknown parameters within a few hours, once the change had flushed through the system.
• Yes, I read your "Tower height" note. Do you not understand the phrase "as a first step", or are you being deliberately obtuse? Cabayi (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

TDmer = "TemplateData monthly error report", as its link is labeled in any TemplateData section in documentation. While it takes its readings from the Nov 1 data dump, it takes some five days before results are available. Hence: 5 Nov = one week after the original request. I mentioned this also in connection with the "babysitting" experience, that does not follow WP:EDITREQ. IOW, your unsollicited involvement this way was a signal of distrust, even after I had described my care.

Anyway, are you still convinced thinking that removing the parameter would break the enwiki, or can you see some leeway while we improve this wiki step by step?

Yes, that category would have listed them nicely. Strange then that you reverted instead of continuing your plan (which you did not announce as "I will be back to complete later on" btw). Let's note thet I did not ask you to revert, and that your revert may be the obstinate part in this story.

The "Tower height" is in the label (lefthand side), and so has nothing to do with parameter usage. So there was no reason to postpone this element to some second step (and you did not give one, even when asked early).

-DePiep (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I reverted because you said "No, that was not what is requested, and incorrect at that." Wrong to do it, wrong to revert it, make your mind up. Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• The request is back to time zero and so open for any editor to execute as originally posted. -DePiep (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It has always been open for any editor to execute as I made clear in my first reply. Cabayi (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(This new bullet, again, was *not* aimed at you nor intended to restart/redo a discussion. Instead, it was an invitation, from scratch, to other editors. Alas, I get the impression that you cannot walk away. -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC))

• No admin/TE will touch this any more, so I call it a done. Sic transit gloria wiki. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

DePiep, I have no problem with executing your request, just with your insistence that it should be done in a single step. This (for me at least) has been a discussion about the requested change, not a discussion about you, or about trust in you. Cabayi (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these kind words. Initially, it was just a simple change I thought. I had to think it all over. Up to you, I was not gonna prolong the issue. -DePiep (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

step 1 done - if the category is still clear in a few hours I'll implement the rest. Where you were considering WP:EDITREQ most TEs would consider WP:TPE and its lists of dos and don'ts and, scariest of all (appropriately for Halloween), WP:TPEREVOKE. Cabayi (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Cabayi (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Placement of Heritage info

In Bellevue Range Rear Light, there is an embedded NRHP infobox. The |Heritage= (populated from Wikidata) is being displayed AFTER the NRHP infobox and it is out of place there. I don't think it is necessary at all since there is a whole NRHP infobox covering the heritage info. But at the least, it should be displayed before the embed NRHP infobox, as shown in the documentation. MB 00:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MB have you tried using the |module= parameter for the {{infobox NRHP}} (e.g., this edit)? Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, That does the trick. However, I still have questions about the field. There seem to be around 300 lighthouses on the NRHP. I did some spot-checking and everyone I saw was coded the same way which leaves the heritage field floating down at the end. Fixing them all will require some work, but before doing that I wonder if |Heritage= has any real use? If a lighthouse is on the NRHP, that fact is obvious from the NRHP infobox (and I will gladly add any missing ones), so the displaying "Heritage - on the NRHP" is just redundant. Does this field every contain anything else except NRHP? If it doesn't, I would say it should be dropped in favor of the NRHP infobox. Do you, would anyone else, have a way to determine this? MB 19:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MB this information is being added automatically from Wikidata after this sequence of edits by Jura1. we may be able to detect the value of this parameter, and selectively drop it when there is an embedded NRHP box, but the coding would require some string processing. I will add some tracking to determine what is going on with this parameter, and places where the NRHP box is embedded in the managingagent parameter. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MB see Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with NRHP embedded outside the module parameter for articles with the {{infobox NRHP}} in the wrong place. see Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with non-NRHP heritage for heritage information that doesn't match two common NRHP patterns and Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with NRHP heritage for places where we may want to drop the information. so, it looks like we probably don't want to entirely drop the information, but we could selectively drop the information if there is an embedded NRHP box. Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, I see that you are fixing the ones not embedded correctly by adding |module=. I found one that did NOT have |embed=yes within the NRHP infobox which is also necessary for proper formatting. Are you checking for that too?

As far as selectively dropping Heritage for NRHP, I'll leave it to you to judge if it is worth the effort. Getting it to display before the NRHP infobox is already a big improvement. But I do think it is unnecessary.

Of the 437 that have NRHP heritage, can we track how many are missing a NRHP infobox? Most have one, but there are probably a few missing. (If you can find and add those to Category:National Register of Historic Places articles needing infoboxes, I'll add the infoboxes). MB 17:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MB, I have to log off right now, but will look at adding more tracking tomorrow. the tracking looks for the <tr>, so it should find all embedded, but we could probably add a check for improperly embedded. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, Just noticed Chicago Harbor Light is in the non-NRHP heritage cat for some reason, if it makes any difference. MB 00:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MB, I think that one is fixed now. the Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with non-NRHP heritage is now sorted by the value in the heritage parameter. the first two sections of Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with NRHP heritage have pages that either don't have "NRHP" in the heritage parameter but have an embedded NRHP infobox, or have an embedded NRHP infobox but don't have "NRHP" in the heritage parameter. some could be false positives. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, I added NRHP infoboxes where missing, and updated the Heritage info in WD where missing. This took care of around 50 of these. All that are left are 4 oddball cases with multiple infoboxes. (There were no false positives.) I also added more explanation in Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with NRHP heritage. I think we are done here. Thanks for all your effort. MB 05:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Lighthouse map pushpin using title coordinates

See Muckle Roe article.

The lighthouse infobox is included in this article which also has coordinates for the island itself. While the coordinates in the lighthouse infobox are correct, the lighthouse map uses the article's title coordinates, and not the ones defined in the lighthouse infobox. Forgive my inexperience with this sort of thing - is this a bug with the lighthouse infobox, or is this a problem with that article? Thanks! Griceylipper (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The template uses the Wikidata coordinates for this article (the island), not the coordinates specified in the article for the lighthouse. The map in the lighthouse infobox can be turned off. I don't think there is any other solution without a modification to the template code. MB 01:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed [2], coordinates specified in |coordinates= will now override Wikidata coords - Evad37 [talk] 04:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Evad37: The following are showing "Lua error in Module:Mapframe at line 202: attempt to perform arithmetic on local 'lat_d' (a nil value)" Can you work out what the problem is?

• Baron Bliss Light
• Cowan Cowan Point Light
• Southerness Lighthouse

Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

All fixed, just syntax errors in the local coordinates. MB 01:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Map zoom

I'm thinking we should change the default zoom level of the map. For offshore lighthouses, the current zoom often does not show enough to be helpful, as this example shows. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Compare with zoom level 5 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

North Rona Lighthouse Location North Rona, Outer Hebrides, United Kingdom OS grid HW8175332285 Coordinates 59°07′17″N 5°48′53″W Tower Constructed 1984  Automated 1984  Height 13 m (43 ft)  Power source solar power  Operator Northern Lighthouse Board  Light Focal height 114 m (374 ft)  Range 22 nmi (41 km; 25 mi)  Characteristic Fl(3) W 20s

North Rona Lighthouse Location North Rona, Outer Hebrides, United Kingdom OS grid HW8175332285 Coordinates 59°07′17″N 5°48′53″W Tower Constructed 1984  Automated 1984  Height 13 m (43 ft)  Power source solar power  Operator Northern Lighthouse Board  Light Focal height 114 m (374 ft)  Range 22 nmi (41 km; 25 mi)  Characteristic Fl(3) W 20s

I have set a default zoom level of 5 in the sandbox. If this proves too little we can adjust again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Simplify labels

Suggested simplification of labels for succinctness:

• Year first constructed → Constructed
• Year first lit → First lit
• Managing agent → Operator

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

These changes are on the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Two (or more) lighthouses covered by one article

Little Cumbrae New Lighthouse

Location	Little Cumbrae, North Ayrshire, United Kingdom
Coordinates	55°43′14″N 4°58′02″W
Tower
Constructed	1997
Operator	Clyde Port Authority
Light
Focal height	28 m (92 ft)
Range	14 nmi (26 km; 16 mi)
Characteristic	Fl W 6s
Original light
Constructed	1793
Designed by	Thomas Smith
Automated	1977
Operator	Northern Lighthouse Board
Heritage	category B listed building

It is fairly common that an article covers more than one lighthouse. For example, high and low lights, or where a newer lighthouse has replaced an older lighthouse in the same place. In these cases the infoboxes can get rather confusing, and it is not clear which lighthouse the dates refer to. Rather than trying to force two lighthouses into one infobox, I suggest it is clearer to use an additional infobox. This could be smaller in design and does not need to repeat information in the main infobox (such as the map). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

To follow up on this, I now have a prototype of an auxiliary infobox embedded into the main infobox. The secondary infobox is displayed under a coloured bar. Fields such as the map, location and coordinates are not displayed as they are likely to be the same. Seeking any comments please. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Designer

An obvious omission to the selection of fields in the infobox is the name of designer or builder. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been added using designed by (P287) and main building contractor (P193). This is the first field which does not have a local parameter, which I hope does not cause any confusion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Tooltip for light characteristic

I've got a version on the sandbox which will display a tooltip over the light characteristic, if the relevant property is given on Wikidata. Please see example below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Little Cumbrae New Lighthouse

Location	United Kingdom
Light
Characteristic	Fl W 6s

Maps in the infobox

On Lundy there are now three infoboxes, including two for the north and south lighthouses. These include a map with the island outlined in red but don't provide additional information over the more detailed maps already included in the article - is there any way to suppress these maps and stop them overrunning the end of the article? I've started a discussion at Talk:Lundy#Maps in lighthouse infoboxes if anyone can help?— Rod ^talk 17:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rod, the mapframe maps can be disabled using |mapframe=no. Frietjes (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks done - they take up a bit less screen now.— Rod ^talk 19:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of infoboxes that now have two maps, the mapframe and the pushpin versions. This is probably excessive in most situations. If people are happy with the new zoomable mapframe maps, shall we turn off the pushpin maps? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Removed the pushpin map from the template. If this is too sudden, let me know and I'll revert/discuss — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have created Category:Lighthouses using pushpin parameters and intend to remove all these parameters in the future — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

MSGJ, The category should be named Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with pushpin parameters for consistency. Also, can you exclude those articles from Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with unknown parameters to make that category more useful - these articles shouldn't be in both for the same reason. Thanks. MB 16:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added those parameters back into the Check for unknown parameters module, so they will not be included in that category (good idea!) I'm not too worried about the name of the category because I see it as a temporary tracking category, but feel free to change it in the sandbox if you think it is important, and I will update with the next substantive change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

MSGJ I'm not sure this is working right. The articles with push_pin parameters are still in Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with unknown parameters, even after purging. But if I edit one and do Show Preview, it is not it that category while previewing, but it is again after saving!

The reason for the name change is so the category will show up as a related category in the header of Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with unknown parameters. Not a big deal at all. MB 23:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry MB! I should have mentioned that I made the change in the /sandbox version, not yet the live version. I have a few other tweaks (including name changes to tracking category if you wish) and will update live in one edit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

NRHP tracking

I see you deleted Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with NRHP heritage. I had been monitoring this periodically to add NRHP infoboxes to articles when missing (if it had NRHP heritage in WD), or to add the NRHP heritage in WD if that was missing. MB 16:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Which of those categories do you still need? Last time I asked I wasn't too clear on the answer. I have removed the tag from that particular page but are there any others that you are still using? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the only one that I ever used, because it caught the two conditions mentioned above. MB 23:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay that's repopulating now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Abbreviate

Admiralty number and ARLHS number usually wrap to two lines. I have abbreviated "number" to "no." in the sandbox and it takes up less space and looks better, in my opinion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Lighthouses with more than one light

I have come across a few lighthouses recently which house more than one light (e.g. Lido Fanale Anteriore Lighthouse and Murano Lighthouse) and I believe these are not unusual. The lights would have different ranges, focal heights, characteristics, lenses, etc. and these parameters can be confusing if mixed together in the infobox. I have mocked up a proposed solution for Murano Lighthouse at Template:Infobox lighthouse/testcases#Murano Lighthouse which separates the two lights in the infobox. Comments are welcome. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Now deployed on Lido Fanale Anteriore Lighthouse and Murano Lighthouse — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Significant events

We record automation and deactivation of the lighthouse in the template. Are there other significant events in a lighthouse's history that could be recorded in the infobox? For example

• electricification
• renovation/redesign
• relocation
• demolishment

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)