Talk:List of lighthouses in China/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1

Discussion to split Lighthouses of Hong Kong and Lighthouses of Macau into their own separate articles

The discussion is not valid due to extensive sockpuppetry. Closing as no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(This section, with its heading and subheadings, was started by Atsme at 11:58, 19 December 2020‎ (UTC).[1][2]) 218.255.11.66 (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(A) Split Lighthouses of Hong Kong into its own article

  • Oppose - fails as a standalone per
    WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This list is not so long that it is unmanageable, and a subsection is adequate. If Hong Kong builds another 50 lighthouses, it may warrant its own article. Atsme 💬 📧 20:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC) For clarity based on following responses: I didn't literally mean another 50 lighthouses, it was intended as [hyperbole]
    . 18:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting observation. If not even France would manage to reach 50 then most of these lists would have to be merged were we going to apply Atsme's criteria, especially for countries smaller than France or Belgium. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong is located in China, not France, so your apples to oranges comparison is futile. Your argument is simply not convincing relative to making it a standalone article without support from multiple independent RS per GNG, which is necessary for the successful creation of standalone articles. I also see no reason for us to not be concerned over the IP support of your position when all use a similar weak argument, are SPA accounts, and geolocate to the same area. I suggest that you register your account, find the neccessary independent RS to cite, and present a valid argument for your proposed spin-off. It is really quite simple.
  • Adding: There was concern expressed by an admin (1) over new multiple IP accounts geolocating to the same area per this diff, and (2) the revelation of implied political motivation that was provided in response per this diff: Don't pretend that you know nothing about what's happening down there. Atsme 💬 📧 13:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Would you elaborate "Hong Kong is located in China" in more in-depth terms? (Are the USVI, the Isle of Man and the Faroe Islands in the US, the UK and Denmark respectively, by your same logic?) 124.217.189.103 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    • This seems to be a comparison about numbers since 50 was suggested as a benchmark. This got nothing to do with France if I read correctly. Correct me if I am wrong. 219.77.118.18 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    • That's apparently a reference to the need not to edit from permanent accounts, rather than "implied political motivation" on the part of you two. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Split that section to a more focused list. Easier to handle for editors and access for the general audience. That's probably the what the original state was meant for. 219.76.18.74 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep this list per WP:UCS. This is like merging the lists for Wales, the Isle of Man, Guernsey or Gibraltar into that for England. This certainly isn't something which requires lengthy discussion as such in the first place. Speedy revert to the status quo before Atsme's and Valereee's disruptive edits. Inquire into their behaviour. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep separate lists. Just like Gibraltar isn't part of England. 61.244.195.230 (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Split. Different countries, different jurisdictions, different governing authorities for maritime transport. There is a "hard border" between them. It's patrolled and checked. And armed. 210.6.10.130 (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Hard border and different authorities are convincing criteria. 58.177.160.150 (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment: Please also refer to my note above regarding the Northern Ireland example at 15:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC). 124.217.189.103 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks. That's indeed making it a stronger case to keep. 58.177.160.150 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree. Split. Everyone who knows a tiny bit about this place can tell. 210.6.10.148 (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Split and keep per other China- and Hong Kong-related lists and the lists of lighthouses of other similar countries. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore and keep. They have always been separate lists. 219.76.18.75 (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It was a separate list as late as June 2018 or ~2.5 years ago. 219.76.18.76 (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Split. This section has become unwieldy so I've explained myself in the discussion section below. Deryck C. 14:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore the Hong Kong list for the time being. It was not discussed in June 2018. Merge the materials Deryck C had added to this China list under the Hong Kong section over there. 219.76.18.76 (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Undo the 2018 merge. Move whatever isn't already covered to there. Move the wiki-link to Hong Kong lighthouses to the See also section. 210.0.147.109 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Revert out the redirect - question seems to not be clearly stating the content dispute and article name. See Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau I suggest revert out the redirect/deletion and allow *both* pages to list lighthouses - asking 'Split' seems an unnecessary dichotomy. Anyone looking at Hong Kong articles should find a suitable bit, and anyone searching for 'lighthouses in hong kong' seems to want Hong Kong and not the page for all China. A wikilink or See Also seems better to dothan a 'there can be only one mega-article' approach. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(B) Split Lighthouses of Macau into its own article

  • Support per Jokulhlaup's remarks below @10:30, 22 December 2020. 218.255.111.214 (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Same reason as above. WPC. 219.76.18.80 (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Revert both lists to their original state before any discussion. Both lists were separate lists not redirects. 219.76.18.74 (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Split that section to a more focused list. Easier to handle for editors and access for the general audience. That's probably the what the original state was meant for. 219.76.18.74 (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree as above. Split them. Each country got its own list on each topic. 124.217.188.223 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep three lists. 219.76.166.243 (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep this list per WP:UCS, as above. This is like merging the lists for Wales, the Isle of Man, Guernsey or Gibraltar into that for England. This certainly isn't something which requires lengthy discussion as such in the first place. Speedy revert to the status quo before Atsme's and Valereee's disruptive edits. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Split. Different countries, different jurisdictions, different governing authorities for maritime transport. 210.6.10.130 (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment: Please also refer to my note above regarding the Northern Ireland example at 15:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC). 124.217.189.103 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Just as my vote above under (A). 58.177.160.150 (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree. Split. Misapplication and malapplication of Wikipedia policies by Atsme and Valereeee. 210.6.10.148 (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Atsme and/or Valereee would you explain and elaborate why those policies you referred to are relevant and applicable? (If there is none by the time this is closed, take this as an agree vote. Thanks.) 220.246.55.231 (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. They have always been separate lists. 219.76.18.75 (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Put on hold and restore everything to their original states before meaningful discussions may go ahead.
    Wikipedia:Common sense should be given undue weight regarding the status of dependencies. 218.255.11.66 (talk
    ) 08:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Revert Atsme's edit which blanked the page. 219.76.18.76 (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak split per discussion below, though this is weak due to the shorter list size. Deryck C. 14:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment: Macau got an even stronger case in my opinion. The lighthouse on Colina da Guia there is considerably older than all other lighthouses in the Far East. 124.217.189.103 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Macau list has always been a standalone list and it has never been edit-warred. Atsme spilled her battle over when she edit-warred over the Hong Kong. Merge the Macau section in the China article to the Macau one, if there is anything isn't already covered. 210.0.147.109 (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Revert out the redirect - arriving per mention at my TALK page -- question seems to not be clearly stating the content dispute context, see Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau and making it a split seems unnecessary. I suggest just revert out the redirect/deletion and allow *both* pages to list lighthouses. The discussion as phrased is confusing to me and I'm concerned there are so many ip inputsand possible and mentions of canvassing or forum shopping but think multiple articles is fine. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Could we perhaps get some context for this discussion, and perhaps some of the initial arguments for and against the splits? DonIago (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment It's indeed uncommon, if anyone ever did, to see people opposing the proposal he creates. This is amusing. 219.76.15.143 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    • IMO what Atsme put forward weren't valid nominations at all. 218.255.111.214 (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy close this. 219.76.18.80 (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree. Go back to the status quo ante bellum and speedy close this. 219.76.18.74 (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: multiple brand-new IPs all geolocating to the same place is quite likely to result in all such !votes being ignored completely. Realize this is not a vote. We call them "!votes" (not-votes), and numbers don't really matter. Reasoning based on policy is what matters. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Don't pretend that you know nothing about what's happening down there. 218.255.111.214 (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
      Zero idea what you're talking about, IP. I don't even know what you mean by "down there", much less what's happening wherever you are referring to. —valereee (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • !Vote but an indication of opinion from Wikipedians editing from Hong Kong. 124.217.188.223 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There was no need to discuss something as simple and as common sense as such in the first place. And that was also the status quo. If that has to be changed, it would be the burden of Atsme and Valereee to state their rationale clearly, and in the meantime they are duty bound by Wikipedia rules and conventions to maintain and preserve the status quo. Or else they are disrupting Wikipedia. Do not
    disrupt to make a point (and even if there were a point to make that has to be stated in clear terms over that talk pages of the affected lists, i.e. Talk:List of lighthouses in Hong Kong/Macau). 210.6.10.130 (talk
    ) 08:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    IP, you should listen to @Jokulhlaup. If you'd spent a tenth of the time googling that you've spent socking, you could have won this debate by now. Refute @Atsme's argument: find evidence that these lighthouses are treated by RS as separately notable from those of China. All it takes is maybe three articles/books about the lighthouses of Macau to show that they're separately notable. You live in the area. You should easily be able to prove this if it's true. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Two cents from a passer-by: I have all along believed that it is all about
common sense that there exists a clear convention on Wikipedia and among most reputable publications that dependent territories are countries whenever it comes to tables, lists, categories, and whatsoever similar. But since you've chosen to asked specifically anyway, you may want to take a look at how other lists and categories by country on Wikipedia are organised, e.g., Template:COVID-19 pandemic data[13]. Meanwhile, here are some other good sources for reference: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18], and here's how Time, for example, would refer to Hong Kong in their stories: [19] [20]
.
As for lighthouses, you may want to have a look at how the list of Lists of lighthouses has organised them.[21][22] And on the other hand, the Lighthouse Digest Lighthouse Explorer Database, which is one of the resources recommended by the website of USLHS,[23], has five entries by searching for "Hong Kong" in the country field.[24]
One may ask why it would be necessary to produce the sources to demonstrate dependent territories are countries. This is not very different from asking for sources to show that Kamala Harris is going to be the first female vice president. Perhaps this is how some Wikipedia administrators do their job. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This does not seem to be written anywhere but yes that is always the rule everywhere. Is that something which we have to explain to editors who got, say, ten years of experience on Wikipedia? 219.77.118.18 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
There are really quite many people we may come across in our daily lives the other day who appear to be new to this planet. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
As François-Marie Arouet aka. Voltaire put it: «Le sens commun n'est pas si commun». 219.76.24.202 (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Any parallel which we may draw from the recent RfC discussion over the title of the article on the coronavirus outbreak in China? The scope didn't seem to be disputed over there. All sides agreed almost from the very beginning. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This is nice. Closing admins should give undue weight to this account. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • For Pete's sake, can you please change the record – look the status quo was a redirect from 2015, expanding a redirect into an article by an IP was like a waving a red flag on a battlefield for a New Page Patroller such as Atsme. So instead of sniping at admins and editors
    do some homework and find some reliable sources that support your arguments, rather than use the same old repeated arguments which are unsupported...Jokulhlaup (talk
    ) 16:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion is a bit of a mess, but I understand Atsme's argument that the lists can be combined as is. While there are plenty of short list articles, there is currently no text at all to distinguish the various lighthouses listed here. I'd merge the France ones too, as it stands. CMD (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Chipmunkdavis, is that a !vote, or just a comment? Sorry, trying to assess for a closing and hoping we'll get some additional actual opinions, as right now there are only three. :) —valereee (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    It's a plea for sources and article development! For closing purposes feel free to consider it an oppose to splitting as it stands, with no objection to reopening if there is a firm sourcing argument as Jokulhlaup indicated there might be. CMD (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks! —valereee (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Chipmunkdavis You may be interested to take a quick glance at my remarks above at 12:08 4 January 2020. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    Don't think the French lists can be merged, at least not without discussion at the relevant talk pages. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks whichever IP editor that left me a talk page message. @
    WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument: firstly we're only recording lighthouses documented by reputable databases, and secondly surely one can extend the same argument to list of lighthouses in China too. For obvious historical reasons the traditions and standards of lighthouses in Hong Kong and Macao from those of Mainland China. If the lack of distinguishing header text is what's at stake, I can draft a short history about lighthouses in Hong Kong. Deryck C.
    14:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    Wait...you were canvassed here? I'm not comfortable with that. —valereee (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    And it looks like the same IP left canvassing messages on the talk pages of other editors from HK. Unbelievable. First sock/meat puppetry, now canvassing. —valereee (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Deryck Chan forgot to ping. —valereee (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Valereee: Thanks for the ping. While I think the wall of IP comments in the polling section above is a bit of a mess, I also think it's quite reasonable to message regular editors of Hong Kong topics about a debate on lighthouses in Hong Kong... Deryck C. 14:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    It is not reasonable to post to the talk pages only of editors from Hong Kong. You may not have realized it was canvassing -- you may have assumed it was because this IP thought of you as an expert in the field -- but the IP only notified editors in HK, not in China or Macau. —valereee (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    I speak for myself and I got zero idea who've been canvassed beyond what Deryck has reported. But this is simple: WikiProject Macau is no longer active, neither are the participants of that WP; compound with the fact that Macau is not an English-speaking country and so there isn't a comparable Wikipedian community out there as in Hong Kong. The very existence of the list of Chinese lighthouses is not in any way affected compared with that of the lists of Hong Kong and Macau lighthouses. 124.217.189.103 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    Have you got the evidence? As far as I remember from what I read you've been told why many Wikipedians from Hong Kong avoid editing from long-term accounts. 124.217.189.103 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm of the mind that it is equally as important to consider the geography, and put the politics aside. Quoting the World Atlas: [Hong Kong] is located on the east of the Pearl River Estuary on south coast of China. Lighthouses are coastal, and HK is located on the south coast of China in the South China Sea which pretty much explains the purpose for lighthouses. There is also this CNBC article which further demonstrates location geography (ignoring the politics). Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China. As for Macao, over time a growing sandbar connected it to the mainland, and it is now a peninsula so the same geographic context applies. WP customarily uses a common name approach when naming articles/lists because it's easier for readers to find. Also keep in mind that we have separate articles for some of the lighthouses listed in the Hong Kong section, so the list itself is subject to
    WP:NOTDIR, #7 - although it is convenient as an index for the articles about notable lighthouses. It is a long way from being unwieldy, and the references need work because some take you to Error 404. Atsme 💬 📧
    15:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Atsme: I don't think either of us will convince the other regarding the merits of having separate lists or not so I won't carry on that thread. Regarding the 404 links, it seems that Wayback Machine has working backups but InternetArchiveBot isn't picking them up. I've raised phab:T271117 about this. Deryck C. 15:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    You are like suggesting that Wales is part of England because it's located on the western coast of England and it's connected to the English mainland. Or like Gibraltar is Spanish by the same reason. With respect do you actually understand what exactly you are trying to suggest? Have you actually paid attention to how other by country lists which involve Hong Kong and Macau and other similar countries are organised, as far as your concern around "common name approach" and "easier for readers to find"?
    As for the CNBC article, there isn't anything about "location geography" or anything which "ignor[ed] politics". If there is indeed any would you mind quoting the relevant sentences? 124.217.189.103 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Atsme:'s remarks made me think what should be done with the lighthouses in the Channel Islands in the list of French lighthouses. 219.77.118.18 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
What about Quemoy and Matsu? 124.217.189.103 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Are they Chinese or Taiwanese? 219.77.118.18 (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, politically. Not quite if we talk about (natural) geography. Are Hawaii or Alaska part of the United States? (Is Point Roberts part of Washington?) 124.217.189.103 (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • According to your same source from worldatlas.com Monaco is said to be "... located on the French Riviera in Western Europe". Whereas at the same time Hong Kong is described with the following line: "Hong Kong Bordering Countries: China". Further to that is that all those which got such entries under www.worldatlas.com/maps/ are countries, including cases like Greenland and French Polynesia (a pays d'outre-mer of France). So what are you trying to suggest, Atsme? If worldatlas.com would be a source which you'd rely on, would you call Monaco part of France? Is there a border between China and Hong Kong? Are Greenland and French Polynesia countries, for instance? 219.76.18.76 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
And do editors from HK also edit serially to one another? Because that's what's happening here: one makes a few edits, then the next one comes in and we don't see the first one again. We have at my last count fifteen different IPs, and almost none of them have edited with any overlap at all. That is clear evidence of sockpuppetry. The two minor overlaps I found (a single edit within a short time in each case) could be different people but probably just represent the same user with two different devices. Either way it's meatpuppetry; none of the accounts have done any editing outside this and a couple of other closely-related articles. @Deryck Chan, can you address the IP's concerns about the government w/re registering an account? —valereee (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: No comment on tag-teaming vs sockpuppetry; I've had too many bad experiences with editors with an anti-HK bias abusing the SPI case page of a certain banned editor with a known pro-HK bias to push their agenda. I'll respond to the point about accounts below. Deryck C. 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Deryck how are these lists usually organised with respect to DOMs and TOMs of France, British overseas territories and crown dependencies, and Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian, Australian, NZ and US territories? 219.77.118.18 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the "short history" which you have added. 219.76.18.76 (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: Will this discussion be cited or have any bearing on other similar lists for countries with relatively fewer lighthouses? 219.77.118.18 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    No, and so far, you're not having any bearing on this one. Atsme 💬 📧 17:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I would say the list may potentially very long, since China has a very long coastal region. However, usually this kind of wiki list only consist of notable entities (in this case, lighthouse). I don't see there is many blue link lighthouse article to warrant a split yet. Matthew hk (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I did the homework to look up in the edit history. There was actually one single
    List of lighthouses more than a decade ago, until country-specific lists were spun off and the original list was eventually turned into a list of lists. Should the children lists be merged back? Or at least all those under, say, 50, since Atsme had proposed far above? 220.246.55.231 (talk
    ) 08:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@219.77.118.18:, start a list with arbitrary scope such as sovereign country would be a good idea. While Asia may be a good starting point to list the sub-list. While HK and Macao are not sovereign countries. If this list has grow in size (Read WP:article size), then may be a good point to split for HK and Macao, which historically not part of PRC for a long time and have significant architectural different from Mainland China lighthouse. Matthew hk (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we refer this to Talk:List(s) of lighthouses and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: There are a large number of articles that are delineated along countries (a term which include states and territories). A small number of these entries are delineated along continents. A further smaller number of them are a mixture of the two. The items were first spun off by continent, then some were further spun off by country. List of town tramway systems is one such example of the last group. Given what you said above would you suggest having the Lists of lighthouses hierarchy reorganised along the same way? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It just lame argument on delineated along province or first level administrative entity or not (SAR is the same level as province and the "Autonomous" region likes Tibet) The argument should base on the size of the list and then the arbitrary delineation . If the article size is large, probably yes to split Hong Kong and Macau (other reason i also stated above). Also, there is "another" method to split the list just likes Chile: List of lighthouses in Chile: NGA1080–NGA1155.5. The current (10:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC), rev 1002853239) article size of this China list is 56,815 bytes and not yet reach the guideline threshold and vote stacking does not work in wikipedia. Please just quit the upvote habit that carry over from lihkg and reddit Matthew hk (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's so happened that there are probably more blue links from lighthouses in Hong Kong (Cape D'Aguilar, Green Island (two lighthouses), Po Toi, Tang Lung Chau, and Waglan) than those in China (Baishamen, Bo'ao, and Mulantou). (Reverse merger huh?) 220.246.55.231 (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Further to the findings submitted by 220.246.55.231 above at 12:08, 4 January 2021, which imo are very relevant and helpful, I did some homework too. The Hong Kong list had existed as its own list between November 2016, when it was created, and June 2018, when it was redirected to the China list,[28] whereas the Macau list had existed between October 2016 and December 2020, when Atsme disrupted it to make his/her point, an action supported by Valereee.[29] Before November 2016 there was simply no reference to any Hong Kong or Macau lighthouses on the China list. Perhaps we shall invite Chesipiero for his input here. Imo the simple conclusion was that the China list, like many other China-specific articles, lists and categories on Wikipedia, was never meant to cover China's dependent territories. The same has always been the default position for all other dependent territories, except for very specific situations (like the participation of Gibraltarian or Faroese athletes in the Olympics). 218.255.11.66 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. So were those blanking edits ever discussed? Don't seem so? If they weren't why on this planet are we discussing just for the sake of returning to the status quo back then? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please refer to Tjhe Kwet Koe v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, [1997] FCA 912, on 8 Sept 1997, by the Federal Court of Australia; and the many lists of country codes on Wikipedia, such as ISO 3166, ITU's E.164 and Maritime ID, IOC, FIFA, LOC Marc, Nato, UNDP, WMO, ICAO. The answer is clear and hardly debatable. Those who still think they want to argue against the established practice gotta review their familiarity with Wikipedia and global affairs as Wikipedian editors. 218.102.122.155 (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    From those examples and codes, can you give the establishment a specific example of how they relate to the lighthouses in HK or Macau...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tjhe Kwet Koe: What a cool reference. But honestly have never imagined we need this. We certainly shouldn't have needed to rely on a court's ruling on something as common sense as such. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(Do we actually need a long discussion with such breadth and depth for something so simple and conventional?) 219.76.24.202 (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

semi'd for a week

...to try to get edit-warring IP to respond here on talk. IP, we'd like to discuss this with you. Please stop simply reverting and discuss what it is you're trying to do and why so that other editors can understand. It may very well be you can convince people your idea is a good one. —valereee (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Please uphold your impartiality. If in case you got any opinion refrain from using your admin rights and powers to those entries and topics. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

semi'd talk

Obvious sockpuppetry to affect discussion outcome. I hate to semi a talk, but this is pretty egregious. Please if you're an uninvolved IP who would like to comment, feel free to post to my talk and I'll post your comment/!vote for you. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it going to be seen to be bias-free to do so through you? 218.255.11.66 (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
IP, I'm acting in an admin capacity here, not as an editor. I have zero opinion on whether we create separate lists or keep them in one as they are now. I haven't !voted and don't intend to. So, no, there's no bias here whatsoever. And quite honestly all those IP !votes are hurting your case. If it's not sockpuppetry, it's definitely meatpuppetry, and whoever closes this will likely count only a single one of the IP opinions because of it. —valereee (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I checked the page history of various entries. Your impartiality as an administrator had in fact been compromised given that you've always sided with Atsme over the status quo before his/her disruptive edits when you protected the pages. You'd better refrain from doing so, undo what you did, and ask other editors to seek such assistance from other admins. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I've sided with protecting the pages from disruptive edit-warring by an IP-hopping user who was otherwise unwilling to discuss. I am not involved here, but you can take this to
WP:AN
if you think I'm wrong. Again, I have ZERO opinion on whether or not this list should be split or retained as a single list. I truly do not care. I don't care about lighthouses, I don't care about lists, I don't care what's underlying all of these accusations you're making about this somehow favoring China. Literally my only concern was to get you to start discussing the issue instead of disrupting the project.
My concern now is to convince you to stop the sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry !voting, as it's not going to work. No reasonable closer is going to look at the !votes above and assess the various IP arguments as representing more than a single editor's opinion. We get it: you want the list split because you think it's somehow politically meaningful that all lighthouses in China are in one list while there are other countries with what you consider similar political boundaries that are split into multiple lists. Not the strongest argument, per
WP:OSE
, but if you weren't being so problematic here, you might be able to convince some people to at least go investigate whether some of the other articles should be merged.
Look, we work collaboratively here, and we assume good faith of one another. It's the only way we can get anything done. Please just stop assuming there's some nefarious purpose behind this on my part. —valereee (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
(Note) The comment above by was amended by User:Valereee at 14:37, 1 January 2021.[30] 218.255.11.66 (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you are talking about. This is a Hong Kong-related topic (and ties between Hong Kong and Macau have always been very close). It's all natural that there would be Hong Kong Wikipedians raising their concern (Macau is not an English-speaking country after all). Who's IP hoping here? Meanwhile would this [31][32] be something which you would call "protecting the pages from disruptive edit-warring"? And who are the party which were unwilling to discuss here, at the proper venue i.e. talk pages of the articles which are actually affected?[33][34][35][36][37] As for [38], it's one's duty to familiarise him/herself before he or she exercises any admin powers. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether I'm familiar with the political situation because the political situation isn't any part of the decision here. My point was that I don't even have an opinion on the political significance of lighthouses in China, HK, or Macau. Zero opinion. I don't need to be knowledgeable about it in order to work in this article as an admin. In fact to work as an admin it's best if I don't have an opinion.
It's fine if wikipedians in HK are interested in this article, but we aren't seeing that. We're seeing sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry in an attempt to change the outcome of a !vote, and it's not going to work. In fact if there does happen to be more than one valid IP opinion in this !vote, you've probably disenfranchised them with your socking, as no reasonable closer is likely to count more than a single one of those fifteen or so IP !votes. —valereee (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It's likely unintentional and unaware as a tactic but the unfortunate outcome is that you've had a tendency to mix things up. The ongoing situation in Hong Kong in the past couple of years are not relevant to the outcome of these lists. That's relevant to why Wikipedians from this territory tend not to use permanent accounts. And no you don't have to be familiar with everything but it is reasonable to expect that you are able to understand what'd happened to the entries when you exercise your admin powers.
Your reference to meatpuppetry is personal attack on one hand and baseless on the other. Meanwhile you have consistently evading why you have entrenched Atsme's edits to blank the
Military of Hong Kong, amongst others). You claimed you don't have an opinion but your actions have proven the otherwise. 218.255.11.66 (talk
) 12:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Having an account actually helps with your privacy because it hides your IP from public view. You can also use a proxy (if the proxy is blocked by Wikipedia, you can apply for
WP:IPBE; m:Wikimedia User Group Hong Kong can help). Deryck C.
14:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
With an account all past edits can be easily tracked down. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Deryck C. What about moving onwards to new accounts from time to time? There's no anonymity if all edit histories can be traced. 219.76.24.212 (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I refer to these two edits by Valereee: [39] [40]. Valereee has been told to put things on hold and not to create fait accompli.[41] Neutral? DGAF? "... a woman of western European descent living in the US midwest whose primary focus for the last five years has been our own dumpster-fire of a political scene and now frickin' COVID has any interest in why a list of lighthouses somehow has political meaning in Hong Kong"?[42] Along with her other edits it would not be reasonable to consider her impartial. Those actions of hers which have been favourable to Atsme should be reviewed. 219.76.18.76 (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
It's time to undo the non-discussed mergers, until there is consensus to merge, if there were going to be any. 118.140.125.81 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Chung-Kiang Pagoda

Some sources have included the Chung-Kiang Pagoda in Wuhu, Anhwei as one of the Chinese lighthouses. Should it be included under this list? 219.76.24.202 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Is that actually a lighthouse? 58.177.160.150 (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Quote: "The Zhongjiang Pagoda was constructed in 1618, during the Ming Dynasty, and rebuilt in 1669 during the Qing dynasty, was a navigation aid for boats and ships later known as a lighthouse, and is maintained by the Maritime Safety Administration.
The Pagoda was repaired in 1669 during the Qing Dynasty,[1] rebuilt in 1988, and is a key preservation unit of historical and cultural relics in Wuhu."--Now wiki (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
So should it be included in this list? 219.76.24.212 (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_lighthouses_in_China/Archive_1&oldid=1121040643"