Jump to content

Talk:List of lighthouses in China

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Markbassett (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 16 January 2021 (Undid revision 1000803749 by Markbassett (talk) revert self). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

(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)[reply]

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

  • Oppose - fails as a standalone per WP:LISTN and 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

(B) Split Lighthouses of Macau into its own article

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)[reply]

  • An IP added this template proposing to split that subsection into a new article, List of Hong Kong lighthouses, but prior to adding that template, kept reverting the redirect and creating a standalone article (list). Pretty much the same applies to this one. No explanation has been given but it appears that it might have something to do with the separation of Hong Kong and People's Republic of China. I don't know and will leave that up to the various project members to sort out. There has been a bit of edit warring by the IP despite my edit summaries explaining that a discussion was needed first, so I went ahead and created this section hoping to get the IP to more closely follow WP:PAG. Admin Valereee invited the IP to present and discuss their proposal here. Atsme 💬 📧 16:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doniago please refer to my comment under Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau. 14.0.180.170 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doniago, please don't. Please discuss here. I'm not sure what the objection to that is, but this is where the discussion was first opened, and this is where it should be. —valereee (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • When I last checked, the Macau list has not been a redirect until Atsme and Valereee forced their way through (with their latter employing his/her admin powers).[25][26] The Hong Kong list was not a redirect way into mid-2018 (as opposed to 2015). That blanking and redirect was itself never discussed, not to mention any form of consensus.[27] 218.255.11.66 (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks whichever IP editor that left me a talk page message. @Atsme, Valereee, Chipmunkdavis, and Doniago: I'm compelled by the arguments to have standalone articles for Hong Kong Macao, especially the comparison with France and Belgium in terms of list size. I'm afraid I disagree with Atsme's 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)[reply]
    Wait...you were canvassed here? I'm not comfortable with that. —valereee (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Deryck Chan forgot to ping. —valereee (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
What about Quemoy and Matsu? 124.217.189.103 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are they Chinese or Taiwanese? 219.77.118.18 (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 List of lighthouses in Macau and Lighthouses in Hong Kong (and 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
With an account all past edits can be easily tracked down. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Canvassing

Well, someone canvassed me here.....not sure how many other editors have the same experience. Matthew hk (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk thank you. At least two other editors were canvassed; we can't know how many were because of IP-hopping. That's on top of the socking/meatpuppeting. I almost wonder if we need to simply close this discussion and open one that is semi'd, inviting IPs to participate via edit request or something? I don't know. —valereee (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So are there only three that we are talking about? That seems to be a right balance. 219.77.118.18 (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... open one that is semi'd, inviting IPs to participate via edit request or something? I don't know." Whatever the case, you shouldn't take on admin role in this area of topics. You have not acted in an impartial manner from the onset. It may be more helpful and constructive if you may participate as an ordinary lay editor. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero interest in editing here. I literally WP:DGAF about it. I wouldn't even know which way to !vote on this issue, and I'm not interested enough in the question to do any policy research to try to figure it out; if I weren't adminning here, I wouldn't be here. I literally could not be any more qualified to act as an admin here.
Have you seen Deryck C's reply to you about creating an account? His opinion is that, even in Hong Kong, it helps protect your privacy rather than the other way around. Maybe go to the HK user group he suggested and ask the folks there if they agree with him. —valereee (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... I wouldn't even know which way to !vote on this issue, and I'm not interested enough in the question to do any policy research to try to figure it out; ..." Your actions speak louder than your words. You have all along helped him or her to fix things at his or her version, and forum-shopped. See, e.g. among others, [43], [44], [45]. As 218.255.111.214 put it above, it was "red-handed". 218.255.11.66 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South China Sea lighthouses

Should these lighthouses be counted as lighthouses in China? Are there any relevant Wikipedia policies regarding buildings and structures on disputed soil? [46] [47] [48] 58.177.160.150 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lighthouse Directory at UNC have maintained a separate list for the Spratly Islands under the Southeast Asia grouping.[49] 58.177.160.150 (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The islands and their lighthouses would be subject to WP:Notability (geographic features). Also review WP:GNG. My suggestion is to avoid issues that would raise a red flag with reviewers working in WP:AFC and WP:NPP, and simply follow the notability guidelines - and don't hesitate to ask questions. You are close to having justification for a spin-off list considering China recently constructed about 5 new lighthouses, so check them out for notability, and avoid adding only statistics which makes them subject to WP:NOTDIR. Also, any lighthouses that are included need to pass GNG which is dependent on citing at least 3 high quality independent WP:RS, excluding other stat lists. Articles about lighthouses that have historic significance (not just a simple tourist attraction) that are/were important to their respective geographic locations are a good place to start. If all the IPs who commented here (be it one person or many) would simply register an account, and actually consider what we've been explaining in an effort to help you, you may find that it will prove beneficial to your goals rather than being an obstruction to them. Atsme 💬 📧 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above has left me wonder whether this learned Wikipedian had read what he or she was responding to, or what are in the three hyperlinks enclosed. The lighthouses concerned were built on disputed islands (note: even their status as islands is disputed as far as international maritime/hydrographic law is concerned) in the South China Sea controlled by Chung-nan-hai. They certainly aren't "tourist attractions" (no civilians may reach them anyway), nor would they have any historical significance for the time being given that they were only recently built. But they are certainly notable given their importance to geopolitics of the broader region. The question was that whether these lighthouses should be considered "lighthouses in China" and covered by the umbrella of this list, thereby justifying their inclusion here. Would RfC be the way forward? Or should editors simply go ahead and add them to this list? 58.177.160.150 (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, a spin-off list? Why do we need to do so if these are Chinese lighthouses? And why would an account be relevant here? In what way would that be relevant to materials for actual content? 58.177.160.150 (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For reference: The Vietnam list already contains those lighthouses on the islands of Spratlys which Vietnam control. [50] As mentioned above, the UC list is available here. [51] 58.177.160.150 (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_lighthouses_in_China&oldid=1000806488"