User talk:Cwbash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Cwbash, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Cordless Larry 19:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lighthouse articles

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've tagged your lighthouse articles as unencyclopedic. They seem to include travel advice, which isn't necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia. They're also of questionable notability. Perhaps you should have a go at re-writing them to make them more encyclopedic in tone. Cordless Larry 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with your editorial statements, providing much more "encyclopedic" data would probably force me into copyright violations. I'm providing the data I have in my head and the data that is "public domain". I have much more data available to me, but it's all published data that carries it's own copyrights (and I wish to maintain those rights).

In terms of providing travel data, it seems to me that is what most people wish to have that is not supplied elsewhere on the web.

Thanks for your comments, but I probably won't revise my pages. You certainly can mark them as "stubs" for additional editing by people with more facts that won't violate copyright restrictions.

If you delete the pages, please delete the uploaded pictures as well. The pictures were submitted to support the pages, not the other way around.

Charles W. Bash 19:40, 16 September 2006

Maybe you should take a look at Wikitravel, which is perhaps more appropriate for this type of material. Cordless Larry 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken another look at your documentation on referencing sourced material. Let me modify a few pages with additional data that is published elsewhere, add the appropriate references and you can comment if you think this violates fair usage or if it adds sufficient encyclopedic content.

I re-edited about four of the pages. Let me know if (a) this is closer to what you want or (b) still not of interest. You'll note a great deal of the material is quoted from other pages on the web, but I was trying to fill in the blank spots on "Lighthouses of the US" (of which there are many).

On a separate note, a major concept in Lighthouse design is the concept of Range Lights. In this model two lights are built, one taller than the other so that when you are on course, the two lights are visible right over each other. I can't find this concept described anywhere in Wikipedia. Suggestions about where it would be appropriate?

Cwbash 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That should probably go on the lighthouse page, if it's notable. Your articles are better now, but they could still do with some formatting, and I'm not sure they're notable (though I'm no expert). Cordless Larry 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Was your thought that I would add another "topic" on the lighthouse page? I had been thinking about an article that was standalone, but in the category of lighthouses. I'm amenable to adjusted thinkingCharles W. Bash 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should see what people think by posting a question about what to do at Talk:Lighthouse. Cordless Larry 21:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems there are plenty of other lighthouse articles, so I guess they are notable. You might want to take a look at the Godrevy article by means of a style guide. Cordless Larry 21:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
All these articles I have submitted have been to fill in stubs off the Lighthouses in the United States, so I didn't think about the "otherwise notable", I was just trying to fill in the blanks. Your discussion on style and content has been helpful (OBTW) Charles W. Bash 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm the one who tagged your Range Light addition to Lighthouse with the {{cleanup}} tag - and I was about to do it again, but thought I'd better contact you first. See, this is an encyclopedia, and we need the articles to be more of an encyclopedic, and less of a personal, narrative style. Could you please reword your "stuff" so that it sounds more neutral, and not like a "story a grandfather is telling the kids"... no offense meant with that, but that's how some of it seemed like - so word of mouth tells us and "Your author" used to sail on the Elbe aren't quite fitting in an encyclopedia. Greetings, and thanks, --Janke | Talk 20:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. I took some of this stuff out, but a long way from all of it. Now that I know what you're recommending, I'll make another run on it (by the way, you are quite correct in your analysis, I am a grandfather, and that form of talk often shows up.) Charles W. Bash 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I took a shot at "encyclopedifying" the Range Light section, removing all that sounded superfluous, thus getting it more concise, while still retaining all the facts. Please have a look, and try to emulate a "compact", less storytelling style in the future. Thanks for helping to build a better encyclopedia! --Janke | Talk 06:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
PS: There is a special template usually tagged onto "storytelling" articles, it might be a good idea to have a look at the guide mentioned therein:
This article or section is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.
Please improve it or discuss changes on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.

[edit] Missing info about colored sectors

In the lighthouse article, I found no explanation of the colored sectors often used to assist navigation. Would you care to write something about that? Thanks, --Janke | Talk 08:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a fairly broad subject. The problem is that when navigating w/o GPS, Radar, et. al., and you see a light, it may not be inherantly obvious which light it is. This was especially true if you weren't following a range of lights and approached a coast. Most lights were designed to have a distinctive striping (called a day mark as you could see it only during the daytime) and then either a light flashing system that was unique or color marking that was unique so that the navigator knew where he was.
Given that as background, not stated in Wiki style, is that the sort of content you were asking about? Charles W. Bash 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No, actually not... ;-) Sure, the flash periods distinguish one light from another, but I was talking about the colored sectors of light. If you're too far to the left, the light is red, too far to the right, it's green, (or vice versa, I'm no navigator), but if you're "in the groove" the light is white. --Janke | Talk 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
PS: I came here first - I see you've added a sentence about this. Could be a bit expanded, I think... --Janke | Talk 05:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The practice of colored sectors is actually pretty rare. Rare enough that I can't even quote you a specific example thereof. My recommendation would be to find specific examples, then expand my single sentence with specific references e.g., Examples of this can be found in light 1 and light 2 where it provided some specific benefit. This is much more prevelant in aircraft landing systems than it is with lighthouses. Charles W. Bash 12:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Rare?? Maybe in the US, but there are 404 of them in Finland alone, of which 113 are on our lakes, the rest at sea. A stub article is at Sector_lights - I put a link on the lighthouse page. --Janke | Talk 13:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I don't want to put in an explanation of them. I've only spent 1 day in Finland of my 65 years, so I don't think I'm the right person to document the "why's" of that technology more than the one line I've provided.

Thanks for your questions, but I for one will "pass". God bless. Charles W. Bash 15:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/w/b/User_talk%7ECwbash_0c83.html"