Jump to content

Template talk:Lighthouses of Maine

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

Seavey's Island Range Lights

[edit]

I'm not sure these meet the standard of notability. They lasted around 11 years (1894-1905) and consisted of lanterns hung on posts -- http://www.lighthousedepot.com/lite_explorer.asp?action=display_details&LighthouseID=3353 I am therefore inclined to remove them from the template. Jameslwoodward (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennebunk Harbor Light

[edit]

A Google search on "Kennebunk Harbor Light*" (with quotes to limit search to exact match) yields no hits except this template. My guess would be that this is an alternate name for "Kennebunk Pier Light" which may or may not have been in the same place as the current Kennebunkport Breakwater Light 6, LL #1-8165. Note that Kennebunkport is at the mouth of the Kennebunk River; the village of Kennebunk is inland and there is no Kennebunk Harbor on current charts (and probably never has been). I am therefore also inclined to remove this from the template. Jameslwoodward (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennebunk Pier Light

[edit]

I'll do a little research and create this article.Jameslwoodward (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It's a tad annoying when the internal links to "lighthouse" and "Maine" are disguised in the same font colour as the "of". If someone was to just hover their cursor over the latter, there's a chance they'd miss the links. - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I agree that colors for the ±30 templates in the "lighthouses of (jurisdiction)" series might have been better. However, the colors match {{National Register of Historic Places}}, which appears on about 75% of USA lighthouse pages, so maybe that's the basis for the choice.
Since both "lighthouses" and the jurisdiction should be linked earlier on all pages where this template is used, perhaps you might consider the links a bonus, certainly not essential. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]