Talk:Heceta Head Light

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

My closeup photo of Heceta Head is lame (zoomed and cropped from a bigger photo), but I couldn't believe there was NO photo of the "most photographed lighthouse", so I went digging for one that I had and posted it. I'll get a better one next time I'm out that way. Readparse 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bout that, I didnt have one when I Created the article.PDXblazers 06:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Pronuncation[edit]

I have heard that the correct (that is, locally preferred) pronunciation is with a hard c and an unstressed second syllable: /'hɛkətə/, rather than /hə'sitə/ or (as it would be in Spanish) /e'θeta/. Does anyone have information one way or the other about this? 71.142.95.220 05:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Pronounced “Ha – SEE – Tah” by most, “HECK – ah – Ta” by others, yet everyone agrees Heceta Head is one of the most beautiful lighthouses in the world." -The lighthouses website Cheers and happy editing, Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Its Ha-see-tah. Also, Yaquina is Ya-keen-ah. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Should include both pronunciations. Ha-SEE-tah and Ha-SEH-tah may be more correct, but local variance should not be discounted. I've always pronounced Yaquina as Ya-KWAY-na, and Heceta has been a mix of the two pronunciations Ha-SEH-tah and Hek-EH-ta. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Transportation cats[edit]

First, think about what is the purpose of a lighthouse. Next, here is a cat break down for you:

Thus, it, and every lighthouse in the US, is already in a transportation category. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you show me a precedent? First, any place on Wikipedia that this has been discussed so I can find out about this? ..and the other kind of precedent that I would like to see is another lighthouse article (or a few) where this has already been done. Thank you, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I found Point Cabrillo Light & Point Bonita Light which satisfy the 2nd part. I would still like to know the first part..I haven't see this applied before. For example, no other Oregon light is categorized in transportation. Cheers,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Dude, not to sound rude, but I did show you, with my first post. This lighthouse is in Category:Lighthouses in Oregon along with every Oregon lighthouse (I'm assuming the other states have the same). That category as I showed you above is a subcategory of Category:Lighthouses in the United States, which is a sub category of Category:Water transportation in the United States, which in turn is a sub category of Category:Transportation in the United States, thus it has been in a transportation category along with likely every lighthouse in the US (an article is viewed as being in every category up the food chain). Aboutmovies (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed my point that I was asking for a reference to a discussion so I could learn about this hierarchy within categories, that way I could understand the rationale behind the system.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Btw, I was wrong to revert you, please accept my apologies for that. I thought you were making a mistake but it was I who was mistaken. It is a rare category to be used in lighthouse articles. I checked all the other Oregon lighthouse articles, and then many (probably about 50-60) articles in other states (FL, WA, MI, CA) before I found the two in CA. I have several hundred lighthouse articles in my watchlist and honestly had never seen that cat added to a lighthouse. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about the revert, but next time bring it up on the talk page too, or do that first, or even contact the person. As to your question, I doubt you would find a discussion on including lighthouses in lower level transportation categories, or even in the transportation sub cats they are already in. In general these discussions for categorization rarely occur. In my 2 years and 30,000+ edits I've only been involved with a handful of discussions concerning what categories an article should be in. The only real caveat for what categories an article should be in is that it be supported in the article (e.g. if someone is classified as a Republican via a cat, then there should be something in the body of the text supporting this assertion). In this case the article is concerning a lighthouse, which by definition is a navigational aid for ships, thus is transportation related. This is why it is in a sub cat of water transportation in the US. Now, it is also a building and structure, lighthouses can also be NRHP buildings, bed & breakfasts, and a variety of other classifications. In this particular instance, this article was in a county category and I moved it to a sub category to help reduce the number in the main county category. This may or may not happen with the other Oregon lighthouse articles as the coast counties are less populous than those inland (here Lane County is one of the more populous counties but is mainly an inland county). As other county's categories increase in size, they too may need sub cats to move items into, and transportation is one of the topics that can move a lot of articles out of the main cat. Thus all the Oregon lighthouses may eventually be moved into a county transportation category. Meanwhile, I am also going to add the Oregon lighthouse cat to the Transportation in Oregon category to mimic the hierarchy at the national level. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Old photo?[edit]

Does anyone have an old photo showing the two original lightkeepers houses? It would be excellent for the article. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Major repair project[edit]

A 1-2 year renovation project will start August 1, 2011. It should affect everything (inside and out) except the lens and rotating lens assembly. Here's the news release from my agency: http://flashalert.net/news.html?id=1303 -- Chris Havel, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, 14 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.119.134 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)