This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles
I suspect it's just that the majority of the population on the islands is in Stanley, which was built on the convenient natural harbour on East Falkland. Warofdreamstalk02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The prevailing wind direction (70% of the time) is from a broad arc spanning the SSW to NNW." [1] Various other websites agree the prevailing winds are westerlies, so Stanley is generally sheltered. Warofdreamstalk00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Justin has recently changed the order of units, putting the Imperial measures first. He has stated two reasons for this: consistency and consensus. I believe that the order of units should generally follow the sources, and this would generally mean that the metric measures would come first. I can't see any evidence that this matter was discussed in relation to this article so I am not sure how Justin arrived at his conclusion that there was a consensus for this change. The history record suggests that the article has been metric first for at least a year before he changed it.
How do others feel about this question?
Should we generally go with the sources?
Should we fix on one system (either Imperial or Metric) and if so, how strictly should we apply this principle?
As I understand the rules, the policy on the order of units is decided on an article by article basis.
When I first came to it this article was metric first in the opening paragraph. Any changes I made were based on the sources. All that, however, is history. If people want it source based or Metric or Imperial or a mixture, so be it. Michael Glass (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Glass's reasons seem good enough for me. I have no idea why some UK editors are insisting on making the old US units the main ones. Is it a hearking back to the days of the British Empire? I note that the BBC has completely switched to metric units on its documentaries (David Attenbrough et al.). What is the problem? Tony(talk)06:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have a look at WP:AGF, and assume that people want to improve the encyclopædia? You might not agree with them on this point, but that's OK - since when did everyone have to think the same thing? Pfainuktalk09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article had imperial first the area was specified in acres. You added figures to the lead. I'm simply arguing for consistency not a bastardised mix. I have absolutely no idea why people feel the need to impugn the motives of other editors either. Justintalk08:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I have no idea why some UK editors are insisting on making the old US units the main ones. Is it a hearking back to the days of the British Empire?" I took that to impugn the motives of other editors, perhaps they just prefer it that way. Justintalk21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled that Justin claims that the original area of the island was given in acres. The history of the article clearly shows that from the very first, the area of the island was given in square kilometres. [2]. It could therefore be argued that anyone who added Imperial measures to the article was breaking the original style.
When I first edited the article in 2005, the area of the island was described in square kilometres with no conversion to square miles [3] When Justin made his first edit, in October 2007, the first sentence still described the area of the island with square kilometres first and square miles in brackets. The height of Mt Usbourne was also listed as being 705m before the figure in feet was given. [4]. From that point onwards, the article expressed distances in Imperial measures, including an estimate of the size of Lafonia as 600,000 acres. Therefore at the point where Justin began editing this article, it was using a mixture of units.
Justin made some edits in January 2008 but did not alter the units of measurements [5].
The history of the article clearly reveals that it began with metric units. Acres were only used to specify the area of Lafonia and this was a later addition. When Justin and I both began editing this article it used a mixture of units. Both of us edited the article, but while my changes were consistent with the original style of the article and were footnoted [6] his were based on other considerations. Also, unlike the Falkland Islands article, where the order of the units was discussed, there was no discussion here about the order of the units until now. Michael Glass (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial Units are British units, not sure even the US is so culturally imperialistic as to claim they're US units. For info, I was referring to the concensus on Falkland Islands. It seems foolish to have one rule for that article and a different one for this. Justintalk21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, just so I understand it, you go from the main article on the Falkland Islands, where consensus is to use Imperial first, to this article and it wouldn't look odd if it were reversed? I happen to think it would, which is why I changed it. Last time I checked EU policy had not been widely adopted on Wikipedia. Justintalk08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if EU policy was adopted on Wikipedia, it would have no bearing on this discussion. The current policy is that the EU is happy for the UK to continue the use of imperial units indefinitely. You (Tony) may wish to reread our Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems. I say reread because I believe I have mentioned that article to you before.
There is no evidence that the consensus on the Falkland Islands article applies to this article. This article has a separate history, and imposing Imperial first on the article goes against it. So far I have seen no evidence that there is any reason to change it from what it was. Michael Glass (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I point out above there is a clear and compelling reason why. Claiming this article is separate and distinct is disingenuous. Justintalk08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another straw poll? After the 2 occasions in 2009 that this has come up and the consensus has been to stick with imperial first? And really, the fact that it was inconsistent before is no reason to perpetuate it. Its quite frustrating to hear you argue for consistency when you want metric first but not when its imperial. Justintalk13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - we've already had two of these in the last few months, and the second only finished last week. We don't need another one. Pfainuktalk17:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's now January 2010 and there are five references to measurements in the article that have been reversed in order from the metric original to put Imperial measures first. I believe that it is time to rethink this arrangement.
It is not best practice to do this to references.
The article began with metric measures and it was only changed to all Imperial last year.
There is no clear consensus for this change, as the above discussion shows.
A clear majority of references are metric.
The exception is a historical reference (with no link to the source of information).
The argument for inter-article consistency falls down as various Falklands Islands articles are both in metric or Imperial units or in a mixture of units, depending on the preference of editors and the sources of the information.
In January 2010, my preference is still imperial first and there is still a clear consensus to support that. You know this is getting to be obsessional on your part revisiting it all the time. It isn't anything to do with best practise, that is solely your opinion. Justintalk00:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors spoke for metric first; three spoke for the change to Imperial. That's not a clear consensus. I will not respond to your ad hominem comment except to draw your attention to the example of Pfainuk, who can disagree with other editors without lowering himself in that way. Michael Glass (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that direct speech is not an ad hominem attack, may I first of all suggest you are less sensitive in future and secondly suggest that you think of accepting comments in good faith rather than seeing insinuations that were never there. Justintalk16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason they're mostly metric-first is largely because you put them like that over the last few days. When you say the "preference of editors", the only thing this apparently refers to is your own preference. And I find it a bit disingenuous of you to imply otherwise. In Falklands articles where this has been discussed, imperial-first is the existing consensus - and for the sake of inter-article consistency it's better that we keep with that standard across the board. Pfainuktalk18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pfainuk, I think your comment above is rather misleading. A clear majority of the references in this article are metric, and have been metric for many months. Yes, I added one more reference - to the length of the coastline. As you were happy to accept the information - provided that the Imperial figure came first - it appears that you accepted the source as reliable.
I disagree that it is better for inter-article consistency to have Imperial measures. Metric measures predominate in other British islands in the Atlantic Ocean, so if we talk about consistency, metric is the logical choice. I don't add information to articles unless I have reliable information, so I make no apology for editing Falklands articles or other articles. I certainly don't change the order of information unless I have reliable information that would warrant such a change.
Ryan4314, thank you for expressing your opinion. However, I should note that this article is all-Imperial because it was changed this way early in August 2009.
Justin, what part of "You should know better" don't you understand? You have admitted your comments were out of line and you have changed them, so your comment about my sensitivity is disingenuous. As I have clearly stated, I won't accept abuse from you. Abusive comments are not in good faith.
To all, there is an increasing problem in sticking to Imperial measures. For one thing, all imperial is out of step with modern British practice, which uses a mixture of units. Secondly, it is increasingly at odds with the sources of information available, as more information becomes available in metric measures. It is just silly to find information in metric measures and change it into Imperial. The policy states:
Except in the cases mentioned below, put the units first that are in the most widespread use in the world. Usually, these are International System of Units (SI) units and non-SI units accepted for use with SI; but there are various exceptions for some measurements, such as years for long periods of time or the use of feet in describing the altitude of aircraft.
For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, US articles generally put United States customary units first. UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts. These include:
Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy
Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements
With imperial units which are not also US customary units, double conversions can be useful: The song's second verse reveals that Rosie weighs 19 stone (266 lb; 121 kg).
If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses.
Avoid inconsistent usage. Write a 600-metre (2000 ft) hill with a 650-metre (2,100 ft) hill, not a 2,000-foot (610 m) hill with a 650-metre (2,100 ft) hill.
As the Falkland Islands is a UK territory, you would expect the articles to be predominantly in metrics. At the moment, three editors have spoken for Imperial, and I have spoken for following the sources. I think it is unfortunate that people are taking a stand which I think is becoming less and less tenable, but perhaps other editors will comment. Michael Glass (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We now have three pro-Imperialists, one pro sources and one pro metric. Any other opinions?
Actually we have 3 people who have regularly and consistently supported the current consensus, one who disagrees and has tried to impose their own solution, and one person who drops in out of the blue to say metric but never really edits in the area.
Pro-imperialists? I find the ad hominem attack deeply offensive and will report you to the appropriate authorities my little metric warrior. Justintalk12:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Justin on "pro-Imperialists". This is an offensive and uncalled-for accusation that you should withdraw at once. And I also agree with Justin on the facts of the matter. We have three people who consistently support the current consensus, you who insist that we have to use source-based units regardless of whether MOSNUM supports them or not (and it doesn't) and one who shows up occasionally when this gets discussed insisting that we have to use metric units regardless of whether MOSNUM supports it or not in this case (and it doesn't). And bear in mind what the standing consensus is - imperial-first. Pfainuktalk18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you find pro Imperialist offensive, then of course I apologise and withdraw it at once. It wasn't meant to offend, and was a simple play on words. In the same spirit, I would also ask Justin to withdraw all his remarks that I found offensive and apologise for them, too. That's fair, isn't it? I mean, we wouldn't want the situation to arise where people are prepared to dish out offensive remarks, but are not prepared to take them, would we?
Now if you want to count the figures here as three to one, so be it, but there is the part of MOSNUM policy that says, "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses." It is also possible that others might comment. Michael Glass (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, I haven't dropped in "out of the blue". After our interaction here last year, when you were witheringly rude to me, I've kept an eye on this and related pages. 03:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Witheringly rude? Thanks, I can add that to my list of epithets. What exactly have you contributed then?
Michael, fortunately I am in posession of a sense of humour and thick-skinned enough that I simply found your attempt at provocation amusing. You'll note I didn't feel the need to run away bravely demanding admin action. Justintalk15:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're announcing that you disagree with the consensus, therefore editors cannot agree, therefore your preference has to be adopted. That's a blatant attempt to game the system and you should not expect others to put up with it. Pfainuktalk17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, I note that you have not apologised for your other offensive remarks. My action in complaining to an administrator, who issued you a "You should know better" notice was clearly justified. As for your complaint about Imperialist you have just admitted that you took it as a joke, so your indignation was feigned.
Pfainuk, drawing attention to the policy and taking it at its word is not gaming the system. What you are saying by the word consensus is that you have the numbers. However, I draw attention to the fact that others have also spoken in favour of both your position and mine. There's a difference between an apparent majority and a consensus. Perhaps we should test whether your position is indeed the majority position. Michael Glass (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of the rule is that we use the most appropriate unit to the Falklands, that all else is just a means of getting to it. You're saying that you dispute every single unit on every single article related to the Falklands that isn't the sourced unit, and that the guideline says that if a unit is disputed then use the sourced unit. By these means you are trying to get sourced units as primary regardless of whether the sourced units are the most appropriate units to the Falklands or not. You're trying to use the letter of the rules to overrule the spirit of the rule. IOW, you're trying to game the system; to Wikilawyer. And you can't expect us not to call you up on it. Pfainuktalk22:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pfainuk, It seems that you read the policy one way and I read it another. If you regard that as Wikilawyering, then so be it. However there is one thing I do understand and that is most of the talk about which units to use has been a debate between you me and Justin. I think we need to ask for a wider range of opinions than that. Then we would be in a better position to decide how people feel about this issue. Michael Glass (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, You appear to be conducting a personal vendetta on this matter. I suggest that you take a break from it. I've got one word to say to you: Tony(talk)00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My questions are: What units do the Falklanders themselves use? Which units do they prefer and use in everyday life?
I think it best to ask them, rather then assume something. --121.219.133.92 (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An image used in this article, File:Bunker-Gada.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bunker-Gada.jpg)
Actually in British English, Governor in this case is capitalized as the representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Please explain why you think a verb should be capitalised? WCMemail06:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster:Collins Dictionary thinks that the verb "Hispanicised" should be capitalized. That's good enough for me; why isn't it good enough for you? And as for capitalizing "governor", the dictionaries I cited are British English dictionaries, and they don't capitalize "governor" when it means "the representative of the Crown in a British colony" and "The representative of the British Crown in a colony or in a Commonwealth state", so your argument that "Governor in this case is capitalized as the representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" doesn't appear to hold water. If you ignore all dictionaries and Wikipedia's Manual of Style, I will not be able to reason with you. Christhe spelleryack16:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[8] An example, as I said in this context Governor would be capitalised. [9] also confirms. I am neither ignoring WP:MOS or dictionaries but the examples you've given don't actually contradict and with regard to MOS, WP:ENGVAR should also be considered. It is a basic grammar rule that verbs are not capitalised, you appear to have found an exception I was unaware of. WCMemail19:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: Heed the warning in WP:SSF to not '"over-defer" to specialized works on matters, like style, that are actually beyond the specialization's scope.' The government of the Falkland Islands may require its employees to conform to a certain style of writing, but cannot require Wikipedia to do so. Its wishes do not trump Wikipedia's Manual of Style. And Capitalization in English does not discuss capitalization of offices and job titles, so I don't see why you think that it also confirms your choice of capitalization. By the way, Anglicize (usually capitalized), Sanforize (always capitalized), Christianize (always capitalized) ... Christhe spelleryack01:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter of English language variation per WP:ENGVAR and in British English the title Governor is capitalized because the Governor is the Queen's representative, acting in a capacity that is effectively the Head of State. WCMemail07:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links on East Falkland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
