Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Island infobox

Can we develop an infobox for the individual islands, please? I would suggest an adaptation of Template:Infobox Scottish island. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm no template expert, but I'll have a go based on the Scottish one at Template:Infobox Falkland island. A settlement infobox would be useful as well, since Stanley uses a catch-all one but the other settlements don't have one. Does anyone know if the FIG publishes census information? Pfainuk talk 19:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Turns out there already is an island one :). Will Template:Infobox settlement do for settlements outside Stanley? Pfainuk talk 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the ones involved in trying to create the one for Scottish islands (I'm proud to say), and I have noticed recently that the Irish islands are very badly served in this regard. As for the island groups, I would suggest the following groups:

• • Jason Islands (obvious)
  • Falkland Sound - including Swan Islands, and possibly Eddystone
  • South West Falkland - including Weddell
  • Byron Sound - including Pebble
  • South East Falkland - including Bleaker and possibly Beauchene
  • North East Falkland - including Centre Island, and Kidney.

This is a bit arbitary, but can be developed from here.

Would also suggest a space for the Spanish name, as the Scottish one includes Gaelic and Norse ones. This is highly useful, as frequently this is completely different from the one in English. All the best --MacRusgail (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC) p.s. I hope you can make something better of the island template than I did. I haven't worked out stuff like how to get a map into it, etc.

Clearly, if there are groups defined by the FIG then we should go with them (I rather doubt it though as I think they'd just name the islands concerned). Other than that, though, the obvious distinctions to me are between the Jason Islands, West Falkland, East Falkland, Beauchene (which I think is best placed on its own) and maybe Falkland Sound. Eddystone could be East Falkland or Falkland Sound by this scheme, though probably the latter. Much more than this strikes me as a little overly arbitrary.

If we do split by your plan, I assume the boundary between South West Falkland and Byron Sound would be Westpoint Island, and between the two sides of East Falkland would be Choiseul Sound (in that case, we could use Lafonia instead of South East Falkland).

Spanish names - I agree that the infoboxes should include Spanish names, but the articles should use the English names primarily when referencing the islands. Your template is not currently used on any articles so I will borrow the code of the Scottish islands one and have a go at it. Pfainuk talk 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a sample infobox on Saunders Island, Falkland Islands. I'm just finishing off the documentation now. Pfainuk talk 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good. Yes, I would have West Point as the boundary. Jason is the only major subdivision that exists officially, others such as the Arch Islands, and Swan Islands are far too small.--MacRusgail (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Another option would be to integrate the island group field into the "location" part of the box, and only include it if there's something there (as with "main settlement" at the moment). That way we could put the grouping in if there's an obvious fit and ignore it if not. Pfainuk talk 11:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "main settlement" can be an optional field. Rankings can be done for the bigger islands, at least to begin with. I'm sure we can rank at least half a dozen... --MacRusgail (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I was wondering if "island group" should be optional as well. Pfainuk talk 11:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Been bold and done it. "Island group" will now appear just underneath the geographical co-ordinates if specified. This makes more sense in this case I think, as I got rid of the local authority section from the Scottish one. Pfainuk talk 12:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Other possible inspirations

Putting these up here as useful links:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean (more the subprojects)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands
• List of islands of Greece
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands

--MacRusgail (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Early history of the region - these three articles should be kept an eye on...

Tierra_del_Fuego_Province_(Argentina) Viceroyalty_of_the_Río_de_la_Plata United Provinces of South America--MacRusgail (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg

For information. The image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg has been removed from several articles related to the Falklands War topics, then nominated for deletion here Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 12#Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg. Justin talk 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OB

Have a look at Orcadas Base --MacRusgail (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that that the infobox there claims "Cities and towns in Argentina" which is POV par excellence. Similarly, new infoboxes for individual South Shetland islands like King George and Livingston feature "Country / United Kingdom, Territory - British Antarctic Territory / Chile, Province - Antártica Chilena Province / Argentina, Province - Tierra del Fuego Province", which is unacceptable POV. There are such claims indeed, however those territories are actually no part of any of those countries (let alone of the three of them at the same time!), and are governed by an international authority and well established legal regime that is not the national law of the countries mentioned in those infoboxes. Apcbg (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Apart from the political aspect, it can't exactly be called a town either! I put this on here, because it's related. The claims should be reflected in the article. Nobody lives in these places really anyway (nor even in SG). Not permanently anyway. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced that and the General Belgrano II infoboxes with the generic settlement infoboxes. This does not assert them to be either towns, or in Argentina. Pfainuk talk 21:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The POV infoboxes of Livingston Island, King George Island and possibli other islands in the South Shetlands group are still in place. Apcbg (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you can just remove the fields (starting with the field "| country =" and ending with the field "| country 2 leader name =") and that will get rid of that part of the infobox. I have removed them where they were added on Antarctic islands over the last couple of days and left a friendly note with the guy who added it. Pfainuk talk 10:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks; perhaps one possibility to fill the 'country' field would be to write 'Antarctica' with a footnote 'Administered under the Antarctic Treaty system' or something of the sort? Apcbg (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? It means we don't get a random "country" heading which someone will really want to fill in with something. I will do so with those articles - they are Berkner Island, Joinville Island, Ross Island, Elephant Island, James Ross Island, Adelaide Island, King George Island and Livingston Island. Pfainuk talk 18:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hope other editors would accept it. Apcbg (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

HMS Ambuscade

There is a deletion review taking place here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 30, which is likely to be of interest to Falklands editors. Justin talk 15:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Importance criteria

As some of you may know I have been attempting to assess all our articles into their relevant importance classes. I have recently created an Importance scale here and very much welcome contributions from others editors, whether it be correction of my terrible grammar/wording or discussing the inclusion of whole topics. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd explicitly note the articles on the major islands (East Falkland and West Falkland), and major settlements (Stanley and possibly Mount Pleasant) as top importance. Otherwise, looks good to me. Pfainuk talk 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts too Ryan4314 (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hits

I did a hit count on each of the examples that were listed as this gives a very good indication of the article's perceived importance from the point of view of the readers. This quick analysis showed that the article ARA General Belgrano was underrated. It might be worth subjecting other articles to a similar analysis. Martinvl (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's a worthy consideration. But they ought to be used with consideration. For example, while the Belgrano is clearly within the scope of our work group, it is also relevant to several other projects - WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS come to mind. I think it's fair to suggest that our importance scale should be based on how important a topic is to the Falklands, not necessarily on how important it is to Wikipedia as a whole. Pfainuk talk 22:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree - it would be worth comparing the number of internet hits (not torpedo hits) that the General Belgrano has taken and compare that to similar ships in teh Argentine and similar navies. Any surplus hits would be relevant for the Falklands project. Martinvl (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk is correct and may I may also point out another flaw: The article HMS Cardiff received 1187 hits this month, however two years ago it only received 732 hits. What made Cardiff more "important" two years later, nothing. The article was merely promoted to FA whereas it used to be untended. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have inserted an extended table of hits in which I take care of Pfainuk's concerns by adding a weighting factor. Please feel free to play around with teh weighting factor and to add additional notes, entries etc. Martinvl (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Although we appreciate the effort, as per my Cardiff example above, IMHO I don't believe hits can be used to indicate importance or notability. Also the weighing factor being subjective effectively nullifies any scores. I'd be interested to hear Pfainuk's thoughts on the matter. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think hits are relevant, and I think we ought to consider them if we're unsure. At the same time, they're obviously not the only factor. Some topics are clearly fairly tangential for us, or clearly more important to another project (in which case we may take their rating as a guide). Ultimately, the importance criteria are always going to be subjective, and while I appreciate the effort, I think this project is small enough that we don't really need to go through a detailed analysis for this. Pfainuk talk 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Birdlife

First thought: I have no idea what to classify the many species of bird found on the island.[1] Animals that are indigenous to the islands I believe I classed as "medium", however most these birds migrate to the islands. Your thoughts?

I'd say "low" by default. They are relevant enough to be included on the project, but unless there's a stronger connection than simply seasonal presence, they're a little tangential to us. Pfainuk talk 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Islands

Ok, I just counted 40 stubs with "island" in the title, so that's not counting all the bays, sounds, mounts, rivers and coves. In order to keep with the absolutely vital rule: the higher the class the fewer articles it should have. I'm going to start by defaulting these little islands to mid (perhaps low), if it's found that say for instance the Tyssen Islands are actually very important, then we can just simply move it up. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've moved down islands and rivers etc and I've also moved down stuff related to the war, battles etc. These represent a very short period in the islands history. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Work of Fiction

Seems the silly season is upon us, I have nominated for deletion the work of fiction Gaucho Rivero. Please feel free to comment. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 08:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. Please avoid offensive opinions WP:CIVIL. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 15:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

'Offensive Opinions'? I'm afraid you will have to lump those on wikipedia. We tolerate EDLers, Scientologists, LaRouche-ites, The French, Furries, Liberal Democrats and even Catholics. There are plenty of 'offensive' opinions to choose from. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The offensive part is to refer to the work of other users as a "silly season", not his opinions in themselves MBelgrano (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And the polite way of referring to utter nonsense is? A spade is a spade, not an earth moving implement. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on the content is perfectly fine (I, for example, would describe that article as a hunk of junk or worse) commenting on the user wouldn't be. Silly Season, as Justin has pointed out, refers to items being exaggerated in importance due to slow news days etc. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2

April 2 is coming up and is usually accompanied with severe vandalism on Falkland articles. I realise tomorrow is a family day but could editors keep their watchlist under scrutiny. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 19:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Population

Where can I find the population for a) Camp settlements, and b) islands other than E & W Falkland? Thanks.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you've seen the details from the 2006 Census, which does not include the data you're looking for. Maybe the FIG Office in London (addresses here)? Given the small populations involved I wouldn't be entirely surprised if data simply isn't made public for privacy or for logistical reasons. With only 42 people living on islands other than East and West Falkland, I wouldn't be surprised if no other island had more than one or two families. Pfainuk talk 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have been able to get fairly accurate figures for the populations of smaller Scottish islands, some of which ahve less than ten permanent residents. As far as I can tell, Pebble Island has the biggest population of the other islands. I'm just interested in this for the sake of completeness. I appreciate that with the Falkland Islands there may be an additional security question...--MacRusgail (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Notify of AFD nomination

Article Matilde Malvina Vernet has been nominated for deletion. Editors are invited to comment here. Pfainuk talk 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Convention of Settlement, 1850

I've put the text from the HMSO copy of the treaty on wikisource. wikisource:1850 Convention of Settlement. Long standing request for an article on this. Justin talk 21:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference to units:

The current policy on units is summarised in [[2]]. It would be more accurate to refer to this policy rather than stating that the current consensus was Imperial first. Michael Glass (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I therefore propose to replace the present wording with the following:

See Falklands Units

Are there any comments, suggestions or objections? Michael Glass (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

MOS:Geographical names

I would like to add the following to the page Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names):

Falkland Islands

The Falkland Islands are a de facto British Overseas Territory to which Argentina has laid claim and over which a war was fought in 1982. In order to perserve a WP:NPOV, the English version of Wikipedia has adopted the convention that the lede for any Falkland Islands locality will always quote the Spanish name of the locality after the English name, but thereafter only the English name will be used. Elsewhere, unless the context demands otherwise, the only English names will be used. The Spanish version of Wikipedia has adopted a similar position, but with the roles of English and Spanish reversed.

Any comments - in particular have the Spanish editors agreed to this? Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

They aren't just a "de facto" British Overseas Territory - this appears to be a contradiction in terms, because "British Overseas Territory" is a legal concept. The Falklands are a British Overseas Territory according to UK and local law.

The status quo isn't quite this. The rule we apply at the moment is roughly:

• Geographical locations put a Spanish translation in the lede, but use English alone thereafter.
• Articles on individual islands also put the Spanish name (and a literal translation of it) in the infobox. This is done using {{Infobox Falkland island}}.
• Articles that directly relate to the dispute put a translation involving Malvinas directly after the first instance of Falklands, but use Falklands alone thereafter. This normally means translating Falkland Islands as Islas Malvinas, but note Falklands War, where the first instance is Falklands War and the translation used is Guerra de las Malvinas.
• In cases where we put a Spanish name, we treat it as a Spanish translation of the English name.

This is not explicitly agreed anywhere, I think, but rather has been built up as consensus over the course of the last five or six years. The general principles were thrashed out on articles like Falkland Islands and Falklands War, and have generally proved themselves acceptable to most editors, both British and Argentine.

I'd note that the Spanish Wikipedia are traditionally very poor at maintaining neutrality with respect to Falklands topics: some of their articles (such as es:Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas) might as well have been written by the Argentine government. Note that that article only uses the word Falkland in direct quotations. For this reason, I would oppose including any implication that reflecting practice at es.wiki is relevant. Pfainuk talk 21:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

We did this long before es.wikipedia did for info - the two editors largely responsible were Pfainuk and myself. I've nothing against the proposal but implying es.wikipedia did it first is wrong; the English wikipedia did - check the revision history. I'd support the proposal w/o the last sentence, as it gets the history arse before face. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I used the word "de facto" deliberately. They might be British territory under UK law, but under Argentine law, they are Argentinian territory. There can however be no dispute over Britain be in cotrol rather than Argentina. I will leave out the bit about es.wikipedia and try to comress what Pfainuk has written so that it falls into line with other countries. Martinvl (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A de facto British Overseas Territory, inasmuch as it isn't a contradiction in terms, would be a territory that is treated like a BOT but does not in fact have that status according to law. The closest you'd probably get are the Crown dependencies. But this does not accurately describe the Falklands, which are a BOT according to the only authorities that can determine whether a territory has that status or not.

But we don't need to say it anyway - we can easily just say something like, As the Falkland Islands are disputed between the UK and Argentina... or similar. That page assumes knowledge of local circumstances in just about all other cases, so we don't need to go into any detail. Pfainuk talk 07:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made some changes which are currently being debated at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Martinvl (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

List of islands of Argentina

Just found this article. Basically, it's a list of Argentine islands, which is inevitably part of our purview because it would probably be POV not to at least acknowledge the Falklands and SGSSI in such an article (though these make up most of the list). I've done a bit of moving of islands from the "undisputed" section and rewritten the lede - but it is still basically a Spanish-language article (with Argentine toponymy used exclusively). Anyone with a bit more time/knowledge than I do care to take a look at it? Thanks, Pfainuk talk 16:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine, just as long as it's clear the claim is contested. Actually Falklands and SG should be separated, IMHO.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And the article's title is incorrect and POV, for "islands of Argentina" and "islands claimed by Argentina" are two different things. If those two categories аre to be placed under a single title, that would probably be "List of islands possessed or claimed by Argentina". Apcbg (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This would be useful. There are a number of islands that Argentina claims which are also under neither British or Argentine jurisdiction at this time, e.g. in Antarctica and some in Chile.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am from Argentina, in my point of view The Falklands Islands belong to Kelpers. Why do Argentinian people claim for The Falklands if we have big economics problems?. --190.220.93.10 (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion request

You may be interested to follow Commons:Deletion requests/PD-AR-Photo de la Guerra de Malvinas. Photos taken in Argentina in 1982 are in the PD in Argentina, but not in the US, and may need to be deleted. Cambalachero (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Self determination

A DR/N and AN/I case has been opened in regards to this article under the scope of this project work group. I have kicked the DR/N back to this group for discussion. Any questions can be addressed on my talk page...in a civil manner please.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Antonina Roxa

An article I created on Antonina Roxa has been nominated for deletion. This has been requested by this workgroup for years. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Alert to image deletion request of relevance to this group.

[3] Bringing this to your attention. WCM_email 15:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Today's featured article

It seems that the featured article Falkland Islands will be in the main page on January 6, 2015. As it is a controversial article, get ready to revert the vandalisms that will surely pop up that day (I will be on vacation that day, so I can't help with that). The proposed blurb is located at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 6, 2015, and here are a couple of minor points mentioned at its talk page --Cambalachero (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Coinage article in desperate need of help

The article, Coins of the Falkland Islands pound has had all it's images deleted. I'm not sure what the problem was with them, I don't think it was even copyright just that the templates weren't filled out properly. So if any of you kelpers have a camera or someone knows where to get pics of the coinage... Ryan4314 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic in Argentina

• 
  H1N1 Argentina Map.svg
  Deaths/Confirmed/Suspected map
• 
  H1N1 Argentina map by confirmed cases.svg
  Confirmed cases map
• 
  H1N1 Argentina deaths.svg
  Death count map

There's a note at the flu article about the Argentine maps containing the Falklands, and its appropriateness. 76.66.203.200 (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I put the following comment in -

"The sovereignty debate is actually pretty irrelevant here. There is very little contact between the islands and continental Argentina - they're much more linked with the British Isles and St Helena. If islanders have got it, it will be more likely to come off ships, or from Europe than there. Their South American contact has tended to be with Punta Arenas, but I think that was cut off before the flu struck. That's just how the situation is..."

I hope folk know what I'm driving at.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Broken banner (importance)

Some of you may have noticed that when using the banner, the importance parameter isn't working. This is because most of these banners have the incorrect text.

To remedy, change:

Falkland-Islands-importance=

To:

Falkland Islands-importance=

Remember there are two "importance" parameters, one for WP:South America and the other for the FI work group. I'll try and fix all these, but there are over 400 to do! I Appreciate any help I can get changing these, even if everyone just uses the correct template on new articles from now on. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Falkland Islands War

Justin directed me to this group after I made a proposal for a change to the introduction to the Falklands War page. Right now the second paragraph of it reads:

The war was triggered by the occupation of South Georgia by Argentina on 19 March 1982 followed by the occupation of the Falklands, and ended when Argentina surrendered on 14 June 1982. War was not actually declared by either side. The initial invasion was considered by Argentina as the re-occupation of its own territory, and by Britain as an invasion of a British overseas territory, and the most recent invasion of British territory by a foreign power.

My main concerns with this is that it states South Georgia was occupied in March, when it was not until April that the occupation occured. It also places too much importance on the events in March, which have been described in the Offical history as trivial. The March event did not effect the Falklands invasion but rather affected the timing of the Falklands invasion. They are related to the War but do not mark the beginning of the war. I would propose something to the effect of:

The Falklands War started on 2 April 1982 with the Argentine invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, and ended with the Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982. The conflict was the result of a protracted diplomatic confrontation regarding the sovereignty of the islands. Neither state officially declared war and the fighting was largely limited to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Atlantic.

I'm not married to any particular wording, but I think my proposal is a definite improvement. I want to do other stuff to improve the article, but I got stuck trying to get through the intro. I think alot of the stuff in there could be moved, wholesale, down into the empty space under the heading "Lead-up to the conflict." There is unnecessary information in the introduction that makes it cluttered and sorta leaves the opening a little unfocused and confused. Any comments would be welcome. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Well, you could say:

The events surrounding the Falklands War started in March blah blah blah scrap merchants blah blah, ended when a giant dinosaur ate Thatcher (or whatever happened)

Just annother possibility. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning Narson? I thought the proposal had merit and suggested Pez brought it here for discussion. Lets encourage the newbies eh? Justin talk 14:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? No no, wasn't disagreeing, just couldn't be arsed to copy and paste huge blocks of text :) I was saying you could, rather than redefine the intro, simply carify and state the events surrounding it not necessarily the war itself started then. I personally don't mind either way. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think March can be cut from the intro altogether because it was marines sitting around drawing on signs, shooting deer and generally acting like a bunch of Brits on holiday in Spain. Whereas April 2 was rifles and bombs, much more exciting. The March stuff brought the invasion forward, and for that reason deserves alot of attention in the body of the article, but the plans already existed before it all, and to an extent the March stuff ran counter to the April invasion (not necessary if they were gonna do it overtly with brute force anyway). In any event, every secondary source I've seen has treated the April thing as THE beginning and the March thing as an interesting precursor. Pez Dispens3r (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree, just thought I'd put the alternative out there. I hadn't acctualy spent much time looking at the lead before, there has been so much attention on the other Falkland articles as of late I am afraid the war is somewhat forgotten. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am from Argentina and I do not recognize to any militar government like a president or " gobernador" so Galtieri was a dictator that made a war to Kelpers because he wanted to be a hero. In my opinion the Islands belong to Kelpers because they have been living there from many years. The Islands do not belong to Argentina or England.--190.30.209.134 (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Weights and Measures dispute

Please note a vote at Talk:Falkland Islands#Weights and Measures Proposal may have an effect on other Falkland Islandfs related articles and may result in WP:FALKLANDSUNIT being withdrawn and replaced by an essay if a proposal to use WP:UNITS instead gains a consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on units?

The project page still tells editors:

Current consensus on units is to apply the system described at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS for articles on topics strongly associated with the Falkland Islands.

Is this consensus now made null and void by the decision at MfD discussion to drop that page? FactController (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe consensus was to replace the current content of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS with the text:

Units on Falklands-related articles shall be those recommended for non-scientific UK-related articles at WP:UNITS. Where any given unit is explicitly recommended or suggested by WP:UNITS for use in UK-related articles, Falklands-related articles will follow that recommendation or suggestion. No measure shall deviate from those measures without clear consensus, or where other parts of WP:UNITS take precedence.

I would also be inclined to cite the consensus close on the page, for clarification.

See Talk:Falkland_Islands#Weights and Measures Proposal. Better not to try to renegotiate it - there's very little that applies to Falkland Islands that does not apply elsewhere. Kahastok talk 19:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Task force image

There has been a recent edit in the {{WikiProject South America}} template that modifies the image shown next to the "This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group" text at the articles tagged as such. It used to show the flag of the islands, as most other task forces, and now it shows a mini-map of the islands. As this edit changes the visual appearence of the task force in talk pages, I would like to know if other members also accept it as a valid change Cambalachero (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No reason why the Falklands should be an exception, the previous picture ought to be restored I believe. Apcbg (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsurprising when I saw who was responsible. I though the El Malvinense crowd were perma banned on the wiki? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sietecolores is not listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users nor Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. In any case, if you agree with Apcbg to restore the flag that was being used so far, it should be done so (I have no special preference, I just thought that you should be aware of the change) Cambalachero (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no special preference either, it just seems ridiculously petty but then nothing really surprises me anymore. I changed the Workgroup picture to a neutral image a long time ago. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As a disputed territory I see no reason to favour one party over the other. The British flag is clearly the flag of the supporters of the British claim, not the one of the supporters of the Argentine claim. Internationaly the the there is no consensus and no clear majority of state actors for neither claims. Wikipedia must do its best to be neutral. A workgroup flag should not discourage supporters of the Argentine claim to contribute to Malvinas/Falklands topics. Sietecolores (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no hidden agenda in here: the icon for this work group is the flag because the icon for all work groups or wikiprojects about territorial divisions is their flag (that, or some icon made up from the flag, such as in Argentina, Peru and the United States). And right now, the flag that is being used there, is that flag. Not liking it is one thing, denying reality is another. And, as said, this is really a very lame thing to dispute about. Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that there is a hidden agenda, I have none and I know most of the people contributing here has not. What Im arguing here is that common Workgroup icon praxis (use of flags) is detrimental in the Falklands workgroup. Second Workgroup icon praxis is far from being a Wikipedia policy, and even if it was WP:IGNORE would apply since the icon is politically loaded (or -if you like- can easily be seen so by potential contributors). Sietecolores (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)