Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units

I have edited as per WP:BOLD. Please note that my first edit was only to put things more concisely. It was not to change policy. My second edit was to put forward my suggested revisions. The third edit picked up a typo. Michael Glass (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe this page is suitable for inclusion in MOSNUM. This page involves too small a number of articles to bother all editors with; it would be more suitablly located within WikiProject guidelines. Tony (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Substantial differences between the suggested wordings.

I believe the substantial difference in suggested wording outline neatly the difference in approach between editors:

• Should clashes between rules be decided in favour of metric or non-metric units?
• Should recommendations be worded as suggestions or orders?
• Should we mention scientific and technical articles?

Let's see if we can work out some common ground about one or more of these points. Michael Glass (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Any clashes need to be resolved in favour of the listed exceptions. This is because the imperial-first exceptions listed are only those in which that unit is clearly preferred. Given the choice between a context where usage is clear and a context where usage is mixed, the context where usage is clear should prevail.

It also works against those who would promptly argue that the use of metres for an altitude somewhere in the seventh paragraph of an article should be used as an excuse to metricate the entire article, which is entirely unacceptable to me, and something that you have argued in the past. You have seen before that I would apply this rule sparingly.

Rules provided should be applied unless there is a good reason not to. Given your previous attempts to use the word "may" in WP:UNITS to try and put the letter of the rule over the spirit of the rule, I am surprised you might possibly think that it might be acceptable to me to give you licence to that here as well.

Scientific and technical articles are already considered where the rule mentions cases where MOSNUM overrides the "most appropriate unit" rule. I see no need to go further than that.

The note for internal consistency for units in the same context is useful for internal comparison, and bears repeating.

I suggest that any further such discussion belongs at WP:FALKLAND. Pfainuk talk 17:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How many different discussions do you want? This is just being disruptive starting multiple discussions in multiple places but never telling anyone about it? Support Pfainuk's suggestion. Justin talk 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As you object to the discussion taking place on the discussion page of the project page, I will transfer this file to WP:FALKLAND. For the record, I was not trying to be disruptive; I was following the usual procedure of discussing wording changes on the discussion page. Your failure to assume good faith is noted. Michael Glass (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I see MoS breaches, such as telling the readers what they should note. And I see no substantive justification here of the reversions. We await these. Tony (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I was kind of curious to see if you would weight in when Michael did something disruptive Tony, I guess we have an answer now.

Michael, opening multiple discussions on different pages is well known to be disruptive behaviour on wikipedia and as an experienced wiki editor you should know that. You keep moving it without notifying anyone, that is disruptive and considered to be rude. Your accusations of failing to assume good faith are noted for yet another example of your raising the temperature unnecessarily. Justin talk 10:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please assume good faith. We can and should all contribute to a lowering of the temperature here. Is that possible?Tony (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that even handed treatment would help Tony, so not introducing contentious comments as you did previously or perhaps commenting on Michael's behaviour when he is being disruptive would help. As it is you comment on the behaviour of one side you merely re-inforce the delusion that disruptive behaviour is OK. I'd love to see a lowering of the temperature, of course its possible but it does require discussions to move - not re-iterate the same argument ad infinitum. Justin talk 11:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Michael to cool it on another related page, a while ago. And I ask him again. But there needs to be an effort to empathise on both sides. I do agree with Michael's argument, not yours, as I've made clear, but I'm on the periphery of this whirlpool. Tony (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Really Tony, where did you do that here?

Empathise? Well that requires a reciprocal arrangement - I see none from Michael and to be blunt Tony your sole contribution to the discussion so far as been some inflammatory statements and to drop by once in a while to demand total metrication; never mind local usage. Neither of you have made any substantial contribution to this group of articles. I have considered Michael's desire to see Wikipedia standardise on the metric system. If he'd got the project's consensus on that then I would not disagree. However, he hasn't got it and if you sympathise with that position, then you and he should convince the project at WT:MOSNUM as the appropriate place for that discussion; cease and desist from paralysing discussion elsewhere to impose it by the back door.

The current guidance is for articles to follow local usage, which is a sensible compromise, WP:FALKLANDSUNITS reflects that and represents a substantial compromise by a number of editors. If neither of you agree with it, state why and how this is intended to follow WP:MOSNUM or improve the articles. If you disagree that we're not following policy state how, which is not the same thing as maintaining a dogmatic position on metrication. And given the current suggestion is mostly metric with a few noted exceptions I really don't see your problem with it. Justin talk 14:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin_A_Kuntz wrote "Neither of you have made any substantial contribution to this group of articles." He obviously has not looked at Economy of the Falkland Islands or Geology of the Falkland Islands. Also, if he looks at the talk page of Economy of the Falkland Islands he will see that it within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics in addition to being within the scope of the Falkland Islands Work Group. Any policies that the Falkland Islands Work Group wishes to impose should be compatible with the policies of these other work groups. Martinvl (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And there is nothing incompatible with those groups, since it is largely a reflection of WP:MOSNUM, ie a Red Herring. If there proves to be a conflict we'll work through that but doesn't affect the rest of the articles under this group and shouldn't be used as an excuse to further delay matters. I have looked at the history, you and I share a different definition of substantial. Justin talk 13:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Justin, people have a right to express their points of view whether they have contributed little or much to the articles. I know that you have contributed a lot to talk pages but I am not aware of any particular contribution you made to any article, except for reverting, of course, and your demetrication of the [East Falkland] article. Michael Glass (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you started this little filibuster of yours, it's been rather difficult to get anything done for those of us who have jobs to go to and who would rather not spend every waking hour on Wikipedia. Development of Falklands articles has slowed dramatically, largely thanks to your continually bringing this up. This is why I suggested that your trying to persuade us to allow you to continue the discussion for far longer than is necessary is rather more disruptive than the occasional vandalism that can easily be dealt with. Pfainuk talk 19:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael, for info I wrote almost the entire Timeline article from scratch, and I have made major contributions to the History of the Falkland Islands, Luis Vernet and numerous other history articles. I have also been instrumental in working with Argentine editors to ensure there is a mutual understanding between us and I am sure many would be happy to spring to my defence in that regard. I was about to engage on a major article refurbishment programme but that has been paralysed by your filibustering. I presume your bad faith attack was an attempt to provoke a response, a tactic that would probably have worked when my problems with PTSD were at their worst. My only desire is to see the articles in my area of interest improved. This is not an area for your personal crusade in favour of the metric systemm, the correct place for that is elsewhere but your agenda has been rejected numerous times. Justin talk 17:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Justin, my proposal is as follows: :Falklands articles should reflect common British practice as regards units. Therefore, unless there is a good reason (as determined by consensus) to put some other units first, the "most appropriate units" to be put first on articles strongly associated with the Falkland Islands should be determined according to the guidelines applicable to UK articles in WP:UNIT. This is not a crusade for metric units. Michael Glass (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And given your record of Wikilawyering around those rules to further your metrication crusade, obviously we weren't going to accept that. Pfainuk talk 10:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, given your record of refusing to change even the weather data I regard this draft proposal as a Trojan horse to prevent the Falkland articles being brought into line with British usage, and theefore I oppose it. Michael Glass (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose what exactly? That we move from a preference for imperial first, which largely resulted from your refusal to accept that imperial units remained in regular use, to a largely metric policy with only those imperial units in regular use? Pfainuk reverted the weather data because YOU objected to the policy, after saying nothing for a month and people assuming finally, after sixteen months of utter nonsense we had a way forward. You blame someone else for something that resulted from your own obstructive behaviour and have the gall to accuse others of being obstructive. This is just ridiculous, it is an obvious user conduct issue that should be addressed now for the good of the project. We can't have a whole set of articles held hostage by a recalcitrant editor with no interest in the subject but seeking to hijack an improvement drive to advance an unrelated agenda and one that has already been rejected at WT:MOSNUM. Justin talk 07:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The draft policy is a trojan horse because the exceptions are so arranged that they will cause "significant inconsistency". Then, Bingo! "Put imperial units first and follow with metric and US customary units." In other words, it's a "put imperial units first" in disguise. I reject it. Michael Glass (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael, to be blunt that is utter nonsense and you know it. Having failed to achieve your objective, you're now simply being obstructive. Justin talk 13:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Michael, you already know what I consider to be significant inconsistency: you've seen it before and I've had that argument with you before. Please stop this obstructionism. Pfainuk talk 17:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe you. Michael Glass (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

MOSNUM

There is already a clear link to WP:MOSNUM and in a historical context contemporary sources would be of greater relevance. I didn't see those changes as materially improving the proposal. Justin talk 11:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger with MOSNUM

I have withdrawn my proposal to merge MOSNUM and WP:FALKLANDSUNITS.

Moving this page into MOS-space

Following on from this RFC, this page should be moved into MOS-space and linked into the rest of MOS. We can do it in one of the following ways:

• Merge the text into MOSNUM.
• Move the page into MOS space and leave a reference in MOSNUM to this page
• Redirect this page to MOSNUM on grounds that it adds nothing new.

I believed that the last of these was the only practical choose which is why I redirected it. I invite informal comments on how best to incorporate this page into MOS in manner whereby it is visible from MOS. Martinvl (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I have judged whether consensus would place this page as a subpage of WP:MOS, based on both the statements in this move discussion and knowledge of how WP:MOS pages get approved. Thanks to Noetica for explaining the scope of the original RfC from July, 2011 that was cited in this move proposal as justification. Evidently that RfC does *not* cover this page. By placing it under MOS I assume that the hope is to raise the status of this Units page and give it more force as a precedent. Consensus for that would need to come from the MOS side as well as Falklands editors, and the move discussion presents no evidence that anyone who is active with MOS-wide issues believes this page meets the criteria used there. Various editors have complained in the move discussion about bullying as an issue, but these comments did not affect my closure one way or the other. Consider an RFC/U. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Falkland Islands units of measure – This is part of the move initiated by this RFC. The RFC catalogued 82 pages that were affected. I believe that this page should have been included in that list.

Once the move has been completed, the integration into WP:MOS as per the RFC can be done. Relisted. —Darkwind (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Martinvl (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I oppose such a suggestion. In the normal course of events it would be a reasonable request, however, long bitter experience has taught me this is a pretext to remove or water down the standard as part of a long term agenda to give preference to the metric system over and above the common usage. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment I believe that the rules governing Falkland Islands should be the same as the rules governing UK articles. The present guidelines are at variance with MOSNUM. I am not sure what the move will achieve, but if it helps to harmonise the guidelines then I support it. Michael Glass (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Right you have repeatedly claimed the guidelines are at variance with WP:MOSNUM, they are not. They are more prescriptive that WP:MOSNUM certainly but that was done for a reason. The reason being that you refused to accept a consensus that sought to apply a common standard to a series of articles, to present a consistent approach. Instead you insist that because WP:MOSNUM says can not must you will do whatever you like, moreover you edited to reverse the consensus position on unit order on many articles in direct contravention of WP:RETAIN. This is why the guideline was written, moreover having failed to overturn this consensus repeatedly you have resorted to gaming the system to find a way around it. I don't trust you to edit in the spirit of the prevailing consensus, because there are so many examples of you doing precisely the opposite. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

WCM, This discussion is supposed to be about policies, not personal animosities. Nevertheless, several points need to be made:

• FALKLANDSUNITS are "more prescriptive" than MOSNUM. Therefore FALKLANDSUNITS is at variance with MOSNUM.
• A "can" is not a "must". Therefore FALKLANDSUNITS is at variance with MOSNUM.
• FALKLANDSUNITS prescribes the use of Imperial units when MOSNUM would appear to favour metric units. Therefore FALKLANDSUNITS is at variance with MOSNUM.

Now on your accusations against me:

• I challenge you to find one instance when I have made one edit on any Falkland related article that challenges or contradicts FALKLANDSUNITS since this policy was established.
• MOSNUM has changed. That means that the prevailing consensus on MOSNUM has changed.
• It's perfectly legitimate for me to advocate changes to policies, just as it's perfectly legitimate for you to oppose them.
• It is not gaming the system to advocate change.
• WP:RETAIN is about varieties of English usage such as the way to write a date or about spelling. I don't agree that it applies to which measurement unit goes first in UK articles.
• I accept that you don't like my edits elsewhere. However, most of them stand. It appears that you are alone in your concern about them.

Let's stick to issues, not personalities.Michael Glass (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The rationale behind the creation of this page, as described by Wee Curry Minster above, shows a number of basic flaws. There was obviously a dispute between editors. The procedure for resolving disputes is described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Imposing a solution (as was done by the creation of this page) is the perogative of uninvolved administrators, not of editors who are party to the dispute. Martinvl (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Inviting wider discussion I have advertised this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I believe that such notification meets all the requirements of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Martinvl (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment I would like to discuss why a different style is needed at all. Shouldn't these be considered UK-related articles? --Langus (t) 19:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that articles in which the Falkland Islands work group are also of interest to other groups - for example the article Geology of the Falkland Islands is of interst to Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology, the article Falkand Islands is also of interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina etc. These groups expect to find any MOS-type consensus in MOS-space (along with consensus on a large number of MOS-type issues). I am asking that this page be moved from its present location (where nobody else would dream of looking) into MOS-space alongside a large number of other pages (See Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style) where it will be properly categorised and merged into MOS as a whole so that other groups such as WikiProject Geology and WikiProject Argentina know where to find and to access it. Categorisation will of course be done in conjunction with the Wikipedia Community at large. Martinvl (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Langus, I agree, and the article should follow WP:MOSNUM. The problem is Michael and Martin will not, they argue can is not a must so they don't have to follow any style guidelines ie they will do what they want or they'll look to game the system. Like claiming Geography is a science, so any article should be converted to SI units, rather than following the common usage guideline. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess Wee must have meant "Like stating that Geography is a science", since Geography most definitely is a science. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Why do we even need a separate guideline for this? bobrayner (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Good question - I tried deleting it, but as it was in WP: space, my request was automatically refused. In accordance with the centralisation of all MOS-type pages, it will be flagged as {{Historical}} or as a {{style-guideline}} once it is in MOS-space. If it is classed as a style guideline, links to it will be made from other pages in the MOS tree. If it is classed as "Historic", relevant information (if any) will be merged into other pages in the MOS tree.

To summarise then

Step 1 - Move this page into MOS-space

Step 2 - Let the Wikipedia community at large decide how to handle it and to properly record what has been done. (82 other files have already been handled as part of this program).

Martinvl (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bob, there is a separate guideline that is quite prescriptive for a reason. The consenus position was to follow WP:MOSNUM, reflecting common usage and a proposal was agreed to standardise on a particular format. Martin and Michael Glass refused to accept this, they would agree, then come back a month later and make the suggestion to give preference to the metric system. They kept on doing this to the point where the task force assembled to improve Falklands articles could not function. Moreover they engaged in a habit contrary to WP:RETAIN of going round and changing to their preference, claiming MOS did not mandate the approach, which in the middle of an article improvement programme seeking to standardise on format was disruptive as editors in the group had to follow them round fixing the damage they'd done. and they're still doing it, having failed to gain a consensus they tried all ways to game the system to impose the solution they desire. I do not have faith in Martin to move this to MOS and then incorporate the guideline into the style guide, since bitter experience shows this will be used as an opportunity to water the guideline down and have yet another interminable discussion as to why the metric system is the best thing since sliced bread and only a Luddite thinks different. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WCM is not telling the truth to claim that I did not abide by the FALKLANDSUNITS policy when it was agreed to. I challenge him to show one instance when I made an edit against FALKLANDSUNITS to Falklands articles after it was agreed to. Michael Glass (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

[1] One example. No, you didn't abide by it. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Would WCM please retract the last statement - the reference he gave is timestamped 00:55 21 January 2012 - more than two months before the creation of the page called "FALKLANDSUNITS" (timestamp 17:17, 30 March 2010). At the same time an answer to my question timestamped 07:46, 4 December 2012 woudl be appreciated. Martinvl (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No I won't we are both aware that the consensus on unit format preceded the creation of the page. The refusal to follow it promoted its creation. As regards your comment, I see no question only yet another attempt to claim I refused to follow WP:DR. Well the record on the talk page in that respect is clear - you'll find I proposed it. But you know that, just as you know I stopped using my real name due to off-wiki harassment and to defend myself I'll have to provide a diff to a statement made under my old name. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Support since I see no reason why Falkland-related articles should be treated any differently. Is there any I might be missing? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear from the discussion that the need for a page detailing separate and clearly-spelt-out rules for Falklands articles has not gone away.

Michael Glass has made it clear by claiming that the principles behind WP:RETAIN don't apply to units. He is well aware that they do (it's been pointed out to him repeatedly before) - and if there was any doubt, WP:MOSNUM makes the same principles clear in no uncertain terms. Martinvl has made it clear by arguing that according to MOSNUM, we're not allowed to use miles in a "geographical" context. Which is to say, any context in which one might use them. Including in brackets. Including when dealing with strong national ties to those countries where they are officially used, such as the USA and UK. He knows well - it is obvious - that this is counter to both the intention of the rule and how it is applied in practice. These are both obvious examples of editors attempting to game the system to further their POV, which attempts to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to further the metric system in the United Kingdom.

The major reason for having clear and unambiguous rules for units on Falklands articles - as supplied by FALKLANDSUNITS - is that they are difficult to game in ways such as these. Such tactics have been a continual feature of Michael and Martin's four-year campaign to force metrication on Falklands articles. It has long been clear that if the rules are in any way open to gaming, then these two editors will try to game them - and will try so repetitiously that no significant development will be possible in any part of the topic and any new and potentially productive editors will be driven away. Before FALKLANDSUNITS was implemented, that was a situation that this topic found itself in for a full eighteen months. And it probably caused more damage to Falklands articles than everything that they have experienced on British-Argentine relations combined.

The basic rule on Wikipedia is that all changes should be of net benefit to the encyclopædia. The position here is not a close call in this regard. To assume that this proposal is not an attempt by these two editors to relax FALKLANDSUNITS so that they can continue their campaign of disruption would be a triumph of naïve hope over many years of experience. Without an indefinite topic ban for both Martin and Michael from units and measurements on Falklands articles and the rules that govern them, any relaxation of this rule (which I note is the consensus of 2½ years' standing) would be catastrophic to Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. As such, I must oppose. Kahastok talk 23:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to welcome back Kahastok after a two month absence.

• I note Kahastok's claim that he has repeatedly stated that WP:RETAIN applies to the use of units of measure. I believe that he is reading this into the wording. I do not agree with this interpretation of the wording.
• Martin has already pointed out to WCM that the edit he linked to was made two months before FALKLANDSUNITS came into existence. As I said, I have abided by the policy. To the best of my knowledge, I have not made any edit that went against this policy.
• Therefore, Kahastok's claim that I have conducted a four year campaign about metrication on Falklands article is not in accordance with the facts.
• I think it needs to be pointed out again that FALKLANDSUNITS is inconsistent with MOSNUM. Because of this I want to make it unambiguously clear that I support the proposal.

Michael Glass (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

May I respectfully point out to Kahastok that this discussion is not about the merits or demerits of this page, but whether this page should be in the Falkland Islands workgroup space or whether, in line with moves across all the English-language Wikipedia, it should be in MOS-space. Martinvl (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The above two posts make no points in response to me that are not already addressed by my post.

Martin is very seriously insulting my intelligence here. He must think me deeply stupid if he thinks that after he's tried trick me through gaming the system in this area twenty times, I'm going to trust him not to try to game the system or push his POV on the twenty-first occasion. This is an attempt, ultimately, to modify the rules, and a continuation of a campaign that has caused immense harm to Wikipedia. I will not support that.

In Michael's case, particularly given that the principles behind WP:RETAIN are restated directly within the first few lines of MOSNUM, with no get-out or qualification (and he knows this - it's been pointed out to him repeatedly in the past), and that WP:RETAIN is routinely quoted in discussion of all manner of style, not limited to varieties of English, the fact that he claims that there is some doubt as to whether those principles apply to units should tell you quite a lot. Worth bringing up, then, the fact that he routinely violates those rules on an industrial scale. Bear in mind when looking at those links that imperial units are preferred by MOSNUM for distance, personal height and personal weight in a UK context, and that Michael calls continually for source-based units at MOSNUM and that they are continually rejected). IMO it would be difficult to argue in his case that a full topic ban such as I described above, extended not just to the Falklands but to all articles related to the UK generally, would not be of net benefit to the encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 10:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I repeat my request to Kahastok to please "Comment on content, not on the contributor" - See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Martinvl (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok's attack on my edits invites a response.

• None of the edits he objects to have any connection to the Falkland Islands articles. They are quite irrelevant to the question of whether the policy under discussion should be moved to MOS.
• MOSNUM reads as follows: "In non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit (44 kilogram (97 lb)), but imperial units can be put first in some contexts, including:miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon; feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight; imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk." Once again I remind Kahastok that a can is not a must.
• I challenge Kahastok to find in the present wording of MOSNUM any preference for Imperial units. All the policy says is that they can be used in certain contexts. This does not indicate a preference one way or the other. I think he needs to read, mark and digest the actual wording of the policy instead of using it in a jihad against those he disagrees with.
• I challenge Kahastok to quote the policy if he wants to claim that MOSNUM says one thing or another. Saying that the policy says this or that may be full of sound and fury, but is signifies nothing unless the policy actually says what he claims it says.
• Finally, I invite Kahastok to address the question of whether the policy should be moved. It would be more relevant than anything he has contributed here so far.

Michael Glass (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"Can" is not a "must" is not a suitable argument for ignoring WP:RETAIN, when you know full well it does apply to the use of units in articles. You've been told often enough, so I assume now you're simply ignoring policy when it suits. I simply note the huge walls of argumentative text that comes from Martin and Michael on this subject. Its something that happens on every article they're involved in and hugely damaging to the project. "Can" is not a "must" is simply an example of wikilawyering from you. Particularly as you edited WP:MOSNUM to water it down evidence [2]. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Kahastok, people are talking about the intemperate things being said on this page. Will you please tone it down? Just depersonalise ... it's part of the site's policy. Tony (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I see multiple examples of intemperate remarks Tony. And this isn't the first time you've weighed in to imply this is one sided. May I ask why you never comment on the remarks made by Martin or Michael? Martin referred to me as a little englander a view days ago, he knows I'm Scottish and that is hugely inflammatory. Michael just accused Kahastok of a Jihad. I wouldn't care but there are multiple examples of you doing this. Wee Curry Monster talk

• Well stop it, all of you. And I've got to say that the Englander remark, like calling a Canadian American or a NZer Australian, is a bit tired and old ... can't you rise above that? Curry, I'm still very uneasy with the regular username changes: you disadvantage yourself by doing this in a social environment in which trust is important. Tony (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• For the record I wrote "The use of the metric system has a number of political overtones - many Eurosceptic and "Little Englanders" use imperial units of measure as a "badge of honour" " - At no stage did I say that WCM was a "Little Englander". I seek an apology from WCM for making this statement. Martinvl (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have changed my username once, you are both fully aware of the reason why, I simply stopped using my real name due to off-wiki harassment. It is getting tired and old that you're both using innuendo to imply I changed it for untoward reasons. Stop now, you can consider this a final warning, I won't tolerate it again. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Even if Michael and Martin are guilty of trying to "game the system" (and those are accusations that don't impress me much, to be honest) and FALKLANDSUNIT is needed, it makes sense to have it under WP:MOS space. Judging by the RFC, there seems to be consensus there on this. --Langus (t) 03:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see that the damage that this campaign caused would be unbelievable to those who did not experience it. And yet it happened. The topic was paralysed. Units became the only topic of discussion. Again and again. And again. No article improvement was possible because if anyone tried, these two would start the units topic again. And again. And again. And again. And again. There are plenty of editors who would probably be here now if these two hadn't insisting on pursuing this campaign. Again. And again. And again. If there is any merit in moving this (and I see little) then it is vastly outweighed by the prospect of ceasing all productive activity on Falklands articles until some time in 2014 - that's how long the paralysis lasted until this page was set up, and there's no reason to assume that it would be any shorter a second time. Ultimately, editors should be doing right by the encyclopædia and this move isn't that. Kahastok talk 19:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are so concerned about things being sorted why are you so against the Wikipedia community at large sorting things? Moving this page into MOS-space will allow the community at large to decide things and to integrate the views expressed in this page into MOS in the most appropriate way. Nobody will stop you from voicing your opinion, just that since the middle of last year, as per the RFC refrenced in the opening paragraph of this debate, a MOS-style page has no place outside MOS-space. Martinvl (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an attempt to allow things to be sorted, because they are already sorted. It's an attempt to grab the stick for yet another thwack, another attempt to game the system without heed to the damage you cause, another waste of everyone's time. You pretty much acknowledge that with your message, that suggests that there is somehow unfinished business here. This discussion came to its natural conclusion over three years ago. The best thing for everyone would be for this damaging proposal to be dropped and for you and Michael to adhere to the sort of topic ban I described earlier. Kahastok talk 18:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not whether this has been sorted or not, the issue is where the solution (if any) should be catgalogued. Regardless of what happened three years ago, there was a move in mid-2011 (one and a half years ago) to move all style-related pages into MOS-space and to link them directly or indirectly from WP:MOS. 82 pages were moved in this manner. This is the 83rd page. If, as Kahastok suggests, the matter has been settled, the move should be seamless, if not, does (s)he have something to hide? Martinvl (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

if not, does (s)he have something to hide Is there any need for such ridiculous remarks? A move is opposed because of your track record of creating unnecessary conflict over the unit order on UK related topics. This sort of remark is a perfect illustration why. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody explain to me the reason why this move hasn't move forward yet? There's clearly broad consensus, a minority of editors opposing a change should not be an impediment. Proceed with the move please, this has been discussed and the positions are clear. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Because there isn't a clear consensus, that simple. So no admin will close. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Four editors supporting the move/merge and two opposing it isn't a clear broad consensus? We know Kahastok and yourself will never agree to the change which has been discussed to its full extent. Why should two editors prevent an edit four editors agree on from happening? That doesn't seem exactly fair in a collaborative encyclopaedia, does it? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I originally reviewed this discussion in the context of trying to close it out from the backlog at Requested moves, but the consensus here is very muddled -- largely because the original nomination reason is flawed (in my opinion), regardless of the merits of the move. All of the 82 pages mentioned in the WP:MOS RFC were titled "Manual of Style (something something)" -- that RFC did not discuss WikiProject sub-pages at all, and therefore, this discussion must stand on its own and the consensus from that RFC does not apply to this page at all. I have therefore relisted the discussion, and take no position on the interpersonal disputes at play here. —Darkwind (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I come here as an editor heavily involved with development and maintenance of WP:MOS, prompted by a note from admin EdJohnston at my talkpage. I have read the project page concerned, and reviewed the discussion above. I was the proposer of the RFC referred to earlier in this section. (I also closed that RFC, though an involved editor; the consensus was overwhelming.)

Some impressions and remarks:

• The project page is short but tangled. I found it very heavy going. Its provisions do not appear systematic, and the results of following them would be complex. An example: "Quantities of beer/cider: use imperial pints and follow with both millilitres and US pints." How often would it need to be applied? I was left wondering why there should be any exceptions to the general principle laid down in the opening paragraph: "Articles on the Falkland Islands should use measures in use locally, which can be assumed to be the same as those in use in the UK." Some of the expression is awkward and forbidding: "In contexts where the Manual of Style explicitly prefers one set of units such as to override the general rule that the most appropriate unit is put first (for example for all nominal or defined units), put that unit first."
• The RFC at WT:MOS did not address situations like this one, as Darkwind points out immediately above. It was intended as a technical restructuring of the existing pages that were marked as components of the manual of style (MOS), to make them strictly subpages of the core page (WP:MOS). A secondary concern, which I unsuccessfully pushed: take the opportunity to check each page for quality (and internal and external consistency) as it was moved into the new structure. But there was no resolution about adopting new MOS pages.
• The structure of the discussion above is extremely loose, and therefore it has become unruly and difficult to navigate. Even if the WT:MOS RFC were a basis for action here, and even if the project page were of sufficient quality or relevance to serve among the style guidelines on Wikipedia, there is no prospect of getting consensus to make the suggested move. Not enough participation (given the unfriendly and chaotic process that greets the newcomer), and no clear view of a way forward.

My suggestion:

• Several editors have dedicated themselves to this work, and have attempted dialogue toward consensus; but it's time to abandon the attempt as unsuccessful. We can learn from these things. I recommend that participants reflect on how things went on this occasion, with a view to managing things more efficiently and collegially next time. Personally, I cannot see the need for such a MOS page at all, nor for anything beyond a simple declaration of which broader standards to apply, from the range of options at WP:MOSNUM. But that's just my opinion, informed by efforts some of us make toward commonality and against needless fragmentation of style. I recommend that the RM be formally closed as "not moved"; and that the matter be put to rest for at least another twelve months. I'm sure everyone has other things to be getting on with. ☺

Noetica^Tea? 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Noetica,

Thank you for taking the time to read the project page. As you rightly observe, "the project page is short but tangled". This is because it is not a genuine project page but an exercise in bullying as described in the subsection that follows this posting. Ideally I would like to have the bullying aspects dealt with either by RFC or by arbcom. Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Bullying

This article was written ostensibly as an Advice page for Falkland Islands articles - I believe that in reality it was a tool written by User:Kahastok to aid his bullying tactics. In 2011 a total of 82 such advice pages were moved in WP:MOS-space to be merged into the WP:MOS structure (or to be discarded). I believe that the real reason why Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster do not want this article moved is that it will expose them as bullies.

On 2 December Wee Curry Monster wrote

Right you have repeatedly claimed the guidelines are at variance with WP:MOSNUM, they are not. They are more prescriptive that WP:MOSNUM certainly but that was done for a reason. The reason being that you refused to accept a consensus that sought to apply a common standard to a series of articles, to present a consistent approach. Instead you insist that because WP:MOSNUM says can not must you will do whatever you like, moreover you edited to reverse the consensus position on unit order on many articles in direct contravention of WP:RETAIN. This is why the guideline was written, moreover having failed to overturn this consensus repeatedly you have resorted to gaming the system to find a way around it.

On 7 December 2012 Kahastok wrote

The major reason for having clear and unambiguous rules for units on Falklands articles - as supplied by FALKLANDSUNITS - is that they are difficult to game in ways such as these. Such tactics have been a continual feature of Michael and Martin's four-year campaign to force metrication on Falklands articles.

The essay Wikipedia:WikiBullying contains the text

"There are essentially two forms of bullying on Wikipedia: attacks against the individual editor by targeting a single user, or ..."

The essay goes on to say:

"Hidden text is also frequently used to give editing instructions. There are some acceptable and unacceptable uses for hidden text. But hidden text that is used in any manner is considered only to be suggestions and is not to be taken as law. ... Some unacceptable uses are:

• ...
• Writing new guidelines that apply specifically to the page, and branding them as "policy." In the past, policies that have been proposed for a single article have failed to attain a consensus.

In this case, the term "hidden" can equally be applied to a so-called WP:Advice page which is "hidden" on a subpage where editors who are not members of the particular WikiProject would not expect to find it.

The comments by Wee Curry Monster and by Kahastok, when read in conjunction with the essay on bullying, suggests that each editor has independently made a tacit admission of bullying and the fact that neither wants this page moved into MOS-space suggests that they do not want their tactics subjected to the scrutiny of the Wikipedia community at large.

Martinvl (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly an attempt to provoke an angry response.

I suggest that admins make their own minds as to whether it is bullying to advocate a rule that contains anti-gaming provisions in a topic where there is a long history of editors gaming the system. In doing so, admins should bear in mind the rule in question has in the past attained the explicit acceptance of all concerned (including Martin, who advised editors to follow it "to the letter") and that the claim that this is a single-article rule rather than a topic-wide rule is, as Martin well knows, false.

I also suggest that admins consider whether:

• The above insinuations and accusations against mine and Curry Monster's characters and motives, posted only after Curry Monster and I had stopped bothering to respond to what must be the twentieth or thirtieth attempt to push exactly the same point;
• The belittling personal attacks such as "little Englander" that we have received from Martin (for which he refuses to apologise);
• Martin's sudden denial that consensus for this rule ever existed, two and a half years after it was implemented and despite having previously accepted it as consensus;
• Martin's recent attempts to ignite what he has described in the past as a "civil war";

constitute appropriate conduct in the best interest of the encyclopædia, with particular reference to WP:GAME.

I've been perfectly clear and quite forthright as to why I oppose this move. I believe that it is part of an attempt to loosen the rules such that it can be gamed and the topic fully converted to metric. Given previous track record, given that it was implied in the above discussion that changing the rules was the intention, and given that exactly the same argument was used to remove this guidance and to fully metricate Falkland Islands based on a gamed interpretation of MOSNUM, I don't believe this is an unreasonable suggestion and I don't believe that I need any further reason to oppose. Kahastok talk 18:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Kahasotk's statement "The belittling personal attacks such as "little Englander" that we have received from Martin (for which he refuses to apologise);" is a misrepresentation of the truth. The original quotation was made here. Wee Curry Monster complained here. I clarified the sitation User talk:Wee Curry Monster#Little Englander (diff of the discusion). I seek an apology from Kahastok from Kahastok for misrepresenting the facts concerning my character. Martinvl (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutral point of view

I have amended the introductory paragraph to include both a statement by the Falkland Islands Governemnt on metrication and some notes on taking a neutral POV wrt Argentina. Once the gerneral principals have been agreed, the detail can be amened as and where neccessary. Martinvl (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. Martin, you're well aware that changes should be discussed before implementation. The whole purpose of this guideline is provide consistent guidance based on local usage and the Times style guide per WP:MOSNUM. It is more prescriptive than WP:MOSNUM for the simple reason of your wikilawyering and gaming of the system. The proposal for "source based units" is not accepted and your introduction of an FIG document is simply another manifestation of that. Similarly raising WP:NPOV is yet another red herring and wikilawyering to introduce the same agenda.

What we are talking about is for a small subset of units, the imperial unit is given first per local usage and custom. We don't propose to eliminate the metric equivalent. This really isn't worth the hostility you employ to move forward on this agenda, nor the endless hours squandered on a meaningless debate over trivia. Drop the WP:STICK. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WCM wrote "the imperial unit is given first per local usage and custom" - give me a citation to prove it - the stuff that is written on the page is textbook WP:SYN. I have added a reference that demands the use metric units in certain circumstances - if you were not so fast in deleting things, you might have had a chance to look at it. Also, please remember to keep a NPOV - you can't just sweep that one under the carpet. - I am not pandering to the Argentine point of view - all that I am saying is that the use of imperial units where from a British point of view, metric units are equally good, could from an argentine point of view be seen as provocative. Martinvl (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And this provides a perfect illustration of the problem with the move, because this is textbook gaming of precisely the sort that the move is intended to promote.

I have seen this argument that I've seen Martin claim before: he insists that any proposal has to be included on an article or guideline before consensus is reached in order that it so that people can be "given a change to see what they are agreeing to". The intention of this is to effectively overturn the principle that no consensus is no change - that rather, no consensus would result in his proposal being carried.

The substance is an attempt to introduce metrication by the back door when it has so clearly and repeatedly been rejected by the front, in clear violation of the principles of MOSNUM. It's yet another thwack of the stick, another attempt to continue this intensely damaging campaign to metricate the Falklands by means of Wikipedia, another attempt to prevent all progress on these articles. It must cease. Kahastok talk 18:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Too silly for words: can we dispense with the emotion and move on?

I'm mindful that a respected admin asked a basic question: what system of weights and measures is taught in FI schools. The answer, apparently, is metric.

I'm beginning to regard the persistent warring and rudeness by Pfainuk et al. as an unwelcome distraction to the en.WP project. I ask that this continual rearguard guerilla warfare concerning which system of units goes first, and which goes in parentheses, cease. Clearly, metrics should be the main units.

Thank you. Tony (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We all know your POV here, Tony. Please don't pretend you don't have one.

On the substance, if Martin et al were willing to drop the stick here, and allow us to follow WP:MOSNUM as expressed through the longstanding consensus expressed on this page there would be no issue. The people who start these arguments are Martin and Michael. I would be perfectly happy to leave all the units on these articles as they are and never discuss them again. But that depends on Martin and Michael ceasing this POV push that does nothing but harm to the encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 18:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If Kahastok is referring to the page attached to this talk page, then THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS. When will he uinderstand that 2 in favour and 2 against does not even equal a majority vote, let alone consensus. Martinvl (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There was consensus. Even if it was two in favour and two against (and it wasn't), and even if both those claimed dissenters hadn't later acknowledged the consensus (and they did) the fact that the position held for two and a half years is clearly enough to demonstrate consensus.

So that's just another means of gaming the system. This particular argument certainly falls into the part that refers to bad faith negotiating. Of course, let's remember that the previous consensus was for imperial units first universally. The only logical conclusion of Martin's argument that this version does not have consensus is that we should be moving back to that position. Kahastok talk 23:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• "We all know your POV here, Tony. Please don't pretend you don't have one."—Yes, I've carefully formed a view. Tony (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason that Michael and I stepped back for a bit in mid-2010 was to avoid the Gibraltar situation later when Wee Curry Monster (along with others) received sanctions for edit warring in December 2010 and both Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster received sanctions in April/May 2011 (filed under the name of Imalbornoz). (These sanctions were lifted on a trial basis in October 2012). Kahastok has creditied WP:FALKLANDSUNITS with the name "rules". Insofar as they exist, Wikipedia "rules" come in four flovours - pillars, policies, guidelines and essays, each with their own protocol. WP:FALKANDSUNITS does not fit into any of these categories - so what is it? Martinvl (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I see the appeal to lessen emotion has fallen on deaf ears and the simple resort to character assassination, not to mention Martin making sure my real life identity comes to the fore when he knows why I stopped using it online. If you have to resort to such tactics, frankly you've lost the plot.

Tony please stop the character assassination in the guise of easing tension, its not really helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

May I place on record that I did not know why Wee Curry Monster changed his on-line id. How should I have known the reason? I seem to recall that he had changed his name signature once before from (using x's to disguise the real letters) "Xxxxxx X Xxxxx" to "Xxxxxx xxx xxxx Scotsman", so when I saw another change, I assumed that he had got bored with the old name. Had I have known that he was receiving harassment to his real-life address, I would have been more circumspect. I did however have a problem because there are still references to his first name and I needed to make sure that readers knew that Xxxxxx and Wee Curry Monster were one and the same person. BTW, I am still waiting for an apology from for accusing him of being English - the only acknowlegement that I have had was a reiteration of the accusation. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Place it on record but given your comment above makes it plain that you do know why (notice I didn't say in the preceding comment), you look foolish. Contine to demand an apology when you clearly referred to me in a rather provocative manner as a "Little Englander". Its plain you're trying to make this a battleground but sorry no thanks. Life it too short. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You have accused me of making personal attacks. That is not my style. I regard your repeated allegation of an insult as being uncivil in the extreme. Please withdraw. Martinvl (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You have Martin, now as this is going from the sublime to the ridiculous I don't propose to indulge you further. You of course welcome to the WP:LASTWORD. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster has still not appologised for asserting that I was refering to him when I wrote about "Little Englanders". How many Englishmen would try to insult a Scot by calling him "English"? If insults were flying, the last thing that an Englishman would do would be to associate a Scot with England. Maybe WCM should look at things from that persepctive and then he will see why his analysis of my statement was totally wrong and why an appolgy is needed. Martinvl (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

He will never apologize Martin. I know, I'm still waiting for an apology for falsely accusing me of producing an ad-hominem on another editor and then lobbying to have me blocked under false accusations of sock-puppetry. It's been a year. I suggest you let it go and we move on with the requested move.

Adding editor Tony I can now count five editors agreeing to move this article. How long will this be dragged? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Draft policy

This article does not appear to be an essay, a guideline or a policy document. In order to regularize its status, I have taken the step of proposing is as Wikipedia policy. This will give the community a chance to debate whether or not it is worth keeping and expanding into a full policy document, or whether it should be binned as a "failed proposal". Martinvl (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As demonstrated above, there is nothing wrong with having a page to document a local consensus. Tagging it as "is definitely still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus" is patently false and disruptive, as well you know. Kahastok talk 21:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for acceptance as a formal guideline

This "guideline" been the source of considerable debate (see rest of this Talk page, here and elsewhere). Many have assumed that it is an enforceable guideline, but an inspection has shown that it has no standing is probably unenforceable as such as it has not been through the proper acceptance procedures. These procedures "require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy". (This phrase is identical in both the current version of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and the version that was current when the "guideline" was first created on 30 March 2010).

The page is currently taking up space in WP: space with no indication whether it is a policy, a guideline or an essay. Its principal editor User:Kahastok wrote "WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is a Wikiproject guideline, just like many others across Wikipedia. It represents the current state of WikiProject consensus". If this is the case, then it should have the banner:

and should also be a member (direct or indirect) of the Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style. It currently complies with neither requirement so from an enforcement point of view it is at best a draft document.

In order to clarify the position, I am putting the page forward for consideration as a formal guideline. I am publicising this proposal to every editor of good standing who has so far contributed to this debate.

Responses

Oppose - I have many grounds for opposing the adoption of this document as a guideline.

• There is no overriding reason why an archipelago that occupied less than 0.01% of the earth's surface needs its own guideline for units of measure when WP:MOSNUM covers the situation and make no provision for country-specific guideline in respect of units of measure.
• There is, as far as I know, nothing special about the units of measure used on the islands.
• If the guideline is appropriate for all project groups, including for example the WikiProject Islands group, then it should be part of the WP:MOS structure, not hidden in the space of one particular work group. The wording of this proposal is such that it appears to apply to all work groups and as such should be integrated into MOS space. This proposal should therefore not be adopted unless it has been moved into MOS space.
• The opening sentence is pure conjecture. For example,Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, but it uses kilometres per hour, and traffic drives on the right - See this picture where the speed restriction is certainly 50 km/h, not 50 mph!.
• The list of exceptions to the "metric-first" rule have absolutely no justification and in many cases are probably irrelevant - do they drink draught cider on the Falkland Islands, or just bottled cider? Why choose stones and pounds for weighing people rather than just pounds - many Commonwealth territories use only a subset of the units used in the United Kingdom - for example the stone, quarter and cental were not catalogued in, amongst others, Australian and Canadian legislation and as result, were not used in those territories. Is there a reliable source stating the practice in the Falkland Islands?
• Since Wikipedia is widely used in schools and the Falkland Islands Community School sits the British GCSE exams, it is, in my view, improper to emphasise the imperial units as per the proposal when such exams use the metric system.
• Wikipedia is required to take a neutral approach in respect of the Anglo-Argentine differences over the Falkland Islands. One of the ways of achieving such a NPOV (as explained here) is to use terminology that is common to both countries and that cause least offence in either "... seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter...". The pro-imperial stance taken by this proposal that goes well beyond the approach taken in most similar Wikipedia articles goes against that approach. Some months ago I did a comparison of metric and imperial unit usage on various island associated with the United Kingdom and the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Of the 27 articles examined, only two use imperial units as a default - one of them being the Falkland Islands. The list of articles examined is shown below. (Readers are welcome to identify any gaps in the sets of articles chosen).

Comparison of metric vs imperial in various islands associated with the United Kingdom

This is not really a big deal. WP:MOSNUM states "In non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit (44 kilograms (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts ...". I have checked the units of measure that came first in a number of similar "UK-related" Wikipedia articles. In order to avoid cherry-picking and also to keep the lists as short as possible, I chose sets of articles and looked at all articles in the set concerned. My findings were: British Overseas Territories Akrotiri and Dhekelia - all metric Anguilla - all metric Bermuda - mainly metric British Antarctic Territory - partially metric British Indian Ocean Territory - all metric British Virgin Islands - all metric Cayman Islands - all metric Falkland Islands - all imperial Gibraltar - all metric Montserrat - mainly metric (aviation hieghts imperial) Pitcairn Islands - metric Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha - mainly metric South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands - mainly metric Turks and Caicos Islands - metric Islands off UK coast Jersey - metric Guernsey - metric Isle of Man - metric Hebrides - GA - metric Orkney - GA -metric Shetland - GA - metric Isles of Scilly - metric Isle of Arran - GA - metric Isle of Wight - mainly imperial United Kingdom - mainly metric England - GA - metric Scotland - GA - metric Wales - GA - mainly metric Northern Ireland - GA - mainly metric As can be seen, the Falkland Islands and the Isle of Wight are the two "odd men out". The general trend has been that in most of these articles, geographical measurements are quoted in metric units while in some articles, transportation measurements are given in metric units and in others, are given in imperial units.

@Kahastok: I am not going to waste my time looking into rebutting all of Kahastok's misrepresentations of fact - one will suffice. Kahastok wrote "Martin ... has even endorsed that consensus in the past". I actually wrote "... a very uneasy compromise has been reached ...". These two statements are worlds apart.

Martinvl (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No misrepresentations of fact. Facts you might find awkward, but no misrepresentations. I note that what you wrote was "please follow WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to the letter" and "please retain the units as they are" (i.e. following WP:FALKLANDSUNITS). Even if we accepted that reinterpretation though, there's still the matter of your having acted for all the world as accepting WP:FALKLANDSUNITS as consensus for well over a year after July 2010 (while you were actively editing these articles - in full knowledge of the units used and system applied), and in June 2011 were actually quoting it as a rationale for your edits (see [3][4]). No, you endorsed WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, whether you now like it or not. Kahastok talk 16:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Apcbg - Is this page a policy, a guideline or an essay? If it is a fully-fledged guideline (a asserted by Kahastok), why is there no {{guideline}} banner and where is the discussion to prove the consensus? If it is it is only a draft, why is it being enforced? At the moment is an unspecified piece of text. The purpose of this proposal was to clarify exactly what this piece of text is. Martinvl (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

More straw men here? I have never said it was a global guideline. You have invented that position and assigned it to me. This is page documenting a WikiProject-level consensus on style. Lots of WikiProjects have style guides at this level, there is no reason whatsoever why we should not be allowed to have one documenting our consensus on these matters. Kahastok talk 16:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is it being enforced? Maybe because it was agreed. Wrote you: “As I said, a very uneasy compromise has been reached. Distances are in imperial units, but rainfalls and heights are in metric.” Apcbg (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The document is at variance with WP:MOSNUM. Of particular concern is the provision about significant inconsistency which could lead to disputation about what is indeed a significant inconsistency.I think it's best to defer to MOSNUM. Michael Glass (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the point about significant inconsistency (as I believe you already know) was the habit of some to WP:GAME a MOSNUM rule on consistency into meaning that pages had to be either all-imperial or all-metric, which was entirely against the spirit of WP:UNITS.

The habit was to say, ah, the article uses Celsius once somewhere down the bottom, where the rest of the article uses miles, pints, miles per hour and so on. The spirit of WP:UNITS was that the two could sit side-by-side. But the user would say, no, that's inconsistent, so instead of converting the Celsius to Fahrenheit we'll convert the entire rest of the article to metric (which was what they wanted anyway). If there wasn't a measurement in Celsius or any other metric unit, the user would add one, and then make the rest of the article consistent with it. This is gaming the system, and the fact is that it has always been a habit of those pushing for metric. I don't recall anyone ever using actually using the rule to apply imperial units except when the situation was egregious (e.g. a geographical distance and land area in the same sentence).

I say I believe you already know that, because more often than not it was you who was gaming the system in this way. I acknowledge that you have done little of this on Falklands topics since WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was adopted, but I still believe it to be a useful safeguard against future WP:GAMEs. Kahastok talk 08:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The entire premise of this RFC is false, and the RFC summary is highly misleading and highly biased. This makes a mockery of the guidelines at WP:RFC.

Despite Martin's protestations, there are lots of WikiProjects that have project-specific style guides. Many of them are not part of the MOS structure; many of them are not categorised as described; many of them are not tagged as guidelines. I gave two examples at ANI and I'll repeat them: one, two. There is no reason why this needs either to be marked as a guideline, or as a failed proposal for a guideline. It's not some kind of weird exception. Pages like this are a common means of documenting local consensus for use on WikiProjects.

I object strongly to Martin's continued attempts to tag the page as something that has not reached consensus. Martin knows full well that the project has reached consensus on this project and has even endorsed that consensus in the past. This is a clear example of Martin trying to mislead you.

I further object strongly to Martin's insistence on repeatedly starting RFCs and other discussions on this topic. RFC should not be an iterative process whereby Martin continues to ask the same question over and over and over until he gets the answer he wants. This discussion reached its natural conclusion some time in 2009 and I repeat my assertion that the encyclopædia badly needs it to stop. Nobody else keeps on starting the discussions, and nobody else tries to prolong them like this. Martin needs to be topic banned for the good of the encyclopædia, to prevent the disruption that his insistence on continually opening this topic inevitably causes.

I note that Martin's objections to the page are entirely speculative. He speculates that things might be different and says that the page must act accordingly. Truth is, he has never - in the past four and a half years in which he has been pushing his (pro-metric) POV on these articles - provided any evidence beyond that would suggest that the standard assumption that as a British Overseas Territory the Falklands are UK-related in terms of style is not accurate.

I note that the page is explicit in saying that it is doing little more than prescribing WP:UNITS' advise for UK-related articles. It does not conflict with WP:UNITS in any way. It endorses metric units in most situations, save for those where imperial units are recommended in WP:UNITS for UK-related articles. The other difference is that is worded more strongly prescriptively. It needs to be prescriptive because prescription is the best way to deal with a controversial position, so that everyone knows what the position is and there is as little room for misinterpretation or (a particular problem here) WP:GAMEs as possible. Kahastok talk 07:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Addendum following Martin's addendum above. Martin attempts to conflate this with the sovereignty dispute. The two are entirely separate, and there is no reason to connect the two.

But even if they were not, there is nothing wrong, or biased, with acknowledging the fact that the islands are currently ruled as a British Overseas Territory, that they have been for all but a few months of the last 180 years, and that there is no plan in place to change this. In fact, failing to acknowledge that fact, treating the British and Argentines as though they were in strictly parallel positions, when in fact the islands are under British control and Argentina has no practical authority over them, would itself be a gross breach of WP:NPOV. If the facts on the grounds change at some stage in the future, nobody is saying that we cannot revisit the units we use on these articles, just as we would have to revisit quite a lot of other things related to these articles. Kahastok talk 09:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I am noting for the record that Martin is altering his comment above: [5] [6]. If things stop making sense in context, that's probably why.

Martin produces a long list of examples of articles, and inaccurately ascribes them units of measure. I note he refers to the "pro-imperial stance taken by this proposal". This isn't a proposal and it doesn't take a pro-imperial stance. This standing consensus endorses metric units first in most situations. If it takes a pro-anything stance, it is pro-WP:UNITS stance, favouring the global consensus. What Martin demands is that we go further and actively use Wikipedia to promote the metric system in direct violation of WP:NPOV.

The immediate relevance here is Falkland Islands, which he claims is "all imperial". The most recent consensus version, here, contained various measurements that were metric-first, and in at least one case did not even include an imperial conversion. The current version, which is currently in the process of getting consensus (as through an agreed process on talk that is being delayed by this POV push of Martin's), contains very few measurements that aren't geographic distances in miles, as endorsed by WP:UNITS, but it does go metric-first in some cases. It is still not "all imperial".

In fact, Falkland Islands hasn't been all-imperial since before WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was adopted. It wasn't all-imperial when Martin first made the claim, and it hasn't been all-imperial at any stage since. Given how much discussion this has had with Martin's involvement it is inconceivable that he does not know this. The claim is, and always has been, a deliberate distortion of the facts.

Further, if one looks at Martin's list, let us not pretend that Martin does not enforce his POV as overriding the consensus at WP:UNITS on these articles, just as he seeks to do here. For example, when an MOSNUM regular tried to align the article United Kingdom with the MOS, Martin promptly reverted him. This is not an independent study, it's just a list mostly of places where the POV push has been more successful. Kahastok talk 13:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears that I have not made the obvious point about WP:GAME here. Perhaps because Martin is so often gaming the system that I have just grown used to it. This RFC is, in and of itself, a clear example of gaming the system - on [a]ttempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community.

The top of WP:GAME suggests that the first time, one may warn. But this is very far from the first time. I would imagine that looking through this page one could find numerous examples.

The whole this-page-not-consensus bit is a clear example. The page came into use in July 2010 as seen above. Martin did not object, though at that time it was rolled out across the WikiProject. In March 2011 Martin tells users to follow it "to the letter". In June 2011 Martin is citing it ([7][8]) to back up his edits. In October 2012 he redirected it on the sly, and was reverted some time later when someone noticed (his claimed premise was rejected by the previous RFC). On 28 November 2012 he was still quoting FALKLANDSUNITS as a rationale for his edits. The very next day, he claimed it was never consensus. Martin treated this page as a consensus for well over two years - acted for all the world as though it was the standing consensus - and then one day he decided it never did. One wonders whether he sees the irony when he accuses me of "deceiving" people.

There are other examples cited here. From making controversial edits on these topics under the disguise of misleading edit summaries to the argument referenced above, to insisting that geography is "scientific" for the purposes of MOSNUM and therefore that miles are banned on Wikipedia. Including in conversions. Even in articles related to countries where miles are in common use.

We have seen this sort of gaming continually for the last four and a half years. Any resolution to this dispute absolutely must mean finding a way of removing it from these articles. Kahastok talk 18:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose This microscopic issue does not need its own guideline. There are many embarrassing, Wikipedia-wide problems that are crying out for guidelines and either don't have them or aren't being tended to; article titles in plural form and pathological over-categorization being just a couple pervasive examples. Let's work on improving this encyclopedia rather than further embarrassing ourselves with long-winded disputes over minutiae. Eric ^talk 15:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's actually saying it should be a global guideline. That's just Martin's straw man. But that does not mean that this WikiProject should not be allowed to document its local consensus on matters of style - plenty of others do - without its being declared a "failed proposal". And so long as it doesn't actually go against global consensus without good reason (and this one does not go against global consensus at all) there's no reason why the community as a whole needs to care. Kahastok talk 15:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS seems to be mostly ignored. At a quick glance, Falkland Islands appears to be largely Imperial first while East Falkland, West Falkland and Weddell Island appear to be metric first. Jason Islands follows the rules into a thicket of inconsistency. As WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is either ignored, or followed slavishly into confusion, it serves no good purpose. Michael Glass (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at the history of those articles and it becomes clear that this is because Martin was using them to push his POV against consensus. Same as you were doing before. Unfortunately, some of us actually have to work for a living and therefore cannot spend every waking hour defending these articles against Martin's attempts to spark "civil war", particularly when he routinely makes controversial edits in this area under misleading edit summaries and in a thicket of other edits. This demonstrates another reason why Martin needs to be topic banned here. He cannot be trusted not to try to sneakily force his POV into articles under the radar.

As to "followed slavishly into confusion" and "a thicket of inconsistency", well, WP:FALKLANDSUNITS tells you what to do if you feel that there is significant inconsistency. I see no particular problem in the case of the Jason Islands - other than that it has far too many measurements and far too little information. This is a legacy of the flurry of units that you decided to put into the article back in early 2010, when you were in the business of adding metric units to any and every Falklands article you could find against consensus - in some cases (like this one) not even bothering to put them into sentences. Kahastok talk 23:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, there would be no problem with Jason Islands if the article was consistent. The problem is not with the number of figures but in the chopping and changing between metric first and imperial first. Michael Glass (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (As for your other charges, I added useful information from Falkland Islands Conservation about the minor islands. As you have had more than three years in which you edited my additions, today's wording is a combined effort.) Michael Glass (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what units they're in, there's just too many of them. The flurry of measurements detracts from the article, rather than improving it. Of course, if you feel that there is significant inconsistency, then WP:FALKLANDSUNITS does allow you to deal with it. Kahastok talk 23:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

On the second point, I edited it to remove the flurry of measurements, and put many of those that remained into a table. And as I recall you cried blue murder about removing information from the article. Kahastok talk 09:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly did object to your removing information instead of finding a more acceptable way of retaining the information but putting it into a more acceptable form. I welcome the fact that you are now examining other methods of presenting information about these islands. 13:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is too much information, but the way it's put. Perhaps a tabular form may help. In any case when I checked the source, it exhibited much the same variation, except it did not provide conversions for the metric figures it provided. Of course we could halve the number of figures by ditching the conversions, but as this is not acceptable, some other solution needs to be found. Michael Glass (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There's more to geography than a blizzard of contextless numbers. We would probably be better off getting rid of all of them and replacing them with a topographic map. I may see if I can find a way of getting hold of one. Kahastok talk 09:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have now requested such a map at the Graphics Lab. Kahastok talk 10:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I note that we have just had an edit request at Talk:Falkland Islands asking us to follow yet another project-specific style guide that is not marked up as policy, guideline or essay. It is applied uncontroversially on tens if not hundreds of thousands of articles, and it has been used in evidence at ANI and RFAR. And yet Martin has now announced that it is "at best a draft document" and "probably unenforceable". Kahastok talk 11:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a valid proposal

A ‘proposal’ that is not supported by anyone is not a valid proposal, and possibly has not been made in good faith in the first place. Indeed, by opposing his own proposal the proposer has rendered it null and void. Apcbg (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Note

Please note an ongoing discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands#Weights and Measures Proposal 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) 14:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Still current for the project in general

This page was flagged as historical - it is not. Consensus on the Talk:Falkland Islands page may have decided that it is no longer applicable to that article, but there has been no discussion at project level about its applicability to the other 10s of articles in the project for which it is still current. FactController (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with User:MilborneOne. As a result of the discussion, the Units section is now of historical interest. Please accept the consensus to follow WP:MOSNUM and move on. Michael Glass (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, yes - my mistake, sorry. I hadn't seen that MfD discussion, and was confusing it with the more parochial discussion about its use in one specific article here, to which I had contributed. FactController (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The consensus at Talk:Falkland Islands was to change this page, and it is clear from comments there that editors considered it to cover the entire topic. Kahastok talk 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)