Talk:West Falkland

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Overseas Territories High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. South America: Falklands This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Top-importance). Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

I believe that there is no justification for reversing the units of measurement of this article. Putting Imperial measurements first is:

• inconsistent with modern British practice.
• inconsistent with the article's history.
• inconsistent with the Manual of Style which says, " [F]or the UK, they usually are metric units for most measurements, but imperial units for some measurements such as road distances..." .
• inconsistent with the Falkland Island Government style [1]
• inconsistent with the Falkland Islands Tourist board style [2]
• inconsistent with the usage of the Penguin News (See the article on oil drilling on Friday 26 February 2010)
• inconsistent with the spirit of the Times Style Guide which says, "The Times should keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use..."
• The manual of style says, "Where footnoting or citing sources for values and units, identify both the source and the original units." This has not been done.

I do not believe it is appropriate for an editor to impose his private preference for Imperial units on these articles against the usage of the Islands themselves. If the Falkland Islands Government and the Penguin News are content to put metric units first, it is not right for an editor to indulge a personal whim for the older units. Michael Glass (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, it is consistent with a long-standing and repeatedly re-iterated consensus on Falklands-related articles, a consensus that is not overridden by the MOS or by any other policy or guideline. The "personal whim" here is not my adherence to consensus but is your insistence that unit use has to be based on sources, regardless of common sense or Wikipedia guidelines. Pfainuk talk 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I well know about your so-called consensus is that it consists of:

• 2 editors, Ryan4314 and Justin, who want Imperial;
• 1 editor who wants "a mixed system" but consistent in a given context across the articles and is opposed to sourced based units. (Pfainuk);
• 1 editor who would like Metrics but says that British custom accepts Imperial weights and measures with some exceptions (Narson);
• 2 editors (MacRusgail and Michael Glass) who have spoken in favour of a more sourced based approach.

That's not consensus; it shows a lack of consensus. Your action changed the long-standing and stable style in this article in putting metric measurements first. This was in conformity with a "consensus" that has all the reality of the grin of the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland.

Now the questions that you failed to address:

You failed to address my contention that your change was

1. inconsistent with the Falkland Island Government style [3];
2. inconsistent with the Falkland Islands Tourist board style [4];
3. inconsistent with the usage of the Penguin News (See the article on oil drilling on Friday 26 February 2010);
4. inconsistent with the spirit of the Times Style Guide which says, "The Times should keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use...";
5. inconsistent with the manual of style that says, "Where footnoting or citing sources for values and units, identify both the source and the original units." This has not been done.

Of all the examples above, the most pertinent one is that your change is inconsistent with the actual usage of the Falkland Islands themselves. If the Falkland Islanders are content to use metric units in a wide range of contexts, it is a form of colonialism to insist on using the old units for articles about the Falkland Islands. It's like treating the Falkland Islanders as babies, whose choice of units can be overridden by three editors on Wikipedia who think they know better than the Falkland Islanders themselves. Michael Glass (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You entirely misrepresent the consensus, one can only assume deliberately because it was perfectly clear how many of those editors were willing to support imperial units. In particular, you misrepresent my position by failing to mention my willingness to support imperial units. A consensus of editors supported the status quo. The fact is that bringing this up every two months is disruptive. You are repeatedly

refusing to get the point. We have a consensus. Meanwhile, what you insist on what is a format based solely on your own personal taste, that is not endorsed by any policy or guideline, and that is based on neither consensus, logic or professionalism. No. You don't have to like it, but we do have consensus and this article should follow it. Pfainuk talk 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

For god's sake, no again! Justin talk 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of six people, three want the Imperial system, one wants SI but believes than consensus favours Imperial and two favour a more source-based approach. On the strength of this you crow "Consensus! Consensus!" That is the extent of your consensus, and on this basis you relegate SI measurements to second place here. Michael Glass (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is utterly ridiculous to cling to a system that is rapidly being phased out in the UK and its territories. Please do not push personal preferences here. Argument over. Tony (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony1. When I entered the height of Mount Robinson in metres, I used a relatively short text string. When Pfainuk added the imperial comvesion, he used the convert function with the "output only" switch turned on and then had to reenter the height to retain the metric height. This has been done with every single measurement in this article. If you look at the map of the Falklands which is attached to the article, you will see that metric predominates in that map. If we want consistency, then the measurements in the text and in the map should be aligned. Therefore either change the map or the text. Martinvl (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the Falkland Islands Work Group was for a consistent approach to units with imperial first. Most articles follow that at the moment. You might like to comment there. And Tony, I still don't see you contributing on Falklands articles. Justin talk 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added it only in metres, so it needed changing regardless. Ironic that Tony tells people not to push their personal preferences, when all he does on Falklands articles is push his personal preference on this narrow topic. Imperial-first is a work group consensus, so any change really needs to be brought up there. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see stupid to reverse metrics to Imperial system. If there is a reverse, it should be from Imperial to SI. Please enlight me with a just reason to reverse a standardized and more accepted system to a unilateral system. Just because they are UK related articles doesn't mean they have to be on Imperial units, that seems a personal preference. The english wikipedia is the most accessed of all, so it will be more rich if it uses the mosts international standards as possible. Personally, it pisses me off the need to have a conversor of measurements units while reading Wikipedia. A concensus over personal preferences doesn't seem right to me. I think is more proper to have SI first, Imperial second. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 07:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would also be interested in participating in the discussion on units in the Falkland Islands Work Group. [5] The task force proposal is to make all Falkland Islands articles Imperial first, including other articles that have been metric first for years. Michael Glass (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]