Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 22

Page locked
I have locked the page on the wrong version. Too many people are reverting without even bothering to acknowledge a discussion on this page, much less participate. The editors who are discussing above are expressing understandable frustration at being ignored, and good editors have already left the page. This is wrong. Jonathunder (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You've protected the page after being involved with editing the page which isn't great, you are clearly not impartial, so I would ask that you take no further administrative action in relation to this in future. Thanks. Nick (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I locked the page on the version I don't support. I did that because repeated requests to discuss the issues were being ignored. Thanks for your advice, however. Jonathunder (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember that the point of WP:INVOLVED is that you're not allowed to use your tools to your advantage. Protecting a page on a version with which you disagree is nowhere near using your tools to your advantage.  Perhaps Jonathunder's violated the letter of the law, but this kind of thing is far from violating the spirit of the law, and operating by the spirit of the law is what we're supposed to do here at Wikipedia.  Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal citation in intro
Anyone mind if I change "British Nationality Act of 1983" to "British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983"? The latter is the name of the article, and anyway Acts of Parliament in the UK don't have "of" before the year. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since nobody responded, I've performed the edit in question. Leave a note at my talk page if you disagree, and I'll happily revert.  Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested edit - Lord Falkland
In the Etymology section, "the Viscount" should be replaced with "Lord Falkland" or "the Viscount Falkland" per WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Surtsicna (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The only way I can see this as being controversial due to the premise of an RFC currently being conducted here on the matter in dispute. The premise of that RFC is that WikiProject style guides must be marked up as Wikipedia-wide policies or guidelines.  The premise holds further that any WikiProject style guide that isn't is "probably unenforceable" and "at best a draft document" which we should ignore.  This would seem to apply to the styles documented at WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage as much as to the point at hand.


 * I am objecting to that premise and personally have no problem with the rule being applied. The rule would seem to suggest "Lord Falkland" is preferred. Kahastok talk 11:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The matter seems silly to me, but if that's the standard (and proper) way to refer to the Viscount, then the change should indeed be made for the better name. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, reading the section for the nth time, I continue to acknowledge Kahastok's earlier point about the need for balance in the last paragraph of the section. "Falklands" is also a name with added negative connotations in Spanish. If someone could please find a good source that fixes this problem, then it would be greatly appreciated. Best.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 September 2013
I would add to the History paragraph the map file Malouines1783.jpg which shows the names used for the islands in the years before the Spanish take-over.

Renaud OLGIATI (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the naming of these islands is highly controversial, Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

edit request
reindeers -> reindeer

It's a collective noun. &mdash; rybec   19:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a collective noun but a noun where the plural is identical to the singular. If we were to speak of "a herd of reindeer", the word "herd" is the collective noun. Nevertheless, Yes check.svg Done. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

guaranteeing good government
The UK can't even guarantee good government in its own country. How is it supposed to do it 5000 miles away? Surely there is a better way of wording this. Eckerslike (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure you didn't read the very top of the talk page, which includes "This is not a forum for general discussion about Falkland Islands. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article". OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that the UK "guarantees good government" is encyclopaedic language. I'm guessing that it is supossed to mean free from dictatorship or corrupt government but the current wording implies that the UK government has some magical power to not only govern well but to guarantee everyone else does as well. Eckerslike (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eckerslike is right to draw attention to this. The source cited in the article - this - makes no mention of "good government".  It refers to "good governance" - not the same thing at all - see Governance.  The opening paragraph should be corrected accordingly.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2013
The reference to "good government" in the fourth sentence of the opening paragraph should be changed to "good governance" - as per the source cited in the article text. It is misleading - incorrect, in fact - to suggest that the UK is responsible for the "good government" of the islands, which is an issue of self-determination. It is responsible for protecting the institutions that allow good government - that is, it is responsible for the island's governance.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The word "good" occurs twice in the source, both times followed by "governance", so Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

proposed change to text about Gordon Brown
existing:

In 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown met with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and declared that there would be no talks over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. As far as the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands are concerned, no pending issue to resolve exists.

proposed:

In 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown met with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and declared that there would be no talks over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Brown's position was that there were no pending issues to resolve concerning the Falkland Islands.

reason:

to make it obvious that the sentence is a statement the British viewpoint (current wording could be interpreted as meaning "there are no outstanding disputes" and as being said in the voice of Wikipedia) &mdash; rybec   03:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Lansford makes it clear that this is a government position, not Brown's personal opinion. The current text also does not use Wikipedia's voice. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 04:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This Web page explains it better than I did: the expression "as far as x is concerned" has two meanings "from the point of view of [the person] x" or "pertaining to x". If read the second way, the sentence tells us that there are no unresolved issues pertaining to Britain and the Falklands. "The Brown government" would be fine in the replacement. &mdash; rybec   06:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The website clearly distinguishes one meaning from the other. There is no two ways to read it. The encyclopedia's voice is not used. Also, I again repeat that this is a government position. Has Cameron changed it?-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did suggest "the Brown government" in response to your first comment. Is there a problem with saying "The position of the British government was that there were no pending issues to resolve concerning the Falkland Islands."? There are two ways to read it because "the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands" doesn't clearly refer to people. &mdash; rybec   18:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You keep suggesting terms that refer to past administrations or past positions. Again, I ask, has the Cameron administration changed the UK's position?
 * Lansford is pretty clear in demonstrating that this position has been a standard since the end of the Falklands War.
 * When discussing international politics, the states become the actors (or "people").
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have the Lansford book. Can you suggest an alternative wording that is consistent with it but avoids the "as far as ... concerned" construction? The Falkland Islands don't conduct their own diplomatic relations, so they aren't an actor here. In the phrase "as far as the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands are concerned," "the United Kingdom" refers to the UK government whereas "the Falkland Islands" refers to the island territory. It's difficult to understand because "the United Kingdom" commonly refers to another set of islands. It's similar to the phrase "apples and orange" where "apples" means the fruit but "orange" means the colour. &mdash; rybec   21:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Instead of approaching the matter in circles, you could have simply pointed out your concern of placing the Falkland Islands at the same government level with the UK. Right? Assuming that's the case, which does have a more justifiable logic behind it, an improved sentence I can propose is the following:
 * As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, "in the absence of evidence that the islanders themselves [seek] a change", no pending issue to resolve exists.

Because the problem is not with the structure of the sentence. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 21:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Worth noting that the UK government always puts the Falklands government's view centre-stage here. The point of mentioning the FI view (and it is the FI Government being referred to here), is that the UK position is that it is up to the islanders - represented by their government - to determine the islands' status.  The FI government view is significant because the UK government makes it so. Kahastok talk 22:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't immediately noticed the second ambiguity. I mentioned it once it occurred to me. Here is another Web page explaining the two meanings of "as far as ... is concerned". &mdash; rybec   04:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, for the sake of sanity lets ditch the grammatical structure in question. Perhaps the following is better?
 * The UK's position is that, "in the absence of evidence that the [Falklanders] themselves [seek] a change", there are no pending issues to resolve concerning the Falkland Islands.
 * Fits your proposed structure change while also retaining mention of the Falklanders. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that seems clear. &mdash; rybec   02:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

current text:

As far as the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands are concerned, no pending issue to resolve exists.

new text:

The UK's position is that, "in the absence of evidence that the [Falklanders] themselves [seek] a change", there are no pending issues to resolve concerning the Falkland Islands.

as discussed above. &mdash; rybec   19:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Unprotection
The discussion about units seems to be settled. Perhaps it should be a good moment to request unprotection of the aticle (or at least just semi-protection), and go on. Cambalachero (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What would be the case to keep semi-protection as there is not a problem with unregistered editors? FactController (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Weights and Measures Proposal
Following on from the discussion further up the page I have a proposal to recommened as a compromise, appreciate if you indicate acceptance or opposition only here, so please dont continue the discussion here:


 * Proposed that we dont use WP:FALKLANDSUNITS and just use the WP:UNITS as per non-science UK-related articles. If accepted then users agree to initiate no new discussions on this topic unless some new developments in the relevant Falklands practice were to occur. As a record of this proposal if agreed that WP:FALKLANDUNITS can be replaced with a statement:

''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.''

Accept

 * Accept as proposer. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Accept. More precisely, I am inclined to support the proposal, if the safeguard clause is included in the WP:FALKLANDUNITS replacement statement too.  The added text could be “The present arrangements will be subject to no review or amendment initiative unless some new developments in the relevant Falklands practice were to occur.  Any attempt to infringe, circumvent or otherwise undermine these arrangements would be liable to sanctions through WP:AN or Arbcom motion.”  Or something of the sort. Apcbg (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Accept as proposed. Michael Glass (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Accept any compromise to finally move this page forward. Jonathunder (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Accept with the proviso that the term "science-related" is liberally defined - in particular geographical terms. Martinvl (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and there we go. Martin wants us to follow WP:UNITS, but only if we accept Martin's gamed version rather than follow the letter and spirit of the policy.  Anyone think this is going to help anything?  You've got to be joking. Kahastok talk 20:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear that science-related articles refers to articles not terms within other non-science articles like this one. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What MilborneOne said is my interpretation also. Jonathunder (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One more. It's hard to imagine what "miles" is to be used for if not geographical distance. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Within normal British usage, road signs show distances to towns in miles, but schoolbooks show the sizes of land masses in kilometres. Martinvl (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As a refinement, I suggest that the policy will be "Adopt a neutral point of view in respect of the Falkland Islands sovereignty issues by following a "metric-first" policy insofar as this is compatible with the interpretation of WP:UNITS by a significant number of editors working on other similar British-related articles". Martinvl (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be saying is that you support the proposal, but only if it says something completely different to what is actually proposed. That isn't a "refinement", it's a completely different text with a completely different meaning, replacing WP:UNITS with your own POV.
 * Anyone still in any doubt that Martin's going to try to game this? Kahastok talk 08:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Kahastok, You wrote, "What you seem to be saying..." so it seems that you are not sure what Martin meant. Instead of accusing, why not ask for clarification first? Michael Glass (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think there is a way of interpreting his sentence in a way other than I did? I don't see one.  And it is pretty much par-for-the-course in this discussion. Kahastok talk 15:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence can be read two ways: that the units should be metric first because the sovereignty question is unresolved or that the usage should be compatible with the interpretation of WP:UNITS by a significant number of editors working on other similar British-related articles. It's not clear, so it's not safe to jump to conclusions - and accusations. Michael Glass (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * After four and a half years of watching Martin try every trick in the book to push metrication here, I think my conclusion is pretty safe. Kahastok talk 16:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, we've all been dancing around it for far too long, so I'm just going to come out and say it: Kahastok, you have a rather unhealthy obsession with other users on here, chiefly martin. You have been accusing others of longstanding irrational behavior, and to be quite honest, what we've seen lately out of you is no better. I mean, come on, it even unjustly spilled over into my own talk page! I think at this point you would be far better served by stepping away from editing for a while and try to calm yourself down. You do not own this article or any particular parts or details about it, and you need to realize people will disagree on the internet, and others reneging on whatever perceived commitments or agreements is just simply not your purview. This article does not have any trouble gathering any drama and we don't need anyone like yourself fanning the flames. How about we all just try to move the discussion along and not worry about others so much? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think people need to understand the history to this dispute if they want to understand why people are reacting the way they are. I also see nothing wrong with wanting a final resolution to this dispute so that we can all get on with improving the article, and I see no reason why I should not point out what I see the barriers to such final resolution as being, and explaining why I believe the current proposal does not provide such a resolution.  This is why I am, for example, pointing out that on one hand Martin is supporting the proposal, but then saying that "[a]s a refinement" it should say something completely different.  It is also why I am asking for a formal close and a clear indication of what units would be applied in specific situations.


 * As to your talk page, I must admit, I still remain entirely confused by your reaction there. I see nothing particularly objectionable or even particularly impolite about what I wrote there.  What you wrote is another matter. Kahastok talk 17:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll bite, let's talk about history here. The direct inducement coupled with a fallacy that you wrote "If you want to leave it as-is until more people arrive, please self-revert now" was taken as a threat due to your long history of either creating or continuing drama here and elsewhere, and I stand by my reaction due to the fact that you were likely to drag the whole thing out there as well unless I took a different approach. And yes, I also stand by my statement there that you "are only using consensus when it suits you". And again, I assert my right to "not have to explain one single thing to anyone involved in a pissing match like that." And furthermore, when I had clearly left that conversation (for reasons which are at this point irrelevant), YOU KEPT GOING! That is what happened, that (and other things like it) is why people are irritated with you, and if you don't do some serious modification to your outlook and behavior, whoever else gets involved in this drama-trap will have to deal with you too! Get some help man, and with all the civility I can muster at this point, you very possibly need it. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are referring to when you talk about "your long history of either creating or continuing drama here and elsewhere". I still have no idea what you mean by "only using consensus when it suits you" and while you don't have to explain your reasoning to me it is disappointing that you chose to abuse me when all I wanted was to understand where you were coming from.  I finally note that I wasn't even aware of your comment here when I made your final comment (that was just you assuming bad faith).  I think that if someone was creating drama on your talk page it certainly wasn't me. Kahastok talk 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Accept If I understood correctly, UNITS is a long standing guideline for all articles, FALKLANDUNITS is simply a page without any special status. It does not make sense that a discussion about units forces to page-protect the whole article from any editing; just settle this and go on. If the conflict is between a general and accepted guideline and a controversial essay, then just drop the essay and tag it with failed. After all, I don't see why do we need a special page for the islands. Should we have a ARGENTINAUNITS page as well? A CHILEANUNITS, a URUGUAYANUNITS or a PERUVIANUNITS, perhaps? Let's better keep the Pandora's box closed. Cambalachero (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is not an essay. It is a consensus on this WikiProject, accepted by all for well over two years. Kahastok talk 22:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was accepted by all, we wouldn't be here, with a full-protected article because of disputes about meters, yards and whatnot Cambalachero (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was accepted by all until Martin decided to renege on it, declaring it never to been consensus despite having made all outward appearance of accepting it for well over two years. It is Martin that now brings us back here over and over. Kahastok talk 06:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We are reminded that consensus can change. And it seems from the discussion here that it may have changed already. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it can. But there comes a point at which the same editors raise the same point at which we can say that the consensus is unlikely to have changed, any more than it did three weeks previously, three weeks before that, three weeks before that, three weeks before that...


 * The point I was making was because Martin suddenly announced that the consensus that he had previously signed up to never existed in the first place, on the false basis that he had never signed up to it (despite clear evidence to the contrary). This has caused much confusion during this discussion. Kahastok talk 19:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Accept I was reluctant to descend into this morass again but as Cambalachero just said there is nothing special about the Falklands that requires a special set of units. There needs to be a valid reason to depart from WP:UNITS and I don't see any such reason.  If it is good enough for the rest of Wikipedia it is good enough for this article. Mtpaley (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:FALKLANDSUNITS does not depart from WP:UNITS, except insofar as it is prescriptive, which is needed given the rampant WP:GAME violations on this topic. Kahastok talk 22:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Accept, per ... User:Kahastok. Yes, the one who is "strong oppose in all circumstances" just below. Because earlier he wrote "I would be happy to see a rewritten WP:FALKLANDSUNITS that does nothing but endorse WP:UNITS as per "non-science UK-related articles"". Which is exactly what is being proposed. There was a condition on that statement, which was that it be enforceable. Well, with this strong an agreement it will be enforceable, the same way everything is around here - when there is a disagreement, first we try to hash it out nicely, then we call in an admin, and point to the overwhelming acceptance of this proposal. Folks, this debate has already been listed in WP:LAME, and not by me. If an admin needs to be called in, we can point to that as well. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you not think that the normal method has been tried? We had a consensus, that was accepted universally for over two years before Martin decided to fire this up again.  That's the current version of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS.  It's all very well saying "call in an admin", but when the admins aren't interested in doing anything about it - as now - it doesn't help us. Kahastok talk 17:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Admins aren't special. A couple of people who weighed in here happen to be admins, but they are just editors. It looks like we have an emerging strong new consensus of editors here, and that's what matters. Jonathunder (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, hold on. The comment I responded to actually told us, if the thing gets started up again (and it will be because the moratorium is toothless) and isn't resolved easily (and it won't be - see the above discussion), to "call in an admin".  We've got into exactly that position with the last consensus, and the admins aren't interested.  I see no reason whatsoever to assume that this time won't be the same.  Postponing the dispute by a few months is no resolution. Kahastok talk 21:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We have two or three admins in the current discussion so at least some are interested. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But this fact does nothing to my concern that GRuban commented on that sparked this exchange, that nothing is being proposed in terms of enforcement that has not already been tried and found wanting. With a toothless moratorium - that wouldn't even be mentioned on the page - and admins unwilling to act against clear gaming, we do nothing but kick the can down the road.  Rather than resolving this debate once and for all, we practically guarantee another round of it.  I want a long-term solution to this, and this isn't a long term solution. Kahastok talk 22:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Kahastok, do you think any of us want to go through this #$%! again? When my friend at the coffee shop the other day asked what I was editing and why I seemed stressed about it, he looked at me like I was nuts when I told him it had to do with the order of metric or imperial first on an article about some islands. Maybe I am nuts. Maybe we all are. But, for the hope of sanity, can we wrap this up so we can all move on? If we can, I promise anyone who wants to start a fight about this again will be very unpopular. Jonathunder (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When I asked on ANI for a link to a discussion where this was decided, no one was able to provide one - everyone just mentioned discussions with two people on each side or so. Naturally no reasonable admin will take action over such indecision. What we have here is a noticeable "rough consensus". Admins can and will enforce that, if necessary. (Well, hopefully they'll first say - folks, come on, are you really ready to be blocked over this nonsense? Whether it says km first and mi second or the other way around, they're both there, for the reader to read, a cm/half-in from each other, can't you just leave it... but if there is no choice except blocking or continued reversion wars, "having first exhausted all possible alternatives", they can and will block.) That's the way Wikipedia works. --GRuban (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your ask for that. The current consensus was first implemented after this discussion.  Its position as the standing consensus went unchallenged from July 2010 to November 2012, during which time both those who might have been said to object endorsing it as consensus  and using it .  In one case the most recent explicit acceptance of the consensus came as recently as last month.  I don't know how many controversial discussions you have been involved in, but a lot of the time in my experience you don't get the idealised everyone agreeing to a poll bit, particularly when people are unwilling to endorse anything short of everything they want (as was the case here).  A consensus derived from explicit acceptance and usage over a period of multiple years is still a consensus. Kahastok talk 06:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you will thus understand why, having seen this restarted as often as I have, I reacted the way I did when you restarted it and Martin egged you on. You seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that this is the first time, or one of the first times, that Martin in particular has tried to start a fight over this - rather than the reality which is that we're probably entering the teens.  Two and a half years ago, he was referring to this as "civil war".  The fact that we are still here demonstrates that "anyone who wants to start a fight about this again will be very unpopular" is no disincentive, particularly given the wider community's unwillingness to act over it. Kahastok talk 06:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Accept I accept, if that means anything, but it will do nothing to remedy anyone's unhealthy obsession with others, and that part of the issue should be nowhere in the scope of anything wikipedia-related. Let's just get this over with. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Accept I accept. I don't see a compelling reason to have a distinct WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. M Carling 13:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment a deletion request on the Falkland units page has been opened here Cambalachero (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Accept. No need for separate FALKLANDSUNITS. "Science-related" would apply to whole articles rather than specific portions of non-science articles. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Accept For sanity's sake. Shii (tock) 06:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Accept as an uninvolved editor dropping by after reading the third WP:ANI thread. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Accept as sufficient, rejecting Martinvl's radical re-interpretation of WP:UNITS. Kanguole 07:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Accept bearing in mind that to do so would mean those articles with a particular (say metric) measure would stay that way per WP:RETAIN, but there will no longer be any diktat for Imperial over all Falklands articles. As in UK articles, the format of units will be determined by rules already prevalent. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so: RETAIN relates to ENGVAR, with similar provisions for other areas where MOS leaves the choice open, such as dates and ERA. In contrast, UNITS says what should happen for each case, and this proposal is to apply those rules to all Falklands articles.  Kanguole 18:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I oppose because no enforcement of any moratorium is included. A toothless moratorium is not worth the electrons it uses on the computer monitors, particularly if it is not even mentioned on the page at hand.  I cannot accept this as a credible long-term solution because I believe that this would last roughly until Martin decided to renege on the deal (just as he has every other deal) and restart his "civil war".  Which would put us in however-many-months' time having exactly the same discussion in exactly the same terms in exactly the same place and with exactly the same people as today - just as we were back in the Summer of 2010 before the current incarnation of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was adopted.


 * If we were able to agree sanctions for violations of the moratorium (which is possible through WP:AN or Arbcom motion), which would include edits like this which do not start discussion but which do spark the dispute, I would reconsider my position. Kahastok talk 15:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that Martin is already trying to WP:GAME this, I must switch to strong oppose in all circumstances. I suggest that others consider their positions in light of this.  Nobody should be under any illusion that a moratorium is going to be any use here.  We need Martin to be topic banned.  Now. Kahastok talk 21:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the clarifications in the WP:FALKLANDUNITS document of grey areas in the MOS provided exact directions as to which units should used in the articles relating to the Falkland Islands. The MOS keeps getting changed and watered down as the metrication POV is pushed by the editors who want to get rid of this document. If this document is removed then the MOS should be tightened to ensure that the perceptive items in the document are incorporated. Keith D (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree part of the problem is that the same editors pushing metrication here have an equally long history of pushing the same POV on the MOS. This is a pretty major flaw with this entire process and is part of reason why I call for topic bans.  I note that the intention of the wording is precisely to remove the grey areas you describe, but I can see it could be more strongly worded and I call for the proposal to be changed to strengthen the wording.


 * I would very strongly oppose any system that did not include an absolute requirement that we include imperial measures in circumstances where they are appropriate, even with enforcement provisions such as I describe above. After four and a half years of watching editors trying every trick in the book to game the system to enforce their pro-metric POV here, frankly, we would have to be complete idiots to accept anything less than that. Kahastok talk 17:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - clearly needed to provide stability for this article. Otherwise need to include provisions in the WP:MOS for the information currently in unsigned comment added by 31.55.68.41 (talk)


 * Oppose as I believe WP:FALKLANDUNITS, being less subjective, has reduced the squabbling over which units to use for what. If we fall-back to the unmodified and more ambiguous WP:UNITS, we will be side-tracked once more by the never-ending units edit wars and discussions. Looking elsewhere, it seems quite usual for Wiki projects to add there own, more specialised, layer on top of Wiki guidelines, to improve consistency, reduce the room for disagreement, improve project harmony and hence lead to more quality edit time, inevitably resulting in better articles. FactController (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FactController, what brings you to this page? You haven't made many edits under this user name in a long time. Jonathunder (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Request
If we are to have a new consensus, I would like to ask that it be formally closed through WP:ANRFC. If the close is a consensus for the proposal, I would ask that the closer make it clear what exactly has been agreed (particularly with regards the geography question). I want to leave minimum possible avenue for any agreement to be gamed in the future. Kahastok talk 19:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Specific questions to the closer (and anyone else who cares to answer). Based on the current version of WP:UNITS:


 * In the general case, does the standing consensus post-close (i.e. the above proposal if it achieves consensus or the existing version of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS if not) require miles or kilometres for geographical distance?
 * In the general case, does the standing consensus post-close (i.e. the above proposal if it achieves consensus or the existing version of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS if not) require miles per hour, or kilometres per hour, for speed?
 * In the general case, does the standing consensus post-close (i.e. the above proposal if it achieves consensus or the existing version of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS if not) require personal weight be measured in kilograms or stones and pounds?


 * To me, the answers to these questions, in either case, is obviously "miles", "miles per hour" and "stones and pounds". It seems to me that it would take a fanciful interpretation to come to any other conclusion.  But such fanciful interpretations have been commonplace in the past in this dispute. Kahastok talk 14:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There was an interesting observation from one editor here a few days ago:"I got directions in Stanley in meters, not feet. Road signs were in kilometers. Quantities in shops were in metric. It's a metric country. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)" Does anyone else have first hand experience, or better still, evidence, on whether the Falkland Islanders use kilometres on their road signs? Michael Glass (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant, unless there's actual evidence beyond personal experience. I have evidence that the Falklands use miles on their roadsigns, but it is of the OR variety that I frequently reject from you and others.  For example, here they quote the speed limit in miles per hour first, and this sign makes it clear that it's miles being used.  We can also cite driving guides which give speed limits in miles per hour only.  Here the length of the road is quoted in miles with no kilometres, and that's a proper road sign.  This page says that signs are in miles, but it is a Wiki.


 * The simple facts are that the evidence (such as it is) points to use of miles. There is no reason to assume that Falklands practice is different from UK practice in this matter, and UK practice is for miles on road signs.  It is not like the SBAs on Cyprus, or Gibraltar, where there is a land border with a country that uses kilometres.  I suggest we would need proper evidence in the form of reliable sources that actually describe usage (rather than sources that merely use measurements) before concluding that Falklands practice is different from UK practice. Kahastok talk 15:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Travellers and Tinkers might have been misled by the circular speed limit signs that the British use for MPH. Michael Glass (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but MOS requires both metric and imperial units in this case. The only question is which goes first. That's why this is such a WP:LAME dispute. For what it's worth, I believe we want imperial first, but since both are going to be there, I really don't care very much. --GRuban (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have altered the shortcut WP:FALKLANDSUNITS so that it now points at WikiProject_South_America/Falkland_Islands_work_group, which now refers to the statement in the above proposal that achieved consensus, with a link to a diff of the close. Kahastok talk 17:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

cancilleria.gov.ar
The source seems to no longer be properly functioning. Can anyone please provide an improved alternative? Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have just checked it and it seems to be working fine. Perhaps it was a temporal problem? Cambalachero (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick response Cambalachero. The link led to a table of contents, but now it should directly link to the text in question. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 28 September 2013
As per concluding statements in, please remove the "dispute=flip" clause in the "convert" templates that contain the following text Martinvl (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * lede, para 1 - "12173|sqkm"
 * lede, last para - "700|m"
 * Geography, para 1 - "12173|sqkm"
 * Geography, para 2 - "705|m"
 * I disagree, there is nothing there to mandate metric units first in this case. FactController (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with proposer There is nothing in MOSNUM against the use of square kilometres. Ditto metres for the height of hills. Michael Glass (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review (again)
I think the article is ready for a GA review. Are there any outstanding issues that need discussion at this point? Also, could someone please provide me with a quote from the Reisman source that supports the sentence it cites (it's the only source I cannot access). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 22:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Page 306 says "The conflation of contrasting images and the extraordinary sense of righteousness that both self-determination and decolonization generate make cases like the Falklands qualitatively different from mundane territorial disputes. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders". Regards, --Langus (t) 01:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Good! Thank you very much Langus. This is the only concern I had left.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 01:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Would be worth tidying the authors/editors in references. Most are in "last, first" format but some are in "first, last" format. Keith D (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Another great catch! Thank you, Keith. If they are not authors cited in the bibliography, the format to follow should be "first, last". Don't know why, but that's how I learned to do it in the Chicago MoS. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have consolidated the CIA factbook citations into a single citation. Some referred to the book and others to the electronic version. Martinvl (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Martin. I restored the CIA factbook book/web difference because both sources have somewhat different information (not contradictory, just different) that complements to the article. However, I kept the MOSNUM improvement. The intention is much appreciated. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 13:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted
This article currently references the CIA Factbook in two different ways: via a printed copy and via an electronic copy. When the paper copy was produced, but were identical, but the electronic copy is updated from time to time, making it preferable. Why then was my edit, which consolidated all the CIA factbook citations into a standard format reverted? Martinvl (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Martin, I wrote about it in the section above (see ). Essentially, the book edition has information that I did not find in the online edition. Strange, but true. I apologize if it caused some confusion or distress. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 13:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Syncing Spanish and English Articles: Worth an Attempt?
Since my understanding of Wikipedia's idea of neutrality is to let as many people talk to each other as possible and build a consensus, would it be worth it for bilingual users editing this page to look at the Spanish language version (and for those editing the Spanish language version to come look at the English version)? I took a stab at both, for example adding material from the English article about the newspapers and school systems from this article to the Spanish version, and a little about pre-columbian artifacts from the Spanish version to this one. The English contrib was reverted due to it not fitting WP guidelines about summaries, but my Spanish addition seems to be sticking.

I realize that this may open a bit of a war on contentious issue, but in the interests of all sides being well represented, it might be a fight worth having. What do you folks think? JpTiger (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope the revert I made was not a bothersome one. The WP:SUMMARY guideline is indeed the justification for it.
 * The proposed plan is certainly not bad (open "inter-wiki" discussion among editors). Nevertheless, both run under a different set of rules, so what is deemed appropriate here might not have justification on the other version.
 * My experience in the Spanish WP is that administrators with WP:COI run the show. I literally could not even get them to change a mere title of their bicycle kick article to an NPOV one because their Wikiproject Chile (top members & WP administrators) created a fictional consensus; even when this contrasts with the Spanish WP's title policy (for example, they name their vegetable/fruit articles by the scientific name, which is NPOV considering they have different names for those items in Spanish depending on the country/region).
 * Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose the question here is: how exactly would these inter-wiki discussions be beneficial to this article?-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt it can be. While I haven't looked recently, the Spanish-language coverage of Falklands topics has always been pretty poor and strongly POV.  Their coverage of the sovereignty dispute has traditionally rarely risen above actively arguing the Argentine side. Kahastok talk 19:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Spanish Use of Name
At the very top of the Wikipedia Article, the Falkland Islands are described (in brackets) as 'Las Islas Malvinas'. Despite the BOT only having one official language and that language being English. This is an outrage. We do not tell people how to say 'China' in Korean, we do not tell people how to say 'United Kingdom' in French and we DO NOT tell people how to say 'Falkland Islands' in another foreign language. How ridiculous. No road signs, official documents, legislation, tourism related content or anything similar is ever printed in Spanish in the Falkland Islands. Their official language is English with their entire population speaking the language. The official name of a country or territory is printed in its official language(s) and the language of the Wikipedia Website it is on. So es.wikipedia.org may include 'Falklands' and 'Malvinas' but EN.wikipedia.org need only include ONE language: ENGLISH. To say 'Malvinas' is to say the Falkland Islands belong to a Spanish speaking country. Do they? No. Currently, they are under British control and whether you dispute the matter or not, they only have one language. So I request that this abomination is removed from this article or AT LEAST some proper talk is done on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnxsmith (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On a positive note, this further validates the etymology section. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Searching the talk page archives shows numerous discussions on this topic. The existing wording appears to be the most neutral approach per Wikipedia consensus. Bahooka (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps to be more neutral it should include the french name as well. MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The current naming style is in line with the guideline Naming conventions (geographic names). Cambalachero (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not the most neutral guideline around but the name Malvinas is encyclopedic information, of particular importance with respect to the disputed Argentine territorial claim. sounds like something made up without any strong policy basis, I understand it is clearly important in the discussion about any claims but not really needed in the lead, either include all the names that have been used or none. So should we add the French name to the lead to be more neutral. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Malvinas" is used in some current English-language contexts, for example, UN publications. The French name is not. Jonathunder (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) OK I can accept that, but why Islas Malvinas and not Malvinas which one does the UN use? MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Does France have an active claim in the sovereignty dispute now? Cambalachero (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can accept the use of alternate names in English sources as per Jonathunder or as a list of historic names (hence the interest in the French) but listing as an alternate at the start of the lead because somebody has an active claim is far from neutral. MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's understandable that the naming is a sensitive issue. However, we must look at it from a purely academic perspective. The name "Islas Malvinas" is the widely known other name of the archipelago in English. Not including it in the lead would be a serious omission, again from an academic context. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK but as has been pointed out to above the guideline and the UN use the term "Malvinas" and not "Islas Malvinas". Perhaps if the "Islas Malvinas" is of academic importance to include as an alternative in the lead you guideline needs to be changed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on my knowledge of Spanish, the name "Islas Malvinas" is the more appropriate term to use ("Malvinas" is, by comparison, less formal). The guideline does mention "Islas Malvinas" (as an example). Is there really a need to discuss changing the guideline to include "Islas"?-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

First point, Malvinas is not significantly used in English by normal people not connected to the Argentine claim or organisations of which Argentina is a member. The point has been discussed many times since the article was created, and nobody has ever provided evidence of such usage - which is why we do not present wordings involving Malvinas as English.

The top of WP:NCGN calls for "relevant foreign language names" (emphasis theirs) to be included. It seems to me that the Spanish-language name is clearly relevant to the topic, in a way the French-language name is not. I do not accept the claim that including the Spanish is non-neutral - on the contrary, including it goes a long way to demonstrating our neutrality on the sovereignty dispute. I note that our usage on this topic - described by WP:NCGN - is consistent with that of many external English-language sources, which treat "Falkland Islands" as primary but note "Islas Malvinas" because of the Argentine claim, particularly in articles related to the sovereignty dispute.

I note finally that the Falklands were a step away from ArbCom over exactly this point in 2005-6. No current editor was involved, but it's worth bringing it to people's attention. The consensus to include both has been stable ever since. I see no reason to change it. Kahastok talk 19:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good Article
Dear Marshal, congratulations for your sustained and successful effort in bringing this article to GA status! Your Half-Million Award is most deserved indeed. It is so kind of you to share it with other editors too (although my own contribution to this has been fairly minor). Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Apcbg. It has been a project all of us have constantly sought to achieve, even if we could not exactly agree on how to get to it. As Khazar noted during the review, this article is perhaps the most informative and neutral available online; only a group project could have achieved it. The next objective should be to achieve FA status, but perhaps we should wait a couple of months for the article to gain stability as a GA. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As an intermediate step, you might go ahead and open a peer review on it and let that run for a bit. This would be a good idea before FA anyway. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done Marshal and everyone else. Now let's see if we can make it even better. Kahastok talk 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations everyone! :) --Langus (t) 02:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Most Recent revert/insert
To whom this may concern,

Since I have not yet read an article/section on the concerned article explaining the reasons behind the pro-Britain/anti-Argentine results of past and recent Falkland Islands sovereignty referenda, I stumbled upon two online articles #REDIRECT[] and #REDIRECT[] written by Mr. John Wight and Ian Mount respectively, that seems to imply that the specific characteristics of Falkland Island's demographics might have something to do with the results of the aforementioned referenda. That is also the reason why I inserted the statement. Note that I worded the statement in such a way giving my insertion and its sources a benefit of doubt--thereby trying to comply as much as possible with Wikipedia's rules on neutrality

I hope this message gets read by the concerned editors and watchers, especially the editors, as I don't intend to start an edit war.

Sincerely yours,

Pcbyed (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with that content is that it goes off topic, "Demographics" is only for demography, not for political disputes, which are already adressed elsewhere. Besides, even if referenced, the relation of demography and the result of the referendum is just speculation. It's also possible, and in fact likely, that the Falklanders have considered both the benefits and disadvantages of being a British territory, and the benefits and disadvantages of being part of Argentina, and decided that staying British was the best option for them. Cambalachero (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Cambalachero I think it is not off-topic. Demography (more specifically ethnicities) can influence politics, you can just look up for examples in google. That single proposed inserted statement I intend to be a starting point for anyone else interested to expand on the issue. I don't care if the Falklanders hate to be Argentinian, I just want to let other readers what might influence their referenda, and demographics can be Pcbyed (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I rather agree with Cambalachero on both points. Furthermore, Falklanders of non-British (including Argentine) origins would seem to have contributed to the referendum 'yes' votes, see this and this. Apcbg (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would add this seems to be synthasis as neither source mentions the referendum.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's synthesis. Neither source mentions the referendum.


 * It seems to me that any relevant point here is trivial. Because the results of the referendum were so one-sided - because only three people voted "no" - it seems to me that very little demographic analysis that can be done.  All demographic groups almost certainly voted overwhelmingly for the "yes". Kahastok talk 12:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Then Cambalachero, Apcbg, Slatersteven, where do you suggest I relocate my insertion? I just find it interesting that immigrants make up half the population of the falklands...and perhaps other people may want to inquire about the effects of immigrants making up half the Falkland population one of the possible factors behind the referenda results


 * I don't think we can make any such conclusions, with or without synthesis.


 * That is why I worded it "might" -- to give benefit of doubt. My proposed insertion does not conclude but merely opens up a possibility whether or not there is -- unless you put a statement (with supporting sources) that it's not a factor. It is my intent in the first place -- to find whether or not demographics might have something to do with the refernda's results. Since there is no article, section, or statement yet here in wikipedia or in this article for that matter, I just hoped by inserting the statement, I open up debate and set the wheels going for an initiative to make an article/section addressing the question "Why does the Falkland referenda keep favoring Britain" here in Wikipedia. Pcbyed (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * But let me do some synthesis for a minute. If we assume a 50/50 split between those born on the islands and incomers, and then each group has 825 voters.  Remove 825 incomer or island-born votes from the "yes", and 99.6% (688/691) of the remaining valid votes were still for the "yes".  Which doesn't make any significant difference to the end result.  "One of the factors" - no, because it would have been overwhelmingly for the "yes" in any case.


 * That is why I worded it "might" -- to give benefit of doubt. You can explain that in the main article of Falkland demographics. Pcbyed (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * When it comes down to it, no amount of demographic analysis is ever going to say anything other than that the vote was overwhelmingly for the "yes" among all major demographic groups. Kahastok talk 13:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * But Kahastok that does not mean I don't have to put the insertion. Someone (perhaps it might be you who can) must explain that Falklands' underlying demographics might have or might not have an effect on the referenda. I can accept that there might not be, just put a statement (replacing mine) that can help dispell it and cite you sources--because it would be interesting under the demographics section...demography and politics are integrated here, you can't isolate the one from the other. Local People/populations affect politics because they construct their local politic through referenda such as these.

Pcbyed (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It makes life easier if we keep all the posts together rather than adding points at paragraph breaks. Do you mind avoiding putting each post whole in the future please?


 * Putting in get-outs such as "might" aren't enough to deal with the concern that the point is WP:OR. Yes, of course there is a connection between the local people and the results of a referendum - but the point is trivial as it applies by definition to any fair election or referendum.  There is no reason to assume that this is a special case and every reason to assume that it is not (in that the results would suggest that there was no significant demographic split in the electorate at all).  We do not put in points to spark debate.  That's not our job.


 * I note that I don't see any need for me to provide any sources here because I support the option of putting nothing in the article. I see no need for any text on this.  If I were proposing a change, I would need to source it, but I am not.  Your point is not backed up by your sources, and that is sufficient for it not to be included. Kahastok talk 17:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So, do you want me to add to my proposed insertion that demographics is still inconclusive with respect to the referenda's results? Otherwise, I'll just be placing my insertion on the main article of Falkland's demographics if you want...or I'll revert again if no one replies within the next 24 hours.Pcbyed (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Pcbyed, what you're proposing is WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. Please read those guidelines; you'll understand that we can't include it.
 * Don't get discouraged by this, tho. Feel free to suggest insertions/improvements, but always remember to resort to talk page if your proposal faces resistance, so as to avoid an edit war. I also recommend reading WP:BRD.
 * Regards, --Langus (t) 16:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the WP:SYN, and yep I think that's what may be wrong for my insertion. At least everything's been made clear to me. Thank you mr. Langus. Pcbyed (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you should add nothing at all unless you can source it in accordance with WP:V and WP:OR. At present, you're not meeting this standard. Kahastok talk 17:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Pcbyed, we are not allowed to speculate on Wikipedia, we can only say what RS say, not what we think they should day. Your proposed edit breaches a number of Wikipolicies, and as such will never be allowed to stand. I suggest you look for WP:RS that support your edit.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall Reply (17 November 2013, Philippine Standard Time: 2012H)
So do I just leave you all alone then with respect to this article?

Then, ok, the article's all yours...though I decided to first research about my proposed insertion and when I'm already sure, I may just put in in the demographics or politics section of Falkland Islands/their resepctive main articles in the future, or on a new article discussing the reasons behind the results (or how demography, economic standing, etc. affect the Falkland results). But since Falklands is not really my line of interest (and I admit, I'm kinda lazy), I'll leave that task (of making the new article) for someone else interested to do so.

I would also want to give Mr. Langus the credit for directly and concretely pointing out what may be wrong in my insertion. Thank you for enlightening me.

An edit war averted. Good luck to you guys in maintaining the peace, such as Slatersteven, Kahastok, Cambalachero, EdJohnston, (whomever and wherever you are).

Hope to work with you on other articles, especially Philippine-related articles here in Wikipedia. :-)

Pcbyed (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Pcbyed


 * You're welcome to stay around Paul, we don't own the article. Cheers, --Langus (t) 15:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved per WP:SNOW. There aren't many cases where it's really appropriate to invoke SNOW for a same-day close, but it's pretty clear that this proposal doesn't "have a snowball's chance in hell" of succeeding. I'm not quite sure I understand the first IP's comment, but depending on its intent, there might not be a single editor supporting this. If it makes this any better for the nominator, I would definitely say there's consensus against this title; six more days of discussion won't change that. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Falkland Islands → Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – Move requested per the discussion in the section immediately above this one. I have no personal position on this matter (so, to the closing admin, please do not count my request filing as a vote in favor or against the move). The rationale in favor is that sources in the literature use the heading "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" as a neutral title, including organizations such as the United Nations & the CIA. The rationale against is that such a title is unusual for Wikipedia headings and also the fact that the term "Malvinas", in English, is a loaded term. MarshalN20 | T al k 02:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Malvinas has not English negative connotation, just British negative connotation. You have just shown how strongly blinded you POV keeps you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.125.91.108 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better term than "negative connotation" is "loaded term". Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: True that the islands are referred to as the "Malvinas" in Argentina and maybe elsewhere, but the name "Falkland Islands" isn't in any way ambiguous, and therefore doesn't need disambiguating parentheses. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Falkland Islands" is perfectly in line with the article titling policy and does not infringe in any way or form the policy requiring a neutral point of view, which has nothing to do with following the burdensome and cumbersome style of international diplomacy and governmental lingo. Full disclosure: I'm an Argentinian living in Argentina. --Ev (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The policy for article titles says to use the common name and be concise. TFD (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the considerations given above. Apcbg (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was going to support the idea, but as the Spanish language Wiki uses the most common Spanish name (and does not include the English language name, I fail to see why the English Wiki should act in any way different. It is the common English name, and I had a (quick search. It turns out that in a n umber of languages (other then English and Spanish) they are called the Falklands (and the French call them neither).Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would add, that yes to the British Malvinas is seen as being POV pushing, and has negative connotations.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that no reliable source actually uses "Malvinas" as an English word in preference to "Falkland" unless under direct Argentine influence. There is a certain amount of WP:FRINGE usage by people actively trying to make a point by it (generally on the far left), but nothing more than that.  "Malvinas" is not used in English as a rule, and the exceptions are always strongly POV - hence if someone chooses to use it, they look like they're POV pushing.


 * Various people have disputed this assertion on this page in the past, but in the nearly eight years I've been here, none could cite a counterexample. The neutral term is "Falkland Islands". Kahastok talk 18:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose and SNOW close. WP:COMMONNAME in English-speaking reliable sources is Falkland Islands. Zarcadia (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter for a WP:SNOW closure. We need a formal consensus on the article's title, and this is the optimal way to achieve it. Also, the argument in favor of the title "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" is not without logic, given its usage by certain sources in the literature (as well as organizations such as those listed in the proposal). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 21:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - in general we don't go for double titles as a means of settling naming disputes, so there's no Football (soccer) and no Burma (Myanmar) articles. As for choosing which of the disputed names to use, I'm pretty sure that "Falkland Islands" is overwhelmingly the common name in English languages sources from most countries in the world. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per COMMONNAME. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because Wikipedia is not a place for Argentinians (or anyone) to push political agendas. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: "Falkland Islands" is by far the most common name in English-language sources, including neutral sources and sources indifferent to the dispute. We are not diplomats, nor the UN, so unlike them we do not need to jump through hoops to appease Argentina. Kahastok talk 18:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose the only reasons I could see the propose title being used world be if either, this was not the primary meaning of Falkland Islands, or Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is the term that most English-speaking reliable sources use. Since neither are the case the article should not be moved.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. On English Wikipedia we use the common name in English. That is clearly the Falkland Islands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.