Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  TAG AS HISTORICAL. There is consensus for delete/mark as failed/mark as historical, and of those three, "tag as historical" is the most correct result procedurally. Fram (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units


This is completely redundant with WP:MOS. Away it goes. Jtrainor (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: the page I MFDed is full protected and I did not notice that, would appreciate if an admin would slap the delete tag on there. Jtrainor (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep but tagged with failed. There are many discussions involving this page, in fact there is a discussion right now at Talk:Falkland Islands. Even if it does not have consensus, it is useful to be kept for future reference, in case a similar discussion arises again. Cambalachero (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Per the current discussion, I accept the historical template as well. My main idea is to keep the page for future reference, in case someone wants to know what was it all about, but with an appropiate tag to make it clear that it is not a guideline above the MOS Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * failed is not appropriate on a page that documents a standing consensus as this one does. Kahastok talk 17:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep with no additional tag, particularly pending the ongoing discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands. This page documents the current consensus as regards units on Falklands-related articles. The units provided for substantially identical to WP:UNITS for UK-related articles, but:
 * It is prescriptive. This means that rather than the gaming that has been a continual problem on these issues during the 4½-year campaign to metricate these articles.
 * It makes it clear that consensus is that Falklands-related articles are UK-related for the purposes of units of measure, given that the Falklands are not explicitly mentioned at WP:UNITS
 * Given the long and acrimonious history of the dispute that this page is attempting to resolve, simply deleting it and leaving us to the gamers would seem highly foolish. Finally, I note that there is a proposal here to alter the page so that it merely references WP:UNITS and makes the units prescriptive. It is still useful to document a consensus in that case. Kahastok talk 17:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per the points made by Kahastok. Apcbg (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - is it really appropriate to put this up for deletion while there is discussion on this proceeding at Talk:Falkland Islands? Keith D (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutralise article, Either Keep with tag failed as per Cambalchero, otherwise Delete. Martinvl (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC
 * Delete or replace it with a redirect to WP:MOSNUM. WP:FALKLANDSUNITS has outlived its usefulness. It is now a cause of contention rather than the opposite. Michael Glass (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There is also a discussion about WP:FALKLANDSUNITS at the Falkland Islands | talk page Editors who have expressed their opinions here but not at the other place should be aware of this. Michael Glass (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, or tag with the 'failed' 'historical' template, and make certain the reader can find the correct link to MOSNUM with a redirect or a prominent hatnote. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is simply inaccurate to say of a consensus of over three years' standing that "consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time". It was established.  And the rule was - and is still - used in practice.


 * I also note that the proposed outcome of the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands would, if this page is deleted, require its immediate recreation. Kahastok talk 16:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be disruptive editing, WP:POINTy editing. The guideline is completely unnecessary because MOSNUM covers it adequately. The Falklands are not such a special case as you suppose. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends what you mean by "special case". I think we need a rule for the Falklands because of the history of this dispute.  I'd rather not be back here every three weeks with the same editors have having the same debate over and over again, every three weeks for years on end, because some of the editors above claim they want to know if consensus has changed this time.  That's the position we were in before this rule was adopted.  As I note above, there are at the very least basic points that are useful to document such as the fact that the Falklands are considered UK-related for the purposes of MOSNUM.  Other projects document such consensuses and there's no reason why this one should not be allowed to.


 * The fact is that we have multiple editors here supporting mutually contradictory outcomes on different discussions. That the page would be deleted or marked as inactive, but at the same time that we would use it to document a completely different consensus.  Either they're saying that they want us to delete it and immediately recreate it, or they're saying that they want the newly-documented consensus to be deleted immediately upon adoption.  Neither of which is particularly sensible. Kahastok talk 08:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You do not appear to understand what people here are proposing. You are misinterpreting others' words. What is being proposed is that the Falkland Islands should not be treated any differently than other UK-related articles. That's the essence. If you wish the Falkland Islands to be a special case then you are in the minority as of my reading of current consensus. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Where is "here", for the purposes of your comment?


 * You are proposing, simultaneously, in different discussions:
 * To delete this page or mark it as historical
 * To replace the contents of this page with the words:
 * "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."
 * Both cannot happen. We can't replace the contents of the page if it has been deleted, without recreating the page.  And there is no point in replacing the contents of the page only for it to be immediately deleted.


 * You say that what's being proposed is that "the Falkland Islands should not be treated any differently than other UK-related articles". Well, for a start it has been argued in the past - shoot, it is currently being argued (if not in so many words) - that the Falkland Islands should not be treated as UK-related at all.


 * I contend that if the proposal at Talk:Falkland Islands attains consensus (as seems likely), it is still useful to document any consensus reached, so that we can easily point to it if the question comes up again. Part of the argument being made by others there on enforcement is that we can turn around and say, here is the consensus decision - well, it's easiest to do that if it's documented at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS with a link to the discussion.  That's the reason the page was set up in the first place (albeit with the existing text as the consensus).


 * When you have an argument with such a tortuous history as this one, you don't want to leave it at saying we'll follow some policy that some involved editors have a long history of gaming. Unless, that is, you feel that we should be dealing with this debate (which is already listed on WP:LAME) a whole lot more frequently. Kahastok talk 15:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you continue to obstinately misinterpret this discussion then no wonder some here have complained about your interaction style. You take two different proposals that are given as alternatives and infer wrongly that they are proposed as parallel and simultaneous solutions. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've seen nothing here or at Talk:Falkland Islands to suggest that these are being offered as alternatives. Far from it, I see editors here - not just me - suggesting that this discussion is inappropriate given the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands, or noting that this MFD is rendered moot if the point at Talk:Falkland Islands is carried.  There isn't going to be a grand high discussion at the end where we decide whether the result of this discussion or the result of the one at Talk:Falkland Islands is the one we apply.  And I would suggest that, given that it is likely that the page will change dramatically in the within days, it is misleading to the uninvolved to say delete it or keep it at present.


 * And my point remains, it is useful to document a consensus. There is no reason why we cannot have a project subpage to do that. Kahastok talk 15:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In case there was any doubt about it, my position here is that there should not be a project subpage which prescribes any variance from MOSNUM, or defines any greater specificity than MOSNUM. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Administrative Note: If there's a previous consensus, then failed is not suitable. You want to use Historical to document something that is no longer relevant. That being said, I think this MfD should be suspended while discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands is ongoing (because the proposed outcome there could, in theory, render this MfD moot). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 03:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as a subpage of WP:BJAODN if nothing else. Shii (tock) 05:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This supposed guideline has always struck me as an oddball. Most guidelines under the MOS are there to supplement it, not to create exceptions nor to prescribe contrary to the liberal spirit of the MOS. There is community consensus that general consensus should trump local consensus, yet this document/project seeks to impose its own style completely contrary in places to the MOS, as if the Falkland Islands (editorially speaking and literally) were some small outcrops of rock in the Atlantic than only a handful care about or should be allowed to care about in their own way. What this page mandates is of a level of prescriptiveness that the community would never support, and its deliberate cantonment to the project was likely a move of stealth and expediency on the part of some. The disputes in this area are the result of a very small number of very hard-headed editors, carrying on their own Falklands War and with about the same intensity level as if Thatcher and Galtieri were still in power. The document, and all its associated drama, should be brought to a speedy end one way or another. "Bad Joke"? Why not... --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bingo. I could give a fig what the local consensus of the Falklands wikiproject is-- you don't get to do whatever you want contrary to established rules and guidelines simply because you and your buddies have decided you should be able to. Jtrainor (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The current wording is not contrary to established rules and guidelines. The proposed wording at Talk:Falkland Islands - which looks likely to get consensus when it is closed - is also not contrary to established rules and guidelines.  If we could trust editors to apply WP:UNITS in good faith, as opposed to continually attempting to game it, we would have no problem here.  But we can't, so we do.  In any case, there are basic elements of consensus that are useful to document, such as the basic point that the Falklands are assumed UK-related for purposes of style.  This proposal would prevent even that. Kahastok talk 19:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - It is either redundant to, or violates the WP:MOS. Several people attempting to keep the guideline are doing so by using arguments not based on policy (the possibility of gaming other guidelines does not mean you should create a new one.) Tagging it with "failed" is not valid; tagging it with "historical" would be. Kahastok's constant allegations of gaming have never been properly backed up with evidence anywhere; they would do well to stop using as reasons for keeping their preferred guideline, as this is not remotely a reason to justify the creation of a separate guideline. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While Kahastok may not have backed up claims of gaming, I do not see your contention that this may "violate" the MOS to be substantiated either. Redundancy I can see, but contradiction is another thing entirely. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - An article, or a subset of articles, should not have style guideline particularly if it is already covered by MOSNUM. Lukeno94 sums it up nicely. Blackmane (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to MOS:UNITS or keep as historical. Generally, contentious topic areas are subject to endless hair-splitting on policy matters, and sometimes a hefty dose of preciseness can dampen things down a bit. Nevertheless, it seems as though this essentially states "follow UK standards", and so would be better served with either a redirect to MOS:UNITS (preferably with a note added there explicitly stating that the Falklands are considered as UK) or with a historical disclaimer and a hatnote stating that users should defer to the MOS:UNITS. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.