Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:24, 5 March 2010

Island infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other possible inspirations

Putting these up here as useful links:

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

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

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

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

Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg

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

OB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falkland Islands War

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

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

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

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

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

Well, you could say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coinage article in desperate need of help

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

2009 flu pandemic in Argentina

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

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

I put the following comment in -

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

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

HMS Ambuscade

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

Units of measure

For purposes of uniformity it is useful, IMO, to have a defined set of measures that are to be primary on Falklands-related articles. WP:MOSNUM says: "or topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first."

I believe I know which way this discussion will end, given that it is the standing consensus on the article where this has been extensively discussed - but I believe that confirmation at a work group level would be useful if only to deal with issues such as this with a clear framework of rules. Here are the alternatives:

1. Imperial as primary except where WP:MOSNUM explicitly says otherwise
2. Imperial as primary with exceptions where judged appropriate
3. Metric as primary with exceptions where judged appropriate
4. Metric as primary except where WP:MOSNUM explicitly says otherwise

In all cases, conversions should be provided.

I believe that consensus favours option 1. My preference would be for option 2 or 3, but do not object to option 1. Pfainuk talk 22:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll go along with the consensus but agree that it currently favours 1, I would accept 2 though. 4 and then 3 as my personal preference. IE 1243 Whatever is decided we should be consistent. Justin talk 22:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. If we go for 2 (or 3), I'd suggest we then determine here exactly what exactly we mean by "appropriate". Pfainuk talk 23:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of which sources are used. Figures are often rounded anyway.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with source-based units is that they produce significant inconsistency (because sources in general do not all use the same sets of units) and frequently fail to use the most appropriate units in the context we're looking at. Plus editors have been known to pick sources based on the units contained within them rather than on reliability or other measures. This is why source-based units were not adopted in general at WP:MOSNUM.

Of course, units contained within quotes (whether direct or indirect), should use the source unit - as should nominal or defined units. But this leaves a large number of units that are taken from sources without any form of quotation. Better that these be consistent across all Falklands articles in my view. Pfainuk talk 14:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MacRusgail to generally follow the sources, though for consistency's sake I think it would be better to favour the metric system. I think we must accept a certain amount of inconsistency because sources will vary and because British usage is itself not only inconsistent but is slowly changing towards more use of metric measures. Michael Glass (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could source the assertion, implicit in your comments, that metric measures are inherently more appropriate to the Falklands than are imperial units? Bear in mind my comments at WT:MOSNUM - and one of the difficulties inherent in source-based units - that sources that discuss the Falklands do not necessarily use the units most appropriate to the Falklands, even if they were written in the Falklands (as they may be - indeed are probably - written for a non-local audience).

The rule on WP:MOSNUM is not that we should use always source-based units and never has been. The argument that we should be using such units is a complete red herring and you know it. A certain level of inconsistency? No, if we can agree the units first, then we can have the same units on all Falklands-related articles. It needn't necessarily be entirely metric or entirely imperial, provided we're using the same units for the same things in general.

Note also that Falklands usage cannot be assumed to be the same as British usage. I'm surprised that this is not obvious to you - given that the islands are thousands of miles away from the UK mainland and are ruled almost entirely separately. Pfainuk talk 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is some template which automatically converts imperial to metric and vice versa, but since I so rarely use it (like many other things on wikipedia!) I have trouble remembering what it is! --MacRusgail (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The conversion template can be found here ].Michael Glass (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Metrics: evidence of local usage, disagreement between editors and the resulting policy implications

I think I should make the following points about policy:

• The policy says (among other things), "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses."
• It also says, "UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts."

These points give ample precedent for putting metric units first in some UK-based articles.

Now, about the assertion that the Falkland Islands may be different from UK standards.

• I am not aware of any evidence that the uptake of metric measures is different from that in the UK.
• Like many UK websites, Falkland Islands websites use metric measures. See ] ] ] ] ]
• Misplaced Pages policy does not provide for different standards to apply to Falkland Islands articles.

No evidence has been produced to demonstrate that Falkland Islanders use the units differently from people in the UK, and policy does not provide for the Falkland Islands to be treated differently from the UK. Therefore the assertion is without evidence and is irrelevant as far as policy is concerned.

A second argument is that sources are bad guide to usage as they may only be used for export.

• There is no evidence to back up this assertion, and there is evidence to the contrary.
• When the local planning and building committee met on 10 January 2010 and discussed the matter of giving retrospective permission for the erection of fences over one-metre in height ], I hardly think this was export oriented.

As there is evidence that the local government planning and building committee uses metric units, the "maybe only for export" speculation is without foundation.

• Even if there was some truth that metric usage was export driven, it means that there could be more pressure on the Falkland Islands than the UK to use metric measures because of the vital importance of exports for the Falklands economy.
• There is evidence that the metric system is used in agricultural research (See the Many Branch Sheep Coat Trial at ] and in sending aid to hurricane victims ].

I therefore conclude:

• There is clear evidence that Falkland Islanders use metric measures for export and other uses.
• No evidence has been presented to suggest that Falkland Islanders have been slower in taking up metric measures than other UK citizens.
• There is no precedent in Wiki policy for treating the Falkland Islands differently from the UK.

Furthermore,

• Editors here disagree on which units should take precedence and that these differences seem to be quite intractable.

We therefore need to look at what the Wiki policy says.

Policy states, "Put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses."

All in all, I think that there is a strong case for following the sources as per the above policy.

Michael Glass (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems entirely reasonable. Tony (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your primary argument is that the fact that you don't agree with the rest of us means that we have to use your preference for units. You create a dispute and announce that because you've created a dispute we have to follow your preference, regardless of whether the units used are the most appropriate in context or not. No. That's a blatant attempt to game the system. We should use the most appropriate units in the context of the Falklands - which very often will be imperial-first, even where sources aimed at non-Falklands audiences use metric-first.

I simply cannot take on good faith the notion that you believe all sources always and without exception use the units that are most appropriate to the islands, regardless of what their audience is. Do you seriously think that this UK-based site uses US Dollars means that US Dollars - as opposed to pounds - are the most appropriate currency to be using on UK-related articles? Do you seriously think that an article first published in Revista Chilena de Historia Natural implies that metric units are the most appropriate units for the Falklands? Because if you do I think it is reasonable for us to put significant question your judgement in this area. Of course sources are likely to reflect the prevailing preferences of their (mostly international) readership. The fact that the international norm happens to be metric-first in general does not mean that the Falklands norm metric-first in general.

You argue that Falklands articles should be treated like UK articles. But UK-related articles don't have to use primarily source-based units either. In fact, we say that UK-related articles should use the most appropriate units to the UK. Even by your questionable argument that Falklands articles are equivalent to UK-related articles, we still don't have to use source-based units. We would have to use the units most appropriate to the UK - which is hardly the same thing.

But you've tried not just to make Falklands articles further toward the metric side than the UK-related articles you argue we should be emulating - but further toward the metric side than most of Misplaced Pages. That you've added information is great, but policy - as you know full well - does not allow for the unconverted metric units you've added in dozens of articles, particularly given that you knew what consensus had decided on other Falklands articles. This means that we're now going to have to go around cleaning up all of those measures. Pfainuk talk 18:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, drawing attention to the policy and taking it at its word is not gaming the system. Please note that I did not refer to the websites that you referred to. Your argument at that point appear to me like a straw man argument, blaming me for something I didn't refer to. My point was that the Falkland Islands uses metric measures in a range of contexts and you have presented no evidence to show that the islands are any different from the UK in this regard.

The second thing you talked about is a consensus to use Imperial measures. Firstly, I am not convinced that there is such a consensus and even if there was a consensus, that this applied to the articles about the smaller islands in the Falklands group. Some were metric first or metric only when I found them, or the articles had no measurements at all. In none of these articles was there fully referenced information such as I added. Yes, I did sometimes add material that was metric only, especially in articles that were already metric only, but I'm prepared to put in the conversions, even though they might be excessive. However, I do question the idea that there is a consensus to put Imperial first. In the case of the East Falklands article, for instance, this was imposed on the article in August

You have said that I would end up making the Falklands islands more metric than most of Misplaced Pages. Really? What is your evidence for this assertion? I know you feel strongly in favour of Imperial measures, but I would appreciate it if you would back up your assertions with some kind of credible evidence.

Consensus is a position reached by a group as a whole. That implies unanimity. Now I know you blame me for raising the subject of metrics, but I am not the only editor who feels that way. You know full well that of the editors listed in the Falkland Islands work group, three have spoken in favour of the Imperial system and two have spoken in favour of a source-based approach. Now three out of five might be a majority, but three to two is not a consensus. Also, we both know that others in the work group have not given their opinions. Perhaps we should ask them their opinion.

However, for the moment, let us put the matter to one side. There is nothing urgent about the question, and we might see things more clearly after a short break. Michael Glass (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong when you claim that you did not try to argue that Revista Chilena de Historia Natural was an appropriate source to be used in judging what the most appropriate units for the Falklands are. You did argue exactly that. My first source is an example of the logical conclusion of your argument - a British-based source that uses US Dollars as its primary currency. And I notice with interest that you haven't answered the salient point. That sources related to the Falklands - very obviously - do not inherently uses the most appropriate units for the Falklands, regardless of what the audience is.

You are trying to game the system. On MOSNUM you agreed with me that we must use the most appropriate units in the context. Now you're saying that you dispute every single unit that isn't the same as the source on every single Falklands-related article, and then trying to claim that this means that all articles have to adopt your preferred source-based approach regardless of whether these are the most appropriate units or not. That's so obviously Wikilawyering that I cannot think how you expect people not to pull you up on it.

I note that you seem to think that consensus is unanimous. How long have you been on Misplaced Pages without going to WP:AFD, WP:RM, WP:DRV, WP:RFA or any of the other consensus-driven processes that plainly do not require unanimity? I find it difficult to accept in good faith that you have no notion of a non-unanimous consensus. But just in case, read WP:UNANIMITY

You call me "strongly in favour of Imperial measures". I'm not sure when the last time a Physicist was accused of that was, but I'll make a note. Goodness knows it's not true - note my preference list at the top was for the two split-system rules, followed by all-imperial. What I object to is the notion that we have to use a set of units even where they are inappropriate, just because a source does. In this case it's generally metric units that are inappropriate, and metric units that you insist on adding and switching to. Source-based units are, generally speaking, a very poor means of determining what the most appropriate units are - particularly when sources as diverse as Revista Chilena de Historia Natural (which aside from being Chilean is a scientific source likely to use internationally accepted scientific units) are assumed to be acceptable evidence for Falklands usage. Pfainuk talk 17:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, I note your clarification of your position above and below. I agree that I have interpreted the policy differently from you but I certainly have not been trying to game the system. I put my interpretation there upfront but I accept that others won't agree with me, so that's that. It's not worth pursuing further. About consensus, if you've got it you've got it and if you haven't, that's that. I was surprised to find that Falkland.net is is indeed run from South America but I don't believe that applies to my other sources of information. For other comments, please see below. Michael Glass (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read Manual of Style again

IMO, the opening paragraphs of this section have been incorrectly interpretted. It states "For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first". In the case of the case of the Falklands, what evidence do we have of local useage? In the absence of concrete evidence one way or the other, the choice of units should be aligned with the data sources. I have not seen any evidence of which units of measure that are used in the Falklands, so, in accordance with manual of style, alignment with source data should be the case. From my observations of source data the following appears to apply

• Kilometres are used for distances on land
• Nautical miles are used for distances at sea
• Metres for heights of mountains.

I would note that all the maps that I have seen always have metric units, and some have imperial units as well. I also noticed that when I added the height of a mountain in metres only (quoting straight from the source), it took two convert statements to bring it round to the "imperial first, followed by metric" - my suggestion will ensure that there is only one convert statement. May I suggest that this approach be adopted as being the pragmatic approach. Martinvl (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Object. Not only have I read the MOS, I helped to write it. "lignment with source data should be the case" is not what the MOS says. Essentially, it's up to the editors to decide what units are most appropriate, based on their consensus, and pure source-based units does not and has never had consensus here or indeed at WP:MOSNUM - because, as noted above, this defies common sense. It is absurd to suggest that units Falklands articles should be based on Chilean scientific journals, but that is the conclusion of this idea. Michael's absurd argument that he can challenge every single unit in an entire work group's remit and thereby insist on his own POV prevailing is Wikilawyering, pure and simple, and should be treated as such. Pfainuk talk 22:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How odd that three people would all start talking about such a niche subject at once. And my view has been made clear before, feel no need to restate it. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Broken banner (importance)

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

To remedy, change:

Falkland-Islands-importance=

To:

Falkland Islands-importance=

South America: Falklands Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Misplaced Pages. 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is supported by the Falkland Islands work group.

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

Task Force Proposal

We have had a consensus for a consistent approach to units in Falklands related articles for some time. One editor has taken it upon themselves to reverse that consensus and has been imposing his own preference. The articles are now a beggars muddle with one set having imperial first, the second metric. I propose we set up a task forces to go through them and refactor according to consensus; imperial first, concisely and consistently. Justin talk 08:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with many aspects of Justin's proposal.

• The idea that there is consensus for a consistent approach to units of measurement across all Falklands articles is questionable. Falklands related articles are both metric first and Imperial first. It has been this way for years. Proposals to make it consistent, whether to metric or Imperial standards, are later developments. We have to find out whether a lock-step approach to units is supported by people in this work group. Otherwise it's putting the cart before the horse.
• I have added fully referenced material from a reliable source about the smaller islands. This evidence was only in metric units in the source, and so I put them into the articles with the metric measures first. Now, some of these articles (most were stubs, or little more than stubs) were metric first, some of them were Imperial first and some of them had no units in them at all.
• Justin also took it upon himself to switch the East Falkland article from metric to imperial in August 2009. I followed Justin's precedent, except that I had documentary evidence for my change and he did not have it for his.
• Justin has proposed setting up a task force to change the order of units against the sources. First, we first need to make sure what the consensus might be. This is especially important because the debate has been dominated by three editors. It is unsafe to presume that the editors who have not given their opinions agree with the position of those who have already spoken, and it is not safe to presume that favouring Imperial for articles necessarily implies changing articles from metric first to imperial first.
• Articles about other islands in the Atlantic appear to be metric first. So are the articles about most of the English counties, or, for that matter, Buckingham Palace and Big Ben. Does it really make sense to make all the Falklands articles Imperial first when other British articles are moving slowly but steadily in the other direction?

I also need to correct some misstatements.

• It is false to state or imply that there has been more consistency in the past. The record clearly shows that some of the Falklands articles have been metric first and others have been Imperial first for several years. Others have changed from metric first to imperial or from imperial first to metric first. Occasionally, an article might put both Imperial and metric measures first, depending on the source of the information.
• It is false and mischievous to state or imply that my recent changes have made a beggar's muddle out of the articles. If a variety of units is a beggar's muddle, then the articles were in a beggar's muddle all along. Not one shred of evidence has been presented to justify the statement that my actions have made the situation worse. I assert that my edits have enhanced the articles because I have put new and fully referenced information into a number of articles, and I have made the usage of units consistent with the information in the sources.

So first let's find out what people want to do. Michael Glass (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus Michael but as usual because it isn't what you want to do, you've ignored everyone and gone ahead with your own metrication crusade. You're busily adding data, always metric first but apparently everyone else has to stop while you carry on. No Michael, its not going to happen. I propose we clean up the articles and make them consistent.

And yes, you've left the articles in a beggars muddle and as you've ignored consensus I guess its up to other people to sort out and for you to snipe and made pedantic comments from the sidelines as usual. Justin talk 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Afraid of asking what other people might think, Justin? If you are so sure that there is a consensus, why are you so dead-set against checking it out? Michael Glass (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael, grow up. I haven't noticed you respecting other editors opinions by stopping what you've been doing whilst awaiting the results of your 5th attempt to get consensus for your proposal. It seems you want to get consensus by imposing your own preference by stealth. Justin talk 14:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, coming along to a group of articles every few weeks and demanding the same change over and over again is disruptive. You've failed to get consensus for source-based units, what, five, six times over the last ten months? Of course consensus can change, but that doesn't mean it will change, and keeping demanding that it change in the same way over and over again is disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. You want a productive discussion on this? Both Justin and myself have indicated that we're willing to accept imperial-with-exceptions as a general rule. Let's discuss what those exceptions should be, eh? Pfainuk talk 19:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly British custom is for imperial weights and measures, with some exceptions. I prefer SI myself but hey ho, that is the way of the world. Follow British custom for British pages. Covered adaquatly in policies. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk and Justin, do you own these articles? You claim you have consensus about using Imperial units first. I doubt it. From the time I started editing articles on the Falkland Islands, some of them have been Imperial or metric only and others have been mixed. I'm asking that this alleged consensus be put to the test. I propose that the three of us stop this debate here for 72 hours. That might give the other members of this task force a chance to comment, if they so desire. Michael Glass (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making bad faith accusations. It does not do any good, and might encourage people to look at your own behaviour in this event --Narson ~ Talk • 22:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No I don't WP:OWN these articles, you whinge and whine about ad hominem attacks, mouth bad faith accusations about everyone but you're the one carrying on your metrication crusade, whilst we're supposedly discussing it. You won't wait 72 hrs neither will I. Justin talk 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't own these articles either. But that doesn't mean that you can go around Wikilawyering, making bad faith accusations, and repeatedly bringing up the same arguments over and over again and expect me to act as though you aren't. Pfainuk talk 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ello Mike! As requested long time Falklands related editor here: I want to keep it imperial, I've noticed others beside Justin n Narson do (I think Pfainuk). Why do you keep bringing this up man, didn't u call a vote on this ages ago? Ryan4314 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My preference is for a mixed system - neither rigorously imperial nor rigorously metric but using consistent units in a given context across Falklands articles. Failing that, I support keeping it imperial. I oppose Michael's source-based units and full metrication of these articles. Pfainuk talk 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

First, my thanks to everyone for expressing their opinions. It is now obvious to me that the Imperial measurements have strong, though by no means unanimous support, and my efforts to put another point of view have got too many people's backs up. So I'll stop. I'm sorry I offended people but though I reject the wild accusations I have taken note of your comments.

On the question of units, it appears to me that

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

Whatever decisions you make, bear in mind this comment from the Times Style Guide:

The Times should keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use, but given the wide age range and geographical distribution of our readers, some continuing use of imperial measurements is necessary.

It makes sense not to get too far out of step with UK usage. Michael Glass (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What you don't mention in your little summaries is the declared opposition to metric source based. Pfainuk even said: "I oppose Michael's source-based units". Ryan4314 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to suggest that the Falklands articles should use anything but metrics for main units, when the UK is well on the way to total metrication, and the entire continent next to which the islands are located is metric. Tony (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"the UK is well on the way to total metrication" (metrification?!) - No, the trouble is that it isn't, it's patchy at best and inconsistent. For several generations, people have been taught metric in the school, but have had to use imperial in the real world. All speed signs and road distances are in miles, speedometers are "bilingual" etc. Pecks, gills and bushels have bitten the dust, but Fahrenheit is still in regular use, as are feet, pounds and stone. If you go into a bar in the UK, order pints, not portions of a litre. (Although if you're talking milk or petrol nowadays, these are very much measured in metric) I wouldn't even know what my approximate weight and height are in metric. I can think in kilometres, but that's not what I'd use most of the time. I can't imagine the Falklanders are much different. Official use is one thing, public use is another. I suspect road distances are still given in miles in the islands.

A lot of the Falklands sources are mixed, or in imperial, meaning that any metric figures are just bad conversions of figures which have already been rounded off in the first place.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC) p.s. I prefer metric, even if it is less poetic, but that's simply not what's used. Besides which my attachment is not sentimental, but practical in a bizarre way - the English wiped out our own Scottish weights and measures long ago!

I haven't commented on this issue since I was not here long before, "hey, they said they have concensus", so its worthless to go against the wheel, but if you're counting again, I strongly support SI metrics system. The english wikipedia is accessed from all the world, that it is on ENGLISH or that these are UK-related articled doesn't mean they have to be on Imperial units. That seems a concensus over personal preferences. Also that kind of concensus changes with times, depending on which editors participate at the moment. I'm sure that if all editors have to vote, SI would stand. So what about a reaching a concensus with justification? I would like to see some arguments of the ones that support Imperial or SI, as the way I see it now it's nothing but personal preferences. pmt7ar 07:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC) PS: even the official site uses metrics first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmt7ar (talk • contribs) 07:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Given Britain is ridiculously complex with its units - using both Metric and Imperial - and given the rest of South America uses Metric the Falklands and related articles should use Metric units. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you will excuse me butting in here, since I haven't been editing the articles in question. I was pointed towards this page from the Falkland Islands page. The main point I would like to raise is the use of Farenheit for temperature measurements in the Falkland Islands article - and, by extension, related articles. I would like to change these to use Celcius; a summary of the essential reasons why I think this is thus:

1. Farenheit is less convenient for a lot of readers, as the Farenheit scale is rarely used worldwide (though I accept there are still many people who find them more convenient)

2. The Falkland Islanders themselves seem to use Celcius, based an what information is available

3. The 'official' source of temperature data for the Falklands, the UK Met Office, publishes the information in Celcius (which is then reported by several other agencies)

4. There seems to be no advantage in having 'consistency' between Farenheit and other Imperial units in the way that would occur between, say, miles and square miles

So Celcius seems to be to be the proper choice for these articles, whatever units are used for other measurements. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that ordinary Falklanders (or at least older ones) will tend towards Fahrenheit, but that the MET office, military officials and government will use Centigrade. That's often the way in the UK.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK to make it plain, I oppose a source based approach to units. Its a ridiculous idea, it means that in one sentence from disparate sources you could have metric/imperial then imperial/metric. What I do suggest and there is a previous consensus for it, is for a consistent approach metric/imperial or imperial metric, with the latter being preferrable as it reflects the bulk of articles that exist. I dislike the idea of changing the units half-way through for one set of measurements, that doesn't make sense to me. If we're going to have a consistent policy then we should stick to it. If we're going to change it, then how many of those proposing a change are prepared to do the donkey work of sorting the articles out? Lets cut to the chase please; ie sign up below. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and in general I agree; I wouldn't advocate mixing units where there's some real connection, so I wouldn't support speeds in mph and distances in km for example. I just don't think it's particularly useful to keep Farenheit though, other than a stylistic preference for keeping everything in Imperial. While stylistic grounds are valid, I think in this case there are good reasons to change. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the Fahrenheit conversions - they are crude conversions from Celsius. If you tabulate at them, you will see that they all fall nicely onto the series shown below (ignoring the numbers in brackets)

10 12 14 16 18 (-10)

19 21 23 25 27 (-5)

28 30 32 34 36 (0)

37 39 41 43 45 (5)

46 48 50 52 54 (10)

55 57 59 61 63 (15)

64 66 68 70 72 (20)

73 75 77 79 81 (25)

82 84 86 88 90 (30)

The numbers in brackets are the celsius temperatures which are exactly equivalent to the middle fahrenheit value of each set of five numbers. When the figures are displayed like this, it does not take much of a mathematician to see the pattern and to identify that a large number of fahrenheit values are missing. I therefore agree with CheesyBiscuit that where the original readings are given in celsius, celsius should be maintained - quoting fahrenheit in such circumstances conveys a false sense of accuracy to the reader. Martinvl (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how that table is arrived at? Is it a wiki template problem or a source problem. The reason I ask is that the source of that table was changed by another editor, the original source material was in Fahrenheit and I'd checked the Celsius conversion for accuracy. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The celsius to fahrenheit conversion problem is a fundemental problem, not a Misplaced Pages problem. The range between the freezing point and boiling point of water is 100 degrees in celsius and 180 in fahrenheit. Therefore if you use celsius (to the nearest whole degree) as your source data, and you convert, you will only hit 100 of the available 180 fahrenheit values.

You said that the original source was in fahrenheit. It might have been quoted in fahrenheit, but was probably originally in celsius and then converted. If the figures that you see are only those in the list given above, then the figures that you are looking at were taken in celsius can converted to fahrenheit by some third party. Martinvl (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fears that following the sources would cause chaos I think that as the sources are so overwhelmingly metric that this is unlikely to be a great problem. There are only two exceptions that I can think of and I think that common sense and goodwill will help to sort out those issues. As for the temperatures, the original table was from Weatherbase and was the Celsius version. This was changed to the Fahrenheit version in the name of 'consistency'. Recently, when I challenged the use of Weatherbase, this was changed to the BBC because the BBC is well known for its accuracy and no-one really knew who was behind the other organisation.

There is just one thing we need to sort out: are we just changing the temperatures, or is this a vote on whether the articles should be Imperial first or metric first? It is my understanding that we are voting on whether the articles should be generally metric first or generally Imperial first, and if that is the choice, I would go for the metric measures. Michael Glass (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No weatherbase was originally in Fahrenheit and converted to Celsius. I was the one who compiled the table. Source based units is a stupid idea Michael, I don't know why you push it. My preference is to maintain the status quo but I'll listen to what others say. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 14:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of changing the temperatures; I'm ambivalent on whether we change anything else. Though I concede Justin's point that it would be nice to have consistency if possible, I think in this case the case for Celcius is more important, and we should change the temperatures whether or not we change the other measurements. I do feel, however, that we should avoid mixing units of the same type within an article without very good reason, so I don't think we ought to mix miles and kilometres in the same article just because the sources are different. Michael, what are the two cases you mention? Just to make it clear, while I think we can take note of what units sources *in general* use, I don't think it's appropriate to use the source units for every single reference, otherwise the article will indeed become a bit of a mess.CheesyBiscuit (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said before and in the West Falkland talk page, you can count me as a permanent vote to SI and generally all international standards. I think articles should be on SI only (SI first, Imperial second on very few cases). Michael has perfectly explained it on "Units of measure" section. I personally disagree with the status quo argument, if things should be changed, they worth changing them. pmt7ar 16:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

MoS doesn't specify units, either Imperial or metric and btw in SI, temperatures would be in Kelvin. I oppose the suggestion of one system only; both are in common use in English. And no the current status quo is not an excuse for laziness and I would suggest you withdraw that remark. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 17:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair, it was just my personal opinion. pmt7ar 17:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The MOS is the way it is because traditional (imperial or US customary) units are preferred in some fairly significant parts of the English-speaking world. A couple of statistics, if I may. The two largest English-speaking countries in the world, accounting for over 80% of the world's native English speakers, both use miles on their road signs. The US is home to a majority of native English speakers, and does not use the metric system as its official units. If you want en.wiki to change to metric-first, the place to go is really WT:MOSNUM - but I'd suggest you don't hold your breath.

The problem with source-based units is well-documented: essentially, it leads to thoroughly inconsistent articles and is spectacularly unsuccessful at meeting the MOS standard of using the most appropriate units for the topic concerned.

I'm willing to support imperial-first, but I prefer a mixed system. And I'm going to come out here and make a proposal. We should adopt the following system as standard on Falklands articles:

All measures should be in imperial units first, with the exceptions of:

• Metric units for all weather-related data (Celsius for temperature, millimetres for rainfall and so on)
• Nautical miles (and derivative units such as knots) for distances over water (though statute miles and derivative units such as square miles and miles per hour would still be preferred for distances overland)
• Units of goods traded outside the islands to be based on international convention - to be applied such that we comply with WP:MOSNUM's rules on consistency
• Other exceptions as demanded my WP:MOSNUM, such as nominal or defined units and scientific units (not that these are particularly common in Falklands topics)

Such a system seems to have some support above, and I think it a reasonable compromise. Pfainuk talk 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument that 80% of English-speakers use imperial units (or whatever) misses the point compeltely. If you visit Languages of the European Union#Language skills of citizens you will see just how many people speak English as a language other than their mother tongue. Unlike French and German, non-native speakers of English outnumber native-speakers. This was brought home to me a few years ago in a bookshop in the Netherlands - the shop had a special section for French books and a special section for German books, but no special section for English books - English titles were just slotted in with the Dutch books - if you could not find a Dutch book on the subject that you wanted, look for the English book. The widespread use of English around the globe (not just the USA and the UK), but also India, Australia most of Africa where English is the lingua franca, if not the mother tongue means that we should be writing for the world-wide community as well as for native-speakers and the local community. Martinvl (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Unlike French and German, non-native speakers of English outnumber native-speakers." - Are you sure (in the case of French)? A lot of folk speak French as a second language in Africa. Sorry, off topic, I know! --MacRusgail (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My intention was to explain why this is an issue - why we don't just adopt metric-as-primary across the board on Misplaced Pages in general. Note that users of all major systems should be catered for in all cases anyway by the use of conversions. That isn't a discussion for here, it's a discussion for WT:MOSNUM. If you want a change, make your case there. I would expect it to be shot down pretty quickly, but there we are. Pfainuk talk 17:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to Cheesybiscuit there was one instance that where I thought the source was clearly miles first and that was with the distance from Stanley to Mount Pleasant airport. However, when I checked the reference now, the information was no longer available at that site. A Google search for "Mount Pleasant is + Stanley" turned up this URL which gave the distance of 43.28 km. The second instance is the land grant of 600,000 acres to Mr Lafone in 1845 in the southern peninsula of East Falkland . As this is a historical reference I think it would be appropriate to keep the original figure in acres and provide a conversion into square km, but if people insist it could be rendered into square km or hectares providing there was a note of the original units in the reference (as per policy). In the case of Google Earth, distances are available in both miles and kilometres, so this should not be an issue. As far as I am aware, every other link in the articles is to information expressed in metric measures.

Therefore, following the sources yields a virtually consistently metric result, and this is the way I think we should go. It also appears the way the voting has gone, with four people clearly going for metric and one person going for converting the temperatures. McRusgail has come down on the side of metrics, too and Martinvl has also argued for metrics. That means that six people have stated a preference for metric, one other favours metric but believes the consensus goes the other way, three have gone for Imperial, and one has advocated we change the temperatures. If that is the case, I believe we should go with the seven who favour the metric system rather than the three who don't. In any case, this isn't a case of throwing away the old figures, but simply putting the metric figures first. Michael Glass (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. It wasn't /consensus/ that concerns my view on SI (Yes, personally I do use SI) but the simple fact is that Britain and its Overseas Territories use a partial Imperial system. While I prefer SI, the others in my country do not. I still see no convincing reason for us to deviate from 'Use the country's preference'. I would also remind you that consensus is not an up and down vote. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSNUM the existing consensus that we have is to remain with Imperial first, and Michael just because you don't happen to like it, is no excuse to keep bringing it up time and time again, or for finding excuses to slip it in via the back door. Consensus isn't about a vote, you're quite happy to count an editor who has never even contributed to any of these articles. Pfainuk puts a very convincing policy based rationale for the current consensus, if you don't like WP:MOSNUM, change it there, don't force it on these articles. Your argument for a "source based" convention is not credible. Several editors have already commented that, take the hint. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To also add to the person who says we should be metric first because the English wikipedia should cater for everyone. The current proposal does, it caters for both, its the order of imperial first that Michael doesn't like. You're not voting for a single system. Whilst my preference is for a consistent system, if the community wants to adopt the suggestion by CheesyBiscuit of using Celsius for temperature I'd be happy to accept that. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 22:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly that metrics should be the main units. I must say, Justin's remark that Michael is "slipping it in via the back door" does start to look like a breach of WP:CIVIL. Tony (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, just 'cos you say it don't make it so. Raising the Red Herring of WP:CIVIL is a none too subtle attempt to close down debate. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 10:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Narson, on 29 January 2010 you wrote: "Sadly British custom is for imperial weights and measures, with some exceptions. I prefer SI myself but hey ho, that is the way of the world. Follow British custom for British pages. Covered adaquatly in policies." I interpreted this as saying that you favour metrics ( "I prefer SI myself" is hard to interpret any other way ) but that you believe the consensus goes the other way. If this puts words in your mouth, then you have my apology. Justin, I am not trying to force a source-based policy on the articles. I said "following the sources yields a virtually consistently metric result, and this is the way I think we should go." This was not to foist a source-based policy on the articles but to point out that a metric policy and a source based policy yield virtually the same results. Finally, I have not operated by stealth. Every one of my edits on these articles has been up-front and under my own name. Repeating a lie does not make it the truth.Michael Glass (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael, quit the protests of innocence, you have repeatedly tried to have that policy adopted and its been universally rejected. If you wish to have wikipedia metricated, at least have the courage of your convictions to state it openly. Straight question Michael, if the consensus goes Imperial first are you going to the donkey work, or is your support contingent on it being metric? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 10:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, don't try to slide out of it. You accused me of operating by stealth. This is a lie. I have operated openly as you full well know. I believe that the metric system is better and that information should be documented. If the information is only documented in older measures I will not change an article; if it is documented in metric I believe an article should reflect this fact. Michael Glass (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Units Task Force

Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

CheesyBiscuit (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

pmt7ar 12:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Glass (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk talk 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Martinvl (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tony (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested course of action

The one change that appears to have the most acceptance is to change the weather details. I have put the coding in so that the infobox can be changed instantly. The preceding paragraph needs to be changed manually. I am happy to make this change Michael Glass (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC). Changed. Michael Glass (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Consensus on units has not yet been reached on this talk page, so the existing imperial-first consensus remains. Pfainuk talk 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Project-Class South America pages
• NA-importance South America pages
• Project-Class Falkland Islands pages
• NA-importance Falkland Islands pages
• Falkland Islands articles
• WikiProject South America articles