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

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

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

Substantial differences between the suggested wordings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really Tony, where did you do that here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOSNUM

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

Merger with MOSNUM

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

Moving this page into MOS-space

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

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

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

Requested move

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

Once the move has been completed, the integration into WP:MOS as per the RFC can be done. Martinvl (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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