Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Archive 1

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: "[f]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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The conversion template can be found here [[1]].Michael Glass (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]]
• Wikipedia 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 [[7]], 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 [[8]] and in sending aid to hurricane victims [[9]].

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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Object. Not only have I read the MOS, I helped to write it. "[A]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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [10]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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![reply]

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 ^(t|c) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The celsius to fahrenheit conversion problem is a fundemental problem, not a Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(t|c) 16:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair, it was just my personal opinion. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 17:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

My intention was to explain why this is an issue - why we don't just adopt metric-as-primary across the board on Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 [11] 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 [12]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Michael, don't try to slide out if it. If consensus favours imperial-first, or some other measure that means using imperial units, will you help to convert articles to metric? That goes for Tony as well.

I notice that you're now modifying your discredited sources-first argument to argue the bizarre idea that metric-first sources are inherently more reliable than imperial-first ones. Sources-first is a bad idea anyway, for all the reasons stated above. You want consensus, we're happy to work with you. Bring forward some ideas on the exact mixture of units we should adopt. Discuss. Compromise. I've already given a simple suggestion above. But consensus is impossible unless you're willing to compromise, and remember that if there is no consensus for change then the existing imperial-first consensus rule will remain in force. Including on weather data. Pfainuk talk 20:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I have a personal preference for SI. My view based on policy and experience of what will work best isthat it should be dow to national preference. The same as spelling. What I believe personally isn't always what leads my actions or my view on the way forward. For example, I believe that the BNP are a terrible party and we would be better if they were banned, however I would oppose any Government attempt to do so as my policy view is that doing so without more brought to the debate would damage the system. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my answer to Pfainuk. I believe that the opinions expressed make it clear that there is majority support for the metric system and minority support for the Imperial system. Based on that, I think that metric would be the way to go. However, if it is necessary to compromise, the way to go is to follow the MOS policy which says, "UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts. These include: Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy" This I understand to be a "metric except..." position. Sorry. I don't have time to go into more details now. Michael Glass (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the best result would be to adopt an approximation to the system in current use in the UK. Trouble is, with you and your wikilawyering around, we have to be unreasonably clear as to what exactly that means. We shouldn't have to spend our time coming up with a detailed and foolproof list of acceptable units. But we have enough experience of your wikilawyering to know that if we don't, you'll try and push metric units on us that aren't in common use in the UK - on the bizarre insistence that if any source that is vaguely connected to the UK uses a metric unit (whatever its audience or context) then that unit must be in common use in the UK. I have made a proposal above for a fairly clearly-defined hybrid system. I think it's the best option, but it may require further firming-up. Pfainuk talk 09:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'll reiterate Justin's question: If consensus favours imperial-first, or if we adopt some system that means using imperial units, will you help to convert articles to imperial? Pfainuk talk 09:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. As I did before, I will put in Imperial measures as supplementary indicators, but that is all. My question to you is, how much does it take for you to concede that there is consensus for changing the weather measurements to metric? Michael Glass (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

pmt7ar ^(t|c) 12:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You agreed to that change. So did every one of the people who supported metrics and so did CheesyBiscuit. Not one voice has been raised in opposition to that specific change. Despite that you still revert! What do you want to convince you that there is consensus for that change? Would anything less than a revelation from heaven be enough? Michael Glass (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some civility for a start, rather than throwing your toys out of the pram would be a good start. This is a pathetic thing to edit war over, no there is not agreement yet. Patience, there is a good suggestion below. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, I have pointed out WP:CIVIL already. Please read the page and avoid making uncivil, inflammatory comments. Tony (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Metric units for all weather-related data (Celsius for temperature, millimetres for rainfall and so on)" These are Pfainuk's very words but when I made an edit doing exactly this but Pfainuk reverted the edit. Metric units for all weather-related data (Celsius for temperature, millimetres for rainfall and so on) have the support of a clear majority. Why hasn't Pfainuk been true to his word? Michael Glass (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now then folks, let's take a deep breath and calm down a little. This is a discussion over temperature systems, not the New Falklands War. This is a rather long argument over what is essentially a style issue. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to try and stick to the modern UK system, using modern British sources if possible. If other UK articles use the modern system, we should probably be sticking to the same units as they use. Much as it dismays me, the modern system is unfortunately Celsius, and the UK uses Celsius pretty much everywhere these days; with Fahrenheit barely getting a mention on most pages. I'm not sure if the urge for Imperial comes from US editors or older UK ones, but it might be a good idea to get input from outside this sphere, perhaps with a request at the village pump, or the IRC channel. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we were adopting UK norms over all, I'd be happy. In fact, that's essentially my proposal above. But I have enough experience of Michael's tactics to know that we'll have to lay out precisely what those norms are - bearing in mind that he has in the past argued that the fact that he can find a milepost marked in kilometres somewhere in England means that the British actually use kilometres instead of miles for distance, or that the fact that an article in a Chilean scientific journal about Falklands wildlife uses kilometres means that the Falkland Islanders actually use kilometres instead of miles for distance.

I would note that the reason people's hackles are up is because Michael has demanded the same (non-MOS-compliant) changes about eight times in the last year, and so far has refused to compromise one iota from any part of them. Frankly, we're all sick of this discussion. We've offered to compromise many times, and he has refused.

The existing consensus is for imperial units first on all Falklands articles. Until that consensus is overturned by a new consensus, those are the units we should be using. The way the conversation is trending it seems likely that that switch will be part of the consensus. But we aren't there yet. Pfainuk talk 22:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... sorry ... where is that consensus? My reading is that there is consensus for metrics first. Tony (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for imperial-first has been reiterated and retained every time this has been brought up. The fact that you want metric units doesn't make it the consensus. At this stage, we have no consensus for any other particular system, so the previous imperial-first consensus applies. Pfainuk talk 08:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, Tony, Tony. The consensus is clear. It doesn't matter how many people speak up for metrics, it's not a consensus without Pfainuk. Why it wasn't even consensus when Pfainuk spoke in favour of having metric measures for the weather! Why? because that nasty fellow, Michael Glass, went and changed the order of units, and we know that that can't be allowed, now don't we!

You see, Michael Glass is the BIG BAD WOLF. Wasn't it wicked of him to find an example of the use of kilometres in the UK! Wasn't it evil of him to quote something from Falklands.net and think it was an example of Falklands usage when it was actually reprinted from a Chilean source! Wasn't it sneaky of him to announce beforehand exactly what he was going to do to the Falkland Islands article and then do it! Oh the perfidy of complaining about switching an article that was metric first for years and making it Imperial first! Oh the nerve of pointing out how many of Falkland Island articles were metric first when two editors claimed that there was consensus for Imperial first. Oh the hide of standing up to these two editors and demanding a vote on how many people supported their "consensus"! Oh the viciousness of standing up to bullying. Oh the scandal of pointing out how many people actually spoke in favour of metrics: 7 to 3; and daring to suggest that the consensus lay with the seven who spoke for metrics rather than the three who spoke for Imperial. And no amount of huffing and puffing is going to blow those three down.

So don't discuss whether 8 or 9 out of 11 equals a consensus for using metric terms about the weather. As Pfainuk has explained again and again and even again, it isn't consensus until Pfainuk announces it ex cathedra. Michael Glass (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the personal attacks, who has actually found any concrete evidence as to what units are used in the Falklands? I have found a few. The Offshore MineralsOrdinance 1994 (No. 16 of 1994) and The Marine Environment (Protection) Ordinance 1995 are typical high-level ordinance. Reading through them shows the extent to which British law applies in the Falklands. Apart from road distances as displayed on road signs (and a few other minor exceptions), Britain uses metric units for all administrative purposes. I would expect the Falklands to do likewise. Local Falklands regulations include Planning Permission and Local Building Permits, Monthly newsletter from the Falklands Dept of Agriculture. One could go on - all of these documents have the same look and feel as equivalent documents in the United Kingdom. This supports the idea that there is very little differenfe in the selection of units of measure used in the United Kingdom and in the Falklands. I strongly urge other editors to find their own examples of documents produced in the Falklands that have units of measure in them. Martinvl (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Martin. Let's remember to stay civil, folks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we wait for Michael to come down from his high horse (it might take him a while to dismount from that one), might I suggest we start talking about specific units rather than vague Imperial First or Metric First terms. Because I could take Imperial First a number of ways (in that it is the original and slowly the system is changing into metric, or that Imperial is always first, or that we really want to bring back the BUF campaign of Empire First from the 30s...). Talking ideology rather than practicality seems futile. Now, my understanding of UK measures is this: Distance in miles, liquid volume is difficult (we use pints still, though mostly litres...yet at the same time we still talk of Gallons), temperature I would say the UK has mostly switched to Celcius but also uses Farenheit (just a reminder guys, it hasn't been Centigrade since I was at school!), Weight is stone and lbs for little things, tons for big things. Speed is MPH. Fuel economy is MPG (remember to use the British gallon). Trying to think what else there is.... --Narson ~ Talk • 21:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Narson. I do admit I took the bait, but Pfainuk did - quite uncharacteristically - make a personal attack. I feel much better now. Here are a few other examples of the use of units of measurement in the Falkland Islands:

• [13] In the Falklands fact sheet, geographical facts and the weather are metric, but the roads - as per British custom - mention miles and mph.
• The Penguin News uses a variety of units. For example, the report on the drilling operation (26 February) used metric units whereas the report of the Chilean earthquake (5 March) used miles for land distances.
• The Falkland Islands Government website uses metrics to describe farming. [14]
• The Falkland Islands Government website also puts metrics first in its overview [15]
• The Falkland Islands Meat Company uses hectares to describe the size of the farms [16] and it measures the cuts of meat in millimetres [17]
• BBC Weather is metric [18]

Finally, a little matter of the consensus. If 7 out of 10 spoke for metric overall and another spoke for metric weather, doesn't that suggest a consensus of 8 out of 11 for metric weather? (You note that I have omitted from counting the one person who suggested metrics for weather, and then reverted the text as soon as it was done.) Michael Glass (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evil? Et tu brute? Perchance, you could make a reasonable proposal, as Martin does above, get off your horse and drink your milk. (Pint of course) Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is reasonable and simple: agree on changing the weather details first; then move on to other matters. Michael Glass (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few weeks, the lead article Falkland Islands has had in excess of 2000 hits a day – either every islander is looking at this article every day or the international community at large is looking at it. This means that an international or quasi-international approach towards units of measure should be used. Unless agreement can be reached, then the default specified in WP:MOS would to use metric units first throughout (which would not bother me unduly, but I am trying to keep a WP:NPOV). There appears to be a general view within the group that the Falkland Islands article should assume the islands to be British and to use the same units of measure as would be used in any British article.

WP:MOS gives a limited amount of freedom is choice of units, but does require supplementary units in brackets. I have examined a number of articles on various English counties and the following appears to be the standard:

• Areas – metric first
• Coastlines – metric first
• County sizes - metric first
• Road distances – imperial first
• Temperature – metric first
• Historic documents – source units
• Nautical distances – no hard and fast rules.

The above is consistent with UK law for "administrative purposes" (which in turn is consistent with the EU Units of Measure Directive). Although the Falklands are not part of the EU, a large number of EU directives apply by virtue of the fact that Birtain is in the EU, they apply in Britain and unless the Falklands Assembly has decreed otherwise, British law applies in the Falklands.

In order to get more info on nautical distances, I visited the site of the International Hydrographic Association and found their standard for charts at Regulations of the IHO for International (Int) Charts and Chart Specifications of the IHO. This suggests to me that metres are preferred for short distances and nautical miles for longer distances. I see no reason to deviate from this. If the convert function permits it, I suggest that kilometres be placed ahead of miles as UK law on permits statute miles to be used for "road distances", but not for nautical distances. Martinvl (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is helpful to look at the support and opposition to units.

1. There are various plans about what to do with the articles (Please correct me if I have misrepresented your position).

• Put Imperial first in all articles (Justin, Ryan4314)
• Use a mixture of units as per British practice but minimally metric (Pfainuk)
• Use a mixture of units as per British practice but predominantly metric (Martinvl)
• Generally metric as per sources (Michael Glass, MacRusgail)
• Metric (Tony1, Pmt7ar, Eraserhead)

It is clear that there is no consensus for converting all articles to Imperial. This leaves several options:

• Conform to British practice, however defined
• Generally metric, as per the sources, or
• Metric throughout

All these options have supporters and opponents, and when there comes to British practice there are several opinions on what that is, too. This is a situation that could take years to sort out. However, there is another possibility, and that to deal with the weather. Here the support is clearcut:

• 4 people have spoken for metrics first in the articles: Pmt7ar, Eraserhead, Tony1, Michael Glass,
• 4 people have spoken for metrics first in the weather: Martinvl, Chase me Ladies I'm the Cavalry, CheesyBiscuit and 21st Century Greenstuff (Talk: Falkland Islands)
• 1 person apparently in favour of metrics on balance: MacRusgail
• 1 person who favours metric personally but believes that the article should follow British custom: Narson
• 1 person agreed to metrics first in the weather but deleted it in the text: Pfainuk
• 1 person has expressed strong support for Imperial but so far has not commented specifically on the weather: Ryan4314

In addition,

• 3 people supported Pfainuk's action in deleting the change to the text: Pfainuk, Justin and Narson
• 2 people opposed Pfainuk's action in deleting this change: Martinvl and Michael Glass

9 out of 12 spoke in favour of metric temperatures (10, if you count Pfainuk). No one has specifically opposed this change. Significantly, the only argument against putting it in the text was that it had not gained "consensus".

I believe it would help to come to an agreement on the weather details, where there is clear majority support, and then move on to other questions. Therefore, my question is quite simple: Has consensus been demonstrated on the weather details? If not, what would it take to demonstrate consensus? Michael Glass (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you missed the point of my last posting, I was looking at the bigger picture - namely that we should be adopt an existing style (UK, US or International) rather than to debate the issue unit by unit. My analysis suggested that since the Falkland Islands public administration appears to follow the same standards as the British public administration in respect of units of measue, then Wikipedia should do the same. We should expend our energies on looking at areas where British useage is ambiguous and since British useage is defined in EU law, we need look no further than that. I have done that and the only area for debate would be whether to use nautical miles or kilometres first for nautical distance. Martinvl (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to contribute significantly at the moment and this is just a snatched visit, however, I have reconsidered my position in light of Martin's comments and I have to say that its the most sensible compromise suggested to date. I would support following the same standards as British public administration. I'd suggest we predominantly use Nautical Miles for nautical distances as that is in fact the International standard. It certainly seems more sensible than mandating either Imperial or Metric first. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 10:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly happy with Martin's position (as the viewpoint is very similar to what I was trying to articulate before as regards the units). I'd suggest that we give it a couple of days, if no-one dissents in that period we can probably move forward with the edit (So saturday morning GMT)? Gives people a fair chance to pipe up if they have issues. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support Martin's compromise, too. Michael Glass (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to support Martin's suggestion, hope it'd help leave behind this issue. As for the nautical distances, I would support having nautical miles first. Apcbg (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappily, since it's not the ultimate solution, I will support Martin's proposal. Tony (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can support Martin's proposal that we use units based on public administration in the UK, with a few clarifications.

• By "public administration", we refer explicitly to documents for public consumption (so, if the British government decided to use kilometres internally without changing all the statute miles on the road signs, we'd use statute miles).
• Based on the list given in the previous section, I'd note explicitly that we should measure coastlines in the same units as we use for internal distances. This avoids needless complication and inconsistency within the article.
• I don't believe we actually give personal heights and weights in any Falklands article -but any such measure in the future should be given in imperial units as per the suggestion in WP:MOSNUM. Pfainuk talk 10:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "Public Administaration" I meant that we follow the letter of the law. Currently this is embodied in the The Units of Measurement Regulation 1986 plus a few subsequent r amendments. This particular law catalogues the units of measure that may be used for "commercial, public administration, public health or public safety purposes". I see no reason to start making exceptions to this law unless it can be demonstrated that the Falkland Islands law explicitly states that some other units of measure should be used. (They are entitled to do so unless the Foreign Office objects - Cyprus and Gibralter use km/h, not mph on their roads). By sticking with a definition such as this, we are ensuring the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and also giving ourselves an impartial standard against which we can work. Martinvl (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps you could provide us with a full and up-to-date copy of those regulations? We can't follow regulations we don't know. I've only been able to find the 1995, 2001 and 2009 amendments, which give me significant cause for concern. I cannot support the use of the Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 without being able to see them.

In the documents I've found, we would use metric in all contexts except:

• Road traffic signs, distance and speed measurement
• Dispense of draught beer or cider
• Dispense of milk in returnable containers
• Land registration
• Transactions in precious metals

There are several significant omissions here: cases where these are ambiguous, cases where they don't meet common British and international standards.

For example, British and international standards prefer feet for the altitude of aircraft. So does Wikipedia: this is one of the contexts provided for by the first paragraph of WP:UNITS. It's the main unit used in practice. When feet are the standard unit in this context throughout Wikipedia, and the unit in common practical use in the UK, why should Falklands articles be the only ones to prefer metres?

For example, the regulation appears to prefer "miles" (defined as statute miles) for speed and distance, without specifying whether the speeds and distances are over land or water. Since we're not doing single-system units, why should we insist on statute miles and statute miles per hour for distances and speeds over water, where nautical miles and knots are far more common, in the UK and outside?

Do, for example, the regulations define or allow for lengths of time such as the year or the month? Bear in mind that these are not SI or metric units, and are not accepted for use with the SI system. If they are defined, I'd be very interested to hear exactly how they are defined: as a Physicist, I would suggest that the variable nature of these units means that they defy exact definition. They are obvious common sense exceptions to any metric-only rule, but you argue that we should not allow for exceptions. I will certainly not accept any rule that forces us to use megaseconds or gigaseconds, and would be shocked if anyone else did.

So I see significant potential problems with relying on the Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 without exception, and suggest that actual British usage (defined based on by common sense, legislation and the Times style guide) is far preferable. Pfainuk talk 19:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom regulations are a carbon copy of the EU directive 80/181/EEC. If you visit European units of measurement directives you will find references to the EU directive. If the UK regulations differ from the EU directive then technically under the European Communities Act 1972 the EU directive takes precedence. In practise, wherever the EU directive allows a deviation, the UK takes advantage of that deviation. Martinvl (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just been reading it. Turns out, we would still be able to use feet and nautical miles (as the directive explicitly states that "[t]his Directive shall not affect the use in the field of air and sea transport and rail traffic of units" - bizarre English but never mind).

However, it makes no such exception for the year and the month. On the contrary it states that: "the legal units of measurement within the meaning of this Directive which must be used for expressing quantities shall be" those listed in the various annexes. None of the annexes list the year or the month. IANAL, but the implication seems clear to me that the month and year are therefore not legal units of measurement. Given that your proposal allows for no exceptions, we must (if we are to accept it) remove all reference to times measured in years and months from our articles.

I'm sure in practice that a court would point out the obvious. This is plainly silly. But if the proposal is the letter of the law without exception, I can only conclude that months and years are not to be allowed on Falklands articles.

The notion that we should follow the letter of the law without exception and thus without regard for common sense or for actual usage is both plainly absurd and incompatible with guidelines, and I strongly oppose it. Pfainuk talk 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is contesting the use of days, months and years in Falklands articles, so this is not relevant. What is relevant is:

• whether we put nautical miles, miles or kilometres first in describing the distance of the Falkland Islands from South America,
• whether we put kilometres or miles first in describing the length of the coastline,
• whether Imperial or metric shall come first in describing the weather, whether the minefields or the area given over to grazing sheep shall be described first in acres, square miles, hectares or square kilometres or
• whether the distance of the road between Stanley and Mount Pleasant shall be listed as 26.89 miles (43.28 km) or 43.28 kilometres (26.89 miles).

I think the choice is clear except in the case of nautical miles, which are almost equally unfamiliar to users of both metric and Imperial measures. Michael Glass (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that Martin's proposal, that we use the letter of the law without exception, does contest the use of months and years in Falklands articles. Months and years are not allowed as units by the law he uses to define which units he proposes to accept. If we accept his proposal, months and years will no longer be valid units on Falklands articles.

What I am proposing is that we accept Martin's proposal in part, but allow for cases where modern usage differs from that used in public administration. Where there is a difference between units used internally within government and units used when dealing with the public, we should adopt the latter. Where there is a clear preference in British usage for units not allowed for in the law Martin gives, we should adopt them. And where we have two closely-related contexts, we should not adopt different systems of measurement without a good reason to do so. The fact that the statute mile is almost never used for over-water distance, and that the nautical mile is almost never used for overland distance, is a good reason. There is no equivalently good reason to split coastlines from any other overland distances. Pfainuk talk 23:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the link that Martin supplied about time. Also, splitting documents into internal and external documents creates a minefield of potential areas of dispute. What criteria do we use to decide when a document is internal or external? We need guidelines that are clear and simple, not complex and contestable. The style manual says, "for the UK, they usually are metric units for most measurements, but imperial units for some measurements such as road distances..." This should be enough, especially as both metric and Imperial measures are mandated. We don't need to rewrite the style manual for Falkland Islands articles or refer to external documents. Michael Glass (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all apart from Pfainuk are agreed on a way forward. Is there sufficient consensus to use the units of measure as agreed by the majority, or are User:Phainuk's objections sufficient that we must take the view that as there is no consensus? If the latter, then we must follow the default specified in WP:MOS - metric units throughout (which would not bother me). Martinvl (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no consensus, we must use the previous consensus (for imperial-first only). The kind of split we're talking about is the kind of split that I want on these articles - but we ought to try to get it right. Usage should be paramount as per the WP:MOS. All else should be nothing more than means of determining usage. The current proposal insists on metric units even in some situations even where the MOS explicitly lists as examples of cases in which imperial units are likely to be preferred on UK-related articles. Where usage is clear, we should accept it. So far as I can tell, the current proposal insists on using kilometres for a single narrowly-defined context (for coastlines, not a particular exception in terms of general usage), while using statute miles for other overland distances and nautical miles for over-sea distances. The latter two are based on usage, but I see neither need nor benefit in differentiating coastlines from other internal distances. Pfainuk talk 07:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this on and off. I'd just like to add that I think it's quite a bad idea to mix units for the same thing within an article, unless there's a very good reason. While it may be usual in many cases to use statute miles for land distances and nautical miles for those over sea, I don't think this is sensible in the present case. As it's an archipelago this is going to lead to somewhat absurd situations. What defines a land distance and what a sea? Is it what it covers, or the points at the ends? So for example, are the Falklands 184 miles from Argentina or 212? (Because that's over sea, but between two bits of land.) Do we have to say 'Weddell Island is 5 (statute) miles across. Queen Charlotte Bay is 10 (nautical) miles across at the mouth. Weddell is 15 miles (nautical or statute, which one?) from Dunnose Head'? As an aside, the map in the article doesn't say which it's using (it's using statute, if anyone's interested, by comparison with the km scale). CheesyBiscuit (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, statute miles really aren't used for over-water distance, almost at all. Measuring the distance between the Falklands and Staten Island as 212 statute miles (as we do now) is really quite strange, and is one of the failings of the current imperial-first rule on the article.

In answer to your point, I have a couple of suggested rules. First, any measure in nautical miles should be marked as such explicitly, and then converted into both kilometres and statute miles - this is the default behaviour of {{convert}} anyway, so it's pretty standard. Second, if mixed land and sea distances do come up (and it isn't actually something you want to do that often), I'd suggest that we should put statute miles first and then convert to both kilometres, and nautical miles if the over-sea distance is significant. Again, the conversion is pretty easy to do using {{convert}}.

I agree with the principle, that we should always be using the same measure in the same context, generally speaking. But where there's a clear disconnect in actual usage, I feel we should reflect it. Pfainuk talk 18:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If users are not happy about mixing nautical miles for sea measurements and kilometres for land measurements, there is always the option of using kilometres for sea measurements as well. After all, both the nautical mile and the kilometre were originally based on the earth's circumference - the kilometre being ¹/₁₀₀₀₀ of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator while the nautical mile was the distance of one minute of arc (or ¹/₅₄₀₀ of the same distance). Martinvl (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with below) I was under the impression that you were proposing statute miles for land measurements, since the statute mile is the unit used in British public administration. If you're actually proposing kilometres, then that's another good reason to oppose your proposal as not being in line with usage and thus incompatible with WP:UNITS. If you're proposing miles for distances along roads and kilometres otherwise over land, that's also a good reason to oppose because such a distinction is entirely arbitrary and unnecessary, without basis in logic or common usage - turning Falklands articles into Wikipedia's finest lesson in how not to do units and effectively ruling out any possibility of a future FA among Falklands articles.

The nautical mile is the unit used in international maritime law. Distances in nautical miles thereby gain extra significance: if something is less than 12 nautical miles offshore, it is within Falklands territorial waters. If it is within 200 nautical miles and closer to the Falklands than any other shore, then it is within the Exclusive Economic Zone pertaining to the Falklands. That is the primary benefit in using nautical miles. Plus, they're the more commonly used unit in this context in the UK. Further, if we're using statute miles onshore - as we should be - there is little practical distinction between using kilometres and using nautical miles offshore. Pfainuk talk 21:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In deciding which units to use where I think we should bear in mind that a majority of people have favoured the metric system. If you look at the beginning of this section you will see that though 3 people have been generally in favour of Imperial measurements, 6 people have been generally in favour of metrics. That's not counting one person who personally likes metrics but believes that the article should conform to British practice. Martinvl's proposal makes a concession to the minority opinion on road distances. That is clear and in line with stated policy. Making other exceptions will create more inconsistencies and problems, as can be seen by the discussion above. Michael Glass (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on counting and classifying people, Michael, but you fail every time to get the nuances of what people say. All I'm asking is that we adopt British-style units per WP:UNITS. That's what I've said I wanted all along. The contexts where I've been arguing for imperial units since I got back are explicitly listed by that guideline as being non-metric on UK-related articles. I don't think that it's too much to ask to expect you to follow a guideline that you helped to draft. You are trying to push your POV here Michael, and you cannot expect me not to point that out. Pfainuk talk 22:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't respond to the ad hominem comments above but I want to point out that either we follow policy or we follow local consensus. We can't argue for consensus when policy defeats us (the "Falklands are different from the UK" line) or argue for policy when consensus goes the other way (the "Falklands are governed by the MOS policy on the UK" line). It's either one or the other. Michael Glass (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see a consensus go the other way. There is a nominal majority the other way, but no consensus that I can see. As I believe Martin's point was above, which also happens to be policy, which also happens to be Pfain's view, which also happens to be a view I share, which also happens to be a view that I believe Justin shares, lets just go with what the British use. I believe it has support both locally and via policy. Any situation that had an article on France using miles would look equally out of place, or had planes travelling in furlongs per second or what not. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an ad hominem comment. It was a statement of fact. If you are POV pushing, you cannot expect people to pretend that you are not.

Remember that it requires a lower standard of consensus to retain the existing rule than to change it. It's imperial-first ultimately because single-system units used to be the rule, and this is the first time we've even come close to establishing a new consensus. But we do not have consensus either for 100% metric, or for 100% metric except in the single narrow field of road distances.

My preference is and has always been for mixed units. The MOS - that we both helped to draft - says that we should use the units the Falkland Islanders use. At this moment, the route to this that is most likely to gain consensus, and the route that would seem to make the most sense, is by assuming that these are the same as the units the British use unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. In no context is there currently clear evidence to separate them.

So, the working assumption is that we use the units that the British use. Which means yards and miles for distances, and miles per hour for speeds, except where offshore. Which means stones and pounds for people's weights and feet and inches for people's heights. Which means imperial pints of beer and cider. Which means feet for aircraft altitude and months and years for long periods of time.

The point where the debate should start is not at the units I've just listed because they are all implied by the words "the units that the British use" and indeed explicitly mentioned in this context by the MOS. The point where the debate should start is with nautical miles and knots. We should be discussing the acre and square mile versus the hectare and square kilometre for land area. The kilogram versus the pound for masses other than body mass. The inch versus the millimetre for rainfall. The knot versus the statute mile per hour for windspeed. The foot versus the metre for mountain height. Not the cases where British usage is clear, but the cases where it isn't so clear. Pfainuk talk 20:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should be very careful about the phrase "the units that the British use". I know of two British publications that often discuss the female anatomy - one uses (I believe)exclusively inches and the other (I beleive) exclusively centimetres. The two publications that I have in mind are The Sun (newspaper) and The Lancet. That is the reason why I carefully defined the units that the British use as being the units that are catalogued by law for "commerical, public health, public administration and public safety purposes". User:Phainuk's list should state "miles and yards" for road distances (because that is what the law states).

In its 1986 form, the catalogue of units included acres, hectares or square kilometres (but not square miles) for the registration of land. As from the beginning of this year, the use of acres was withdrawn. The catalogue of units only permits the use of metric units for rainfall (mm, cm, L/m² etc) and the use of degrees Celsius for temperature.

Finally, my reading of the earlier discussions makes me doubt that consensus was ever reached.Martinvl (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about real usage by real people. And this is not a controversial point: all of those contexts I listed - including miles for distances generally - are explicitly mentioned by WP:UNITS. I suggested we discuss the points where usage is split.

It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that miles should be used for distances by road and kilometres for all other overland distances. I don't believe you want to make Falkland articles into an extreme example of how not to do units on Wikipedia, but that is what you're proposing. Such a system would effectively hamstring Falklands articles, removing any possibility of our being able to get any Falklands article to featured status. Is that really what you want?

I note you've failed to answer an important point I made above. If, as you, demand, we're to use the letter of the law as our sole basis for our choice of units regardless of actual usage, then we have no more basis for using months or years than we do any other unit not mentioned in the law. Under your rule, would you allow us to use those units? If so, why would you allow us to use those units and not other units that are not listed but that are in general usage in the UK?

And finally, consensus on this was first reached last April (or so). At the time, the MOS called for single-system (imperial-first or metric-first) units. Consensus here went for imperial. Every discussion since has reaffirmed that consensus or failed to find a new one. Pfainuk talk 22:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble of talking about real usage by real people is that this is something that is impossible to determine in the British situation, because people are divided in their usage and usage is slowly changing. What we can do is to specify which units are to be used in which context. Michael Glass (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that some usages are nigh-on universal in the UK. The specific imperial-first contexts listed in WP:UNITS are there precisely because they are the uncontroversial ones, the ones where imperial usage is overwhelmingly more common. Miles and yards for distances onshore. Miles per hour for speeds onshore. Stones and pounds for people's weights. Feet and inches for people's heights. Imperial pints for beer and cider. Feet for aircraft altitude. Years and months for long periods of time. You agreed with listing all of them at WT:MOSNUM. What's changed?

There are further contexts we should discuss, as I outlined above. That's fine. Let's agree to use imperial units where in the contexts that WP:UNITS lists and then go on to discuss the more complicated ones. Pfainuk talk 23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Pfain is trying to do here is say 'Look, there is a general principle, but there are exceptions. Lets agree the principle (that we should use the British usage, which is usually easy to work out) and once that is agreed look a the exceptions'. There are a growing number of exceptions as (thankfully) the children start to come out of school. Let us just be thankful we arn't the Cooking Project, imagine the troubles they have (Grams vs Ounces vs Cups vs whatever else) --Narson ~ Talk • 23:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a few county articles elsewhere in Wikipedia - Hampshire (where I live), South Yorkshire (politically strongly Labour - Hampshire is Conservative) and a number of articles on the Scottish islands including Shetland, Orkney, Hebrides and Isle of Arran. All these articles have metric first. Where is the documentation that suggests the Falklands are different? Martinvl (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we apply a "miles for distances" rule we could end up with a sentence like this: "The total land area is 12,173 km2 (4,700 sq mi), slightly smaller than Connecticut or Northern Ireland, with a coastline estimated at 800 miles (1288 km)." It would be better to keep geographical measures metric and confine the miles to road distances. Michael Glass (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, with your rule we could easily end up with a sentence like this: "The distance between Stanley and RAF Mount Pleasant is 43 kilometres (27 mi) as the crow flies, or 37 miles (60 km) by road." The reason I brought up square miles vs. square kilometres as a unit that we ought to discuss was because of precisely this reason. Per the MOS, miles should be being used for distance. But usage on square miles versus square kilometres is split, so we have more latitude to choose the most appropriate unit. There may be an argument for preferring square miles in this case to avoid the apparent inconsistency you describe.

To Martin, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If they do it wrong, that doesn't mean that we should do it wrong. Per guidelines, the most appropriate units both on those articles and here are the units in actual use locally. In all these cases, in absence of evidence that local usage is different from UK usage, we should be using UK usage - and thus all those uncontroversial contexts that are listed by WP:UNITS. In cases where usage is split, we should discuss whether one unit should be preferred over the other - as per my previous paragraph. Pfainuk talk 18:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Pfainuk's example and mine is that I have quoted from the existing text while Pfainuk's example has apparently been plucked out of the air. The guidelines specifically rule out mixing units in such a context, so I would agree that we would use the same units in the same order, as per policy. So the text would either read "The distance between Stanley and RAF Mount Pleasant is 43 kilometres (27 mi) as the crow flies, but 60 kilometres (37 mi) by road" or "The distance between Stanley and RAF Mount Pleasant is 27 miles (43km) as the crow flies, but 37 miles (60 km) by road."

If anyone can give an example of text in any existing article that would be compromised by changing it in line with modern British practice, then by all means discuss it here, but I don't think we need to deal with every hypothetical difficulty that we can think up.

I also find it odd that Pfainuk would find a metric first British article to be wrong. I regard it as wrong to introduce a lot of jiggery pokery just to turn a metric first article to being Imperial first, as was done with the West Falkland article. [19] Modern British practice includes a number of uses of kilometres. Here are some examples.

• The Environment Agency referring to the length of the River Thames as "around 235 km long" [20]

• The Long Distance Walkers Association appears to put kilometres first [21] and so do the Ramblers [22].

• Devon and Somerset Fire Rescue Service appear to be wholly metric. They use kilometres for the length of the coast, and also for the roads. [23].

Of course, these may well be unusual exceptions to a general rule, as Pfainuk has stated, but I don't think that they are as unusual as he has implied. Michael Glass (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also that Government usage may not reflect common usage. Try using some more ephemeral sources, newspapers etc., that speak to more everyday use. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Governemnt usage is usually more encyclopedic than more "empheral" sources and probably more consistent in approach. Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, for dozens of things, newspapers are the only source.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the only source of data, then so be it - but newspapers style is not neccessarily the source of encyclopedic style. Martinvl (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is the law. For example, months and years are eminently useful units - used in most encyclopædias, I would imagine - but would be banned by your proposal. We should be using the common usage as per the relevant guideline - a guideline that explicitly cites a newspaper's manual of style as a suggestion of what might constitute appropriate units in a UK context. Pfainuk talk 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are a suitable source for a great many scholarly works and eminently useful. I can think of at least half a dozen academics across nearly as many different disciplines of History who make great use of newspapers as sources just from those I have had the pleasure of meeting or speaking to. To put us in an anachronistic situation, you would have us write an encyclopedia for middle age Britons using French? There are reasons we try to avoid too many technical terms on wiki, a reason we use local varients (as we do with or vs our suffixes), and that is to maintain the accessibility of the wiki. That is why it is common usage that defines so many of our policies, not the law. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're contradicting yourself. Either units are to be used strictly in line with the law without exception, or they aren't. And your example could equally be resolved by your own argument: "The total land area is 4,700 sq mi (12,173 km2), slightly smaller than Connecticut or Northern Ireland, with a coastline estimated at 800 miles (1288 km)." As I say, this is precisely why I suggested that square miles might be a unit up for discussion. Given use of miles for distance, there is a case for square miles for land area. Pfainuk talk 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to follow MOS which says, "...for the UK, they usually are metric units for most measurements, but imperial units for some measurements such as road distances and personal heights and weights...." [24] By confining the use of miles to road distances we would be:

• In line with British usage
• Have less inconsistency with the presentation of units
• Be more consistent with most sources
• Be more in line with the strong desire of many editors to give priority to metric measures

If we have a growing list of exceptions they will undermine any consistency in the presentation of units. Michael Glass (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate guideline is WP:UNITS, which says that:

For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, US articles generally put United States customary units first. UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts. These include:

*Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy

*Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements

*Imperial pints for draught beer/cider

See also Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric"

If WP:MOS isn't consistent with that, then it needs updating.

Your proposal isn't in line with British usage in that British usage, which (as per the aforementioned Times style guide) prefers miles for distances regardless of whether they are along roads or not. Your proposal is likely to increase, not decrease inconsistency in presentation of units, bearing in mind that nigh-on every road distance we ever list is likely to be in a similar context to that given above. The strong desire of many editors, and sources produced for primarily non-British audiences and/or by non-British authors, are not relevant to British usage and therefore not relevant to the units that we should use. Pfainuk talk 09:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the words may be put first. It does not read must be put first. Also, the Times Style Guide does not apply to Wikipedia, as can be seen with numerous British articles that use square kilometres. Your argument would have more weight if you could give examples from the Falkland Islands articles about how your proposals would work in practice. It's all very well to make sweeping statements about British usage, without back-up evidence. However, when you apply your proposal to the articles, your argument falls down.

Look at what would happen to the West Falkland article under your proposal to use miles and square miles:

West Falkland is the second largest of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic. It is a hilly island, separated from East Falkland by Falkland Sound. Its area is 1,750 sq mi (4532 km2) [2] and its coastline is 782.1 mi (1258.7 km) long [3]. Including the adjacent small islands the land area is 2,090 sq mi (5413 km2).

and

West Falkland is more hilly near the east island; the principal mountain range, the Hornby Hills, runs north and south parallel with Falkland Sound. Mount Adam, the highest hill in the islands, is 700 metres (2,300 ft) above sea level. Formerly it was thought that Mount Robinson was the highest point. However, a later survey found that Mount Adam was marginally higher. At this, the Argentines transferred the name Monte Independencia from Mount Robinson to Mount Adam. [4].

• Data is inconsistent, with Imperial first in the first paragraph but metric first for the height of the hills.
• Jiggery pokery is needed to convert the figures into imperial.

That is why I find your proposal problematic. When I apply it to articles it causes problems. Michael Glass (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing based on the difference between "may" and "must", should I then point out that nowhere does it say explicitly that UK articles should or must use metric units for most contexts, only that they do use it? But this is all irrelevant, an attempt to put the letter of the rule above the spirit of the rule. The spirit of the rule is that we should respect modern British usage. And that means miles for all distances, not just those along roads.

There is no particular reason why the fact that we measure distance in miles should mean that we measure hill height in feet. Never has been. Nor does our measuring distance in miles imply that we should measure weights in pounds or energies in British Thermal Units. If it really bothers you, we could probably accept measuring hills in feet as well - British usage on the matter is split - but there's no particular need IMO.

But given that we had a very long discussion on exactly this subject on WT:MOSNUM, I think it's fair to suggest that you know pretty well that such a split in imperial-metric usage is inherent in the guideline. Given that you accepted that guideline, why the backtrack?

And jiggery pokery? I assume you're referring to my use of the convert template on that article. So you'll be pleased to know that it's not needed at all. We can quite easily remove the convert template entirely and just put the figures in as plain text. I did it like that because I figured you'd be happier if the original unit was clear from the code, given that this is one of your bugbears. But apparently you'd prefer that it wasn't, so I won't do it in the future. Pfainuk talk 21:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. What really annoyed me about your edit to the West Falkland article was that it was completely unnecessary. The article had been metric first for years when you came along and changed it, all in the name of consensus that even then was problematical. Not only that, but the West Falkland article was true to its sources as well. Then you came along with your doctrinaire idea that all Falklands articles had to conform to this synthetic consensus. Yes,I know you used the code to make it clear that the original unit was preserved, and I respect that. However, your edit makes about as much sense as fortifying white bread with synthetic vitamins instead of sticking to wholemeal and getting the vitamins naturally.

As for the guidelines, what I'm suggesting is that they be applied with common sense. As I demonstrated by the examples that I supplied, kilometres are sometimes used in the UK for distances, except for road distances. Even there, the driver location markers are coded in kilometres [25]. Therefore it makes sense to be as consistent as possible, and that means using mileages sparingly.

But why should you make such a concession? Have a look at the opinions expressed. Twice as many people were for metrics as were for Imperial. So if we decide to go with a British solution - and this is asking the pro-metircs to make a big concession - then I think you should go as far as you can to accommodate their wishes. Instead, what you seem to be doing is going in the opposite direction, and using every excuse to expand the occasions when Imperial units are put first.

I also implore you to use examples from the articles when you are making a point. This is not a game of creating hypotheticals, but in dealing with a problem that has proved surprisingly intractable. By dealing with the actual text of articles, being flexible and giving a little I am confident that we can come up with a solution that will be as British as possible, as consistent as possible and as true to the sources as possible. All this can be achieved by being flexible instead of docrinaire in what we mean by conforming to British standards. Michael Glass (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No decent author, journalist or editor ever writes anything without first identifying the readership of that article. In the case of the Falkland Islands article(s), who is the readership? During March the Falkland Islands article achieved at least 2,400 hits daily (exceeding 11,000 on one occasion). The islands has a population of 3,140. We can therefore rule out the islanders as being the principal readers of the article (unless every man, woman and child on the islands is checking the article on a daily basis). This suggests that the principal readership is the international community.

Given that the Wikipedia Spanish language article es:Islas Malvinas has a "disputed neutrality" banner, it falls to the English, French (fr:Îles Malouines), German (de:Falklandinseln) and Portugueses [Brazillian] (pt:Ilhas Malvinas) version to provide the international readership with neutral facts. The Portuguese version is relatively short and English is the de facto world langua franca. Thus the English language version should be aiming at the international community and since the international community expects to see international units first, the articles should do so - after all, that is the norm in the CIA handbook. Martinvl (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, if you're going to understand anything in the dispute over metric units you have to realise that people who use imperial units do not do so solely in order to irritate metric users. They do not use imperial units in order to make a political point. It's not a case of everyone understanding metric units and then trying to be a nuisance. People who use imperial units - including in this context most Brits - very often have no more intuitive understanding of how far (say) 220 kilometres actually is any more than you would have an intuitive understanding of how far 20 femtoparsecs is. And that is the same whether those distances are along roads or not along roads. But they do have an intuitive understanding of how far (say) 150 miles is.

I see that once again you argue that the fact that you can find something in the UK in kilometres means that British actually prefer kilometres over miles. But how many people, do you think, reading that sign, actually know that the lower number is a distance in kilometres? It doesn't say that anywhere, and it's not something that's advertised. Of those who do know, how many, do you think, know what it's measuring the distance from? Shoot, I don't know that and I've read the article and indeed seen those signs by the side of the road. Clearly, it's not intended as an actual useful distance measure so much as a unique code number for the sign.

You demand I make concession after concession. Well, it's a big concession for some of those who supported imperial units to move to a primarily metric-first system. So when do you start making concessions? The only one you've made so far, you've then announced that you'll try to override at every opportunity that is ever likely to actually occur. Those who prefer imperial units have moved a mile to try and get consensus. Those who prefer metric have moved an inch - and are now trying to claw that inch back.

You demand I be flexible about what we mean by British standards, having just demanded that we stick to the letter of UK law. I am being flexible. But where there is a clear standard in UK usage, as per the relevant guideline, I see no reason not to follow it. Metric-only simply does not conform to UK usage, nor does metric-only except road distances when we can't get out of it. Elastic bands are flexible, but if you stretch one too hard it still breaks. You accuse me of being doctrinaire, and yet you're the one in this discussion effectively demanding metric units only, regardless of whether they conform to usage or Wikipedia guidelines.

Martin, perhaps I should point out that over 50% of Wikipedia's readership comes from the United States? Bearing that in mind, by your logic, would it not be preferable to adopt US Customary Units throughout Wikipedia? That would presumably preferable to more of our readership than the current metric-first-in-general rule. Another 10% or so comes from the UK, so the use of miles for distance is actually likely to be preferred by over 60% of Wikipedia readers. Your logic would suggest that we should be using miles for all distances on Wikipedia, not just in areas specifically related to the US or UK. But in any case, what we should base our decision on is already decided for us. We have a guideline already. And per the guideline, it is actual usage in the UK that is most significant on UK-related articles. Pfainuk talk 09:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a sense of proportion here. Even if an article is totally metric first, the fact that conversions to Imperial measures are supplied means that everyone's needs are catered for. The question we are really deciding here is whether the use of miles first should be confined to road distances as per MOS or whether it should be extended to all distances, as per your reading of MOSNUM.

Let's have a look at the guidelines:

• MOS: imperial units for some measurements such as road distances
• MOSNUM: Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy

In one, road distances are specified; in the other they are not. However, the context at least implies road distances (miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy). Now I believe there are good reasons for limiting the use of miles to road distances in the Falkland Islands context.

• Expanding the use of miles first to include all land distances causes problems with the text of articles. See the examples I have supplied above.
• Expanding the use of miles first to include all land distances has led to a call for the use of square miles as well as miles. These measures are not mentioned in MOS or MOSNUM.
• Expanding the use of miles first to include all land distances ignores the use of kilometres in the UK, such as here [26] and here [27] and here[28] and here [29] and here [30]. Please note that all of these references are different from the ones I gave before. Applying your rule would mean that all of these usages would have to be changed. I am sure that this would not be in accordance with the spirit of the rules.
• Restricting the use of miles first to road distances minimises the inconsistencies in the text.
• Restricting the use of miles first to road distances is much closer to the wishes of the great number of editors who spoke in favour of metric measures. Remember that this goes beyond those who have spoken for metric measures but also includes those who stated a preference for following the sources, or who had a personal preference for using metric measures.
• Restricting the use of miles first to road distances does not undermine the strong preference of the British public for the continued use of miles in this context.

I note you fear that British and American readers would be disadvantaged if they read 220km. However, this is not what we are doing. We would be writing 220 kilometres (140 mi) so that the needs of all readers would be catered for. One again I appeal to you to use examples from the Falklands articles. I am sure that most problems that you fear will be sorted out if we look at how the rules would apply to these articles in practice. Michael Glass (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "problems with the text of articles" are easily resolved. In one case, the problem is imaginary. You call for flexibility but refuse to be flexible when you have a problem with square kilometres and miles in the same sentence. I note, incidentally, that square miles are accepted by the Times style guide, referenced by WP:MOSNUM. If WP:MOS is out of date, then it needs updating. WP:MOSNUM is the guideline we should be following.

You say you'll accept miles in road distances, but have since suggested that in just about any practical situation in which such measurements are actually likely to occur, you'll insist on kilometres on grounds of consistency. Your claimed compromise is no compromise at all.

You cite a load of government websites. So what? Once again, you're trying to suggest that the fact that you can a source that uses kilometres means that all of the British really use kilometres all the time in private and just use miles to irritate foreigners. You've done that before, and I'm sure you'll do it again, but it doesn't wash.

The spirit of the rules is that we adopt actual usage. This means, at the very least, adopting imperial units in all those circumstances in which their use is overwhelmingly more common in the UK - such as miles for distances. Fully metricating, which is effectively what you propose, is fairly clearly outside the spirit of the rules. If that means using imperial units where the sources use metric, so be it. And vice versa.

And I find you try and appeal based on "the wishes of the great number of editors who spoke in favour of metric measures". This didn't stop you from pushing for metric measures for months beforehand. And I notice also that you try to characterise editors as in favour of your proposal, when the only time they agreed was when they thought they were accepting UK-style units rather than 100% metric-first.

Now let me put this to you bluntly. I will not accept your notion of all-metric-except-road-distances - a notion that would in fact turn into metric-first always. If you want consensus, you're going to have to actually compromise for a change. Those who prefer imperial units have compromised already. Your turn. Pfainuk talk 12:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though there is quite an intractable difference between us on the use of units. This is a good reason for looking for area of agreement between our positions and agreeing to change there. Then we could work on the other, more difficult areas later. On your comments above I would like to make the following observations:

• Applying your ideas causes inconsistencies in the articles; applying my ideas minimises these inconsistencies.
• Citing "a load of government websites" is exactly what is needed to get information from reliable sources when we are writing an encyclopedia.
• Saying "so what" to evidence that goes against your set ideas is not reasonable. Please reconsider your position.
• When I said I would accept miles in road distances I meant just that and no more. This does not please you but at least we understand each other's positions.

Michael Glass (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it turns out that you're not actually willing to make any compromise on any position of substance. As I'll say on the other article, consensus building is not a matter of trying to get the other side to compromise until they reach your position. Because that's never going to work. You've had my best offer, but you seem to have decided that the existing imperial-first consensus is better. So we'll keep the imperial-first units. Pfainuk talk 07:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and who else? What about the opinions of others? Don't they count? Or is it only your opinion that counts here? Michael Glass (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The confrontational attitude will get you nowhere fast, I thought this had been figured out already. Compromise is not the thin end of the wedge for you to push for what you prefer. People don't agree with you Michael and bad tempered accusations aren't the way to get agreement. If it isn't Martinvl's very sensible compromise, then we should go with a consistent approach and that is still imperial first. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. It wasn't obvious at the time, but Martin's so-called compromise turned out to be no compromise at all. Miles for road distances only: we couldn't say that the distance from A to B was x miles if it was a crow's-flight distance, only if it was a road distance. And even then, based on Michael's arguments, we'd have to use kilometres anyway in just about every situation this is likely to arise. No allowance for common British usage at all. So, essentially, 100% metrication by the back door.

WP:UNITS gives a perfectly reasonable set of units to use based on British usage, and is an easy guideline-based compromise - one that, curiously enough, Michael agreed to when we were drafting it. Pfainuk talk 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Michael is now trying to change WP:UNITS to match his POV. Which is most distinctly not an appropriate thing to do in these circumstances. Editors here should be aware of this. Pfainuk talk 22:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Pfainuk is now objecting to my right, as an editor to edit WP:UNITS. I thank him for the publicity and I join him in inviting editors to check out what I am trying to do and why. Michael Glass (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went there and got a hostile reception for my proposal. So that's the end of that. If people want miles, let them have them! Now can we get back to discussing what to do with the articles? Michael Glass (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to compromise? Because if not, there's really no point. But I'll WP:AGF and make my proposal.

Falklands articles should reflect common British practice as regards units. To this end, the following guidelines are to be used to determine the most appropriate unit:

Generally speaking, prefer metric units, and convert to imperial and US customary units as appropriate. Where this would create significant inconsistency with the exceptions to this rule noted below, prefer imperial units first and convert to metric and US customary units. Articles should be internally consistent with respect to the units used in a given context.

The following are exceptions to the metric-first rule:

• Distance:
  • For distances onshore (including coastlines), use statute miles (yards, feet, inches) and convert to kilometres (metres, centimetres)
  • For distances offshore, use nautical miles and convert to both kilometres and statute miles
  • For distances that contain significant parts both on- and off-shore, use statute miles and convert to both kilometres and nautical miles
• Speed:
  • For land speed, use statute miles per hour and convert to kilometres per hour
  • For airspeed and speeds offshore, use knots and convert to both kilometres per hour and statute miles per hour
• Fuel economy of land vehicles: unlikely to ever be used, but if it is, prefer miles per imperial gallon and convert as appropriate
• Personal heights: use feet and inches, and convert to metres
• Personal weights: use stones and pounds, and convert to both kilograms and pounds
• Quantities of beer/cider: use imperial pints and convert to both millilitres and US pints
• In historical contexts, use the units preferred by contemporary sources
• In contexts where the most common unit in use internationally is non-metric (such as feet for aircraft altitude), or where a non-metric unit is nominal or defined, prefer that unit (as per WP:MOSNUM).

In any case where the primary units do not match the source units, this should be noted either in the reference text or in a comment <!-- Like this -->

As you see, this uses imperial units only in cases where common British usage strongly prefers it, and metric units where British usage is split. It allows for flexibility to avoid significant inconsistency, while allowing for different systems to be used in different contexts. It allows for your concern in terms of non-sourced units coming first. It's a reasonable representation of modern British usage, and a reasonable compromise between all-imperial and all-metric.

The default-to-imperial rule in case of inconsistency reflects the fact that British usage is clear in the contexts noted and unclear in most others. It's the context where usage is split that should give way, not the one where it is clear. I would only anticipate it actually being relevant in the case of land area, a context where square miles are accepted by the Times Style guide (noted by WP:UNITS) - but there's no reason why we shouldn't generalise it.

It could reasonably be placed in a subpage of WP:FALKLAND along with other style preferences (such as date formats and spelling preferences, which I would hope are uncontentious). Pfainuk talk 20:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support As in support Pfainuk's proposal, which is pretty much what I agreed to with Martinvl's proposal at least what I thought he'd proposed. Pragmatic, consistent and in line with our polioies. I presume this will be the last time its raised? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you edited the following passage in accordance with the guidelines outlined above, it would not be improved:

Bleaker Island is long, narrow and low-lying and the southern tip of the Island is separated from Lafonia by a thin stretch of water named 'The Jump'. It has an area of 2,070 hectares (5,100 acres) ^[1] and is 19 kilometres (12 mi) long. The island is no wider than 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) at any point and tapers to several thin necks of land at various points down its length. 'Semaphore Hill,' 27 metres (89 ft) is the highest point ^[2].

While I will not contest your application of the above guidelines to the more substantial articles, applying these rules to the geographical stubs will not make them better. I think you'd save yourself a lot of time and needless effort to leave the stubs as they are. Michael Glass (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glass (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of the task force is to bring the articles to a consistent standard and then expand where required. I would suggest adding some hidden text to point to any guideline we develop. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any guideline should be applied to all articles, regardless of length. It may take a while for it to propagate through, but the task force formed to implement the consensus does have seven members, so it hopefully won't take too long. In the case of the article you cite, I don't see any problem with applying the guideline as is. It may not go far to lengthen the article, but it will bring units (which are the point of this discussion) to a consistent standard across Falklands articles.

On hidden text - it might actually be easier to put a link in the project banner. Pfainuk talk 18:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, given the silence, we can reasonably consider ourselves to have consensus here. I have uploaded the above to Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units, and will create a shortcut WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. I intend to start switching articles to the new consensus, starting with those articles that Ryan has helpfully marked as "top" importance. Pfainuk talk 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now completed all eleven top-importance Falklands articles. Will start to drill down further when I have more time. Pfainuk talk 18:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)I have lost the track, I've seen that a new guideline was added. When was the consensus reached? (either rejection of new proposal or re-affirmation of preexisting one). The discussion hasn't progressed since my last comment and now is a guideline? I'm not used to consensus-building on WP; is this a consensus or just a new page started by Pfainuk only to speed/settle it?. So I can start converting too. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 13:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal (my comment of 20:03, 24 March, higher in this section), and Michael accepted it in principle (his comment of 22:57, 24 March - just above), with reservations about the workload. I responded to them, and he did not respond within five days or so.

One of the rules about consensus on Wikipedia is that silence implies consent. In other words, if someone objects to a change, they need to say so. If Michael had objected to the proposal in principle, I would not have assumed that we necessarily had consensus. But as it is I think it's fair to do so. Pfainuk talk 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other thing: I know this is stating the obvious, but I think it is worth stating anyway. There are links on WP:FALKLAND to all the articles with the project banner, but we should apply common sense in determining what articles to convert to this standard. One article on the next list I was going to do is Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina). Obviously, that article has a stronger connection to Argentina than to the Falklands, and so we shouldn't try to convert units there. Pfainuk talk 17:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a new guideline and should convert all articles to it from the "weakest form of consensus" (haven't read WP:SILENCE, will remember it to propose things on vacations). I thought polls where a bit more strong. We could notify all members of the project (Falkland Islands, South America, MoS or a third voice) of the guideline proposal so we can hear more voices. There was just one Support, one Comment, and a short silence. 5 days isn't too long, I, for example, regularly have access to internet only 3 days a week. Wouldn't be better to invite editors to comment and give a reasonable time to let them participate?.

Add: Certainly having a guideline in the project itself will make things more consistent and prevent resurrections of this issue again, but if it was made from two comments and silence, then we may see all this again and again. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 days used to be the standard length of time for processes like WP:AFD, WP:RM WP:DRV and so on. It's increased to seven while I wasn't paying attention, but even so, I would argue that it is a perfectly reasonable time period for this purpose. It's not as though editors were not aware of this discussion: it was well signposted at the most affected talk pages. My proposal was written up appropriately, and so far as I can tell, every single editor in this discussion and the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands was active during the period in which I waited. This was something I took into account. I see no need to take it to any other forum. Consensus does not need lots of positive affirmation, and I see little reason to prolong this dispute any longer than is necessary. Pfainuk talk 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past it has only really been Michael that has brought this up regularly. Based on this, and seeing as Michael has accepted the position proposed, I think it reasonable to assume it will not be brought up repeatedly again. Pfainuk talk 17:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On your proposal, you had one Support, and you already know I Oppose, I don't have much to add to what has already written here and in Falkland Islands. So two-one, and 5 days is enough? What about the opinion of other editors that wrote above and on Falkland Islands talkpage? Still think it would be better to invite people, like you usually do on AfD. I think my english is failing on Michel redaction, I don't see his comment on 22:57, 24 March is accepting your proposal, instead it's only commenting its negative effects on some articles. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 18:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you opposed it actually. You didn't say anything, despite being active during the perfectly reasonable period that I gave. Are you sure you want me to revert all my changes so the articles are imperial-first again per the previous consensus? Because this is my best offer. It's as far as I am willing to go. It complies with relevant guidelines and it is a perfectly reasonable compromise. And if we can't get consensus for it (bearing in mind that we don't need you to accept it if there's clear support from elsewhere), the old imperial-first rule will have to continue. Pfainuk talk 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't find funny repeating myself. I don't want you to revert, if the result is the same, it's a part of the job done. I will help convert too even if I personally prefer metrics, as that is what compromise is. But how that was decided doesn't look fair, I will support a consensus, no a Pfainuk&Justin preference. Yes, the guidelines can result in inconsistency in the messy UK units usage; but you can make a consistency with all-imperial and all-metric. Notifying the project members or other possible interested users seems a more reliable consensus. (Also, what is the criteria? After exactly 7 day, the decision is by number of Support or Oppose? So if at the closing time, we got 5 support, 6 oppose, then its rejected?). I personally disagree with your proposal on Distances and Speeds (support metric with imperial convertion), also would add that all imperials put as first (beer/cider,personal weight/height) must be converted, and the use of Celsiuss.pmt7ar ^(t|c) 20:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for consensus are a bit more woolly than that. Consensus does not need to be unanimous, but is not a majority vote. Generally speaking, it's somewhere in between, at a position that as many people as possible can accept. That doesn't mean you have to like them, only that you're willing to accept them as a compromise.

The fact is, until today, Justin, Michael and I were the only ones to comment. I proposed these rules, Justin supported them and Michael indicated a willingness to accept them. Everyone else in the discussion was active on Wikipedia. Everyone else knew where the discussion was. Their silence implies that they accept the proposal. If it didn't, half Wikipedia would seize up: this sort of consensus happens all the time.

We don't notify people of every proposal that's made because people's talk pages would fill up. It is reasonable to assume that people have watchlisted pages that interest them. Things like AFD are different because they generally take place on a new page - but even then, you generally only notify editors who created or significantly expanded the article in question.

On the facts of the matter, our basic assumption is that units used on the FI are the same as those in the UK. Miles and miles per hour are almost the only units for distances and speeds in the UK. Sure they're only legally required for road distances and traffic speeds, but this reflects actual usage across British society. We have no basis to assume that FI usage is any different. The point of WP:UNITS is that we should adopt units as used in the country we're discussing. In the case of the FI, that means using miles and miles per hour.

On conversions, the proposal does require that all imperial units should be converted to metric units. But conversions should be provided anyway in almost all circumstances on Falklands articles as required by WP:UNITS. That's both from imperial/US customary to metric and from metric to imperial/US customary. Finally, Celsius is covered by the top part: Generally speaking, prefer metric units, and convert to imperial and US customary units as appropriate.

Ignore the editors. It should be irrelevant who proposed the change. Can you accept these rules as a compromise, or will we have to revert to previous consensus? Pfainuk talk 20:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not beleive that there was consensus - I believed that there was stalemate and that everybody got bored which is why I made no further comments. My understanding therefore is that there is no consensus. May I propose that if true consensus is not reached, that WP:FALKLANDUNITS be nominated for deletion. Martinvl (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silence implies consent. My judgement that there was consensus was reasonable. You had days to give an objection. But now, apparently, you've decided to wait until I actually implemented the consensus that we reached before objecting. You haven't even given a reason for it. Trying now to claim that your silence could not be taken as consent is totally at odds with norms on Wikipedia. It is totally unreasonable to assume telepathy.

I will assume, nonetheless, that we have no consensus and have thus reverted to the previous consensus, which was for imperial-first. We were close, but if you will not accept a reasonable compromise then I do not believe that any consensus can be reached. Pfainuk talk 21:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I saw were two editors User:Pfainuk and User:Michael Glass in entrenched positions and that the discussion was going nowhere. I also have a real life and I saw no future in spending time trying to break what I perceived as being deadlock. Martinvl (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael has accepted the proposal detailed at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Per his comment at 22:57, 24 March, he said he "would not contest" the application of these guidelines, though he expressed concern about the workload on smaller articles. The norm on Wikipedia is that silence implies consent - particularly given that you were active elsewhere. Now, do you have an actual objection to this proposal or not? Pfainuk talk 21:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, I have noted the comments above. Although you have taken silence to imply consent, that is not my position. I said that I would not contest your guidelines. This is as far as it goes. I believe that the present position is better than being totally Imperial. Also, it is not safe to take silence as consent. It is clear from the discussion above that others are not happy with the compromise, and may contest it even if I don't.

I think the greatest problem with your compromise is the use of nautical miles, which are unfamiliar to most users. A second problem is that the units are often at variance with the sources, which I believe is regrettable. There is a clash in the guidelines - and in British usage - which prefers both hectares and square kilometres. When dealing with smaller areas it would better to use hectares. One example is in the section on landmines. [[31]] The present text says:

The land mines ... are dispersed over an area of 8 sq mi (20 km2) ....

As 8 square miles is a very rough approximation to 20 square kilometres we should consider changing the text to

The land mines ... are dispersed over an area of 2000 hectares (4942 acres) ...

This would be more accurate, and would still comply with your current compromise.

However, that is a small point. The question at issue is whether there is consensus about units, and whether others find WP:FALKLANDSUNITS tolerable. Michael Glass (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silence implies consent everywhere else on Wikipedia. There's no reason why it should not do so here. People had five days to voice an objection, and did not do so. Indeed, Martin still has not actually raised any particular objection to the proposal, and Pmt7ar has raised objections without giving any kind of reasons - and two of his three objections are already addressed. But nonetheless I have reverted all my changes as apparently the old imperial-first consensus still applies.

If there is to be a disconnect between onshore and offshore distances, using statute and nautical miles gives rise to far less of an appearance of inconsistency than does using miles and kilometres. The split in British usage in this context is between mariners and non-mariners, the former preferring nautical miles and the latter preferring statute miles. Kilometres are no more used in this context than on land. The Times Style Guide and WP:UNITS would suggest that we should be using "miles", and I rather feel it more appropriate to go with the mariners' preference, for nautical miles, in those contexts.

British usage does not clearly prefer square kilometres or hectares. Usage is split in this case: bear in mind that WP:UNITS only lists those cases where usage clearly falls on the imperial side of the line. Again, I cite the Times style guide, which prefers square miles. It is appropriate, where usage is split, to be flexible as to which unit is preferred to avoid inconsistency. In this case, that may mean using imperial units for land areas that would otherwise be in metric units.

You are well aware of the objections to using sourced units without reference to usage or common sense, and those objections do not need repeating.

But as it is, people seem to have decided they'd rather units stay imperial-first. They object to the proposal without giving reasons. They waited six days before objecting, but then announce that I should have known that they objected, apparently through intercontinental telepathy. The proposal is still on the table, but it is as far as I am willing to go. Pfainuk talk 06:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called consensus states that there is an "Imperial-first" rule. WP:UNITS states "Except in the cases mentioned below, put the units first that are in the most widespread use in the world. Usually, these are International System of Units (SI) units and non-SI units accepted for use with SI; but there are various exceptions ... For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first." Unless it can be justified why the imperial first rule is appropriate using verifiable material, then that consensus is nul and void as WP:CONSENSUS cannot override WP:POLICY. Links to such material should be posted on the project page. Until such justification is published, the rules pertaining to units of measure should be those that apply where there is no consensus. Martinvl (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of this process is that you try to get consensus for a new set of units that will replace the old consensus. This is what I have spent the last month trying to do - and indeed longer. Trying to force a set of units through by putting the letter of the rule over the spirit of the rule - as you seem to be trying to do - is inappropriate. The rule on Wikipedia is that the old consensus remains until a new consensus is found. Whether you like that old consensus or not. Unless we can find a consensus on what to replace the imperial-first rule with, that rule remains.

Now, as it happens, the units I proposed are quite clearly fully in line with WP:UNITS - I propose a metric-first rule, with the exceptions based on WP:UNITS and on the reliable source cited by WP:UNITS (the style guide for a major British newspaper). You objected to it because - well actually I have no idea why you objected to it. You never bothered to explain why following the examples in WP:UNITS was not good enough for you. Neither, for that matter, did Pmt7ar. But if you want a set of rules that more clearly complies with WP:UNITS, you should accept my proposal. Pfainuk talk 07:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the use of imperial units for distances other than road distances as all source material is given in metric units - metric units are the units used by any serious author including the authors of the CIA handbook. You proposals regarding nautical units were ambiguous - the criteria should be that nautical miles be used where it is not possible to measure the distance using a theodolite and triangulation - which in the case of the Falkland Islands means that the Falkland Sound is deemed an inalnd waterway for purposes of units as on a fine day it can be seen from West Falkland. (The formula for calculating the distance of the horizon in kilometres is sqrt(13 * h) where h is the hieght of the vantage point in metres). Martinvl (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of imperial units for distances generally is established in modern British usage, and is explicitly mentioned as an imperial-first measurement in WP:UNITS and in the Times style guide (on which WP:UNITS is based). In other words, it is clearly the most appropriate usage in this context. On nautical miles, I don't actually object to a more precise definition, provided that it doesn't render the rule unusable. I don't think many people have detailed relief maps of the Falklands, and we shouldn't have to get them solely in order to work out whether we should be using statute or nautical miles. Pfainuk talk 08:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is more accurate to state that the policy refers to the Times style guide. For one thing, there are clear differences between it and the Times Guide. For example, Wiki policy is silent on square miles and the use of hectares, while the Times guide gives explicit instructions on both. The problem of applying British standards to measurement is that they are both inconsistent and contested. I fear that we will be battling indefinitely over the use of units because of this. However, there should be no contest over the weather data. British usage on weather data is now clearly metric and that is clearly the preference of editors. I think the reversion to Imperial measures was deliberately provocative and quite unhelpful. Michael Glass (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I propose it be metric unless this would cause significant inconsistency. But the fact that it mentions square miles I think is sufficient to demonstrate that imperial units are not necessarily inappropriate in this context. OTOH, the MOS does mention miles for distances in general, and this is a context where British usage is clearly imperial. In the contexts where usage is not clearly imperial, I and others have accepted metric units. But this is not such a context.

But we've been over all of this dozens of times. And I'm afraid that thanks to the obstinacy of editors who insist on metric units regardless of British usage and the MOS, the imperial-first consensus remains. Once we get a new consensus for a new set of units, we can then change weather data along with other units. But not before. Pfainuk talk 07:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that we have been over this many times. May I add a new perspective? Wikipedia is an encyclopeadic work, not a newspaper. Although the MOS:UNITS says that for UK-based articles, the Times styleguide may be used, it is by no means mandatory. For a quality set of articles, should we be using a newspaper-style set of units of measure of an encyclopedic set of measures? Martinvl (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look if you want the English wikipedia to be all metric, then the way to do that is WP:UNITS and get a policy formulated and agreed. There was a policy agreed here, we were quite prepared to compromise and accept the Times style guide. The Times style guide is very relevant as it reflects usage in Britain. What we don't need is the Falklands articles being hijacked for a crusade to make the English wikipedia metric. If nothing the length of the discussion here indicates no consensus to change to what you want and coming back time and time again to try again is nothing short of disruptive. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 09:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you (Martin) are asking for is a change in WP:UNITS, which is a discussion for WT:MOSNUM, not for here. I will note, however, that Michael may well have poisoned that particular well. Over the course of the last year that page he has made proposal after proposal after proposal, all with the common theme of trying to push metric units on to UK-related articles. Practically all have been rejected and several editors are getting irritated by this behaviour. The last time he tried, two weeks ago, the prospect of a topic ban was raised - and not by an editor who frequently deals with Falklands articles.

The guideline as it is relies on local usage. This is why it lists the exceptions it does (including miles for distances). This is why it mentions the Times style guide. It's not about what a law says, not on what we'd like common usage to be, but on what common usage actually is. And while the MOS relies on local usage for its units preferences, there is no reason why the UK or the Falklands should be an exception. My proposal accepts metric units where UK usage is genuinely split, as does the MOS. But where usage clearly prefers imperial units - as in all the cases listed in my proposal, in the Times style guide and in the MOS - there's nothing unencyclopædic about using those units. Pfainuk talk 14:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are following British usage, then why in the world did you revert the weather data? British practice, including the Times Style Guide recommends the use of the metric system for weather data. So did an overwhelming majority of editors here, and so did you. The BBC, which the article quotes, also uses metric figures for its weather data. Therefore it makes no sense to revert the article to Imperial measures in this instance. The idea of waiting until we have agreement on other units appears to me as deliberate obstructionism. Why not change what is clearly uncontroversial and then concentrate on the more difficult questions later? Michael Glass (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't yet have a consensus to change the existing imperial-first rule, as I have pointed out at least fifteen times now. We have no business implementing a proposal that does not have consensus. Until we get consensus for a new set of units, the old set of units - including Fahrenheit - should remain. Pfainuk talk 07:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. There is a clear majority of editors who have expressed an opinion in favour of using metric measures for the weather. Why are you ignoring the majority? 08:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the principle that a consensus remains until it is overturned by new consensus? You must know it, it's one of the basic rules of consensus building. And it is perfectly obvious that no new consensus has been reached here. Until there's consensus on what to replace it with, the imperial-first rule remains. Pfainuk talk 09:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is quite a self-serving notion of consensus. When you claim the majority is with you, it's consensus; when the majority is against what you want, consensus has not been reached. It sounds like a "Heads, I win; tails you lose." definition of consensus. There is an overwhelming majority in favour of metric weather details. As far as I am concerned, that's consensus. What is your problem with that? Why can't or won't you agree to something that has majority support? Why are you holding it ransom to agreement on more difficult issues? Michael Glass (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the irony. This, coming from the editor who announced that consensus for imperial measures had to be unanimous but that consensus for metric measures could be a simple majority. No, there is no consensus for any proposed alternative to the existing imperial-first consensus. So no, we should not be making changes that directly contradict that consensus. Rather than bitching about it, perhaps you and others could give up on your crusade to metricate Falklands articles in contradiction of the MOS and British usage, and actually come up with a reasonable compromise proposal that we can all agree on. Just a suggestion, it's likely to look like this. Pfainuk talk 11:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the red herrings? It is clear that there is overwhelming support for metric figures in the weather details. Please note that this all I am asking for at this time, so please don't try to change the subject. I am talking about the WEATHER DETAILS. Just in case you have missed this, I will repeat: the WEATHER DETAILS. Also, I remind you that I said I would NOT CONTEST your proposed compromise, one that included having metric weather details.

What I am asking for is that the WEATHER DETAILS be left as metric. This has overwhelming support. Yes, this does have critics, but there has been no criticism of the part that applies to the weather details. As for the "existing imperial-first consensus" it has all the reality of the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland. I question whether this consensus ever existed, but even if it did exist, it has been blown out of the water by later expressions of opinion. Of all the policies to do with units of measure, the one thing that has the greatest of support is that the weather details should be metric, as per the Times Style Guide and MOSNUM. I cannot see how any good is served by your digging your heels in about a change that you have already agreed to. Michael Glass (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. The argument, once more, that unanimity is required for an imperial-first consensus but metric-first can be carried through with a majority.

No. Once we get consensus for a new system - which it is perfectly obvious that we do not have right now - we can change units in line with that new system. This is how Wikipedia works, as I've pointed out so many times in the past. The old consensus holds until a new consensus is found.

But what's the hurry? Shoot, even after saying that you "would not contest" my proposal, it comes with the very strong implication that you'll go back on that at a later date. Just as when you accepted the existence of an imperial-first consensus in February and have now backtracked on that. We both know that you'll be back here demanding 100% metrication - either in name or through some proxy that means exactly the same thing in practice - in about three weeks' time. And we both know that this may be about weather details only now, but in three weeks' time it won't be: that this is to be used as the thin end of the wedge to try and force 100% metrication through. So, no. Articles should remain at the last position to get consensus until a new system of units achieves consensus. Pfainuk talk 12:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, please have a look at what you did. It was you that backtracked. You retreated from this position and that is why I am going on about it. The move was deliberately provocative and if you don't like my going on about it, blame yourself for restarting a conflict that should have been behind us. You say that the position you agreed to is the thin edge of the wedge, but even if that is so, I won't be the one driving the wedge. I stated that I would not contest this position. If you have trouble maintaining this position it will be against others.

Just remember, you first agreed to a position and made that change. It then turned out that others were not satisfied with this because it wasn't metric enough for them. In response, you retreated from the position you agreed to. So if you complain about me, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you think your imperial-first position has consensus, put it to the vote and see what happens. I dare you! Michael Glass (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre argument. No, no backtrack. If this position gains consensus then I will support it. But Imperial-first was the last position that had consensus. In the absence of any new consensus, the last consensus is what we default to. Just like everywhere else on Wikipedia. If we can't agree on what to change it to, we can't very well go around changing units on the basis of what might or might not be agreed at some unknown point in the future. "Deliberately provocative"? Again, a bizarre argument. Everyone knew what the position in the case of no consensus would be, and I have been perfectly consistent about this point. Until we get a new consensus, the old consensus remains. The old consensus is for imperial-first.

I do not think it unreasonable to expect other editors to make some kind of compromise in order to reach consensus. But the only "compromise" that those editors accepted was from 100% metric in theory to 100% metric in practice - which is no compromise at all. It is unreasonable of them to expect me to haggle myself up to their position. And I'm not willing to do it. The limit of what I am willing to accept has been reached, and this is it. You want someone to blame for the current position? Blame the people who decided to push their POV in defiance of the MOS. Not the people whose attempts to get consensus were frustrated. Pfainuk talk 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement above appears to say that:

• There was a consensus for all Imperial.
• There is not a consensus for your proposed compromise.
• Because of that, the consensus returns to all imperial.

This is despite the fact that:

• A majority of editors have expressed opinions that are at variance to this supposed consensus.
• MOSNUM says UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts....
• MOSNUM says 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.

We either have a situation where there is no consensus. If that is so, then we should conform to British practice. If we cannot agree to do that, we should put the source value first and the converted value second. If that turns out to be arbitrary, we should use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses.

There is no provision in MOSNUM for an all Imperial consensus on the Falkland articles. Michael Glass (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that in this dispute is just like every other dispute on Wikipedia. The last position to reach consensus continues to apply until a new consensus is found to replace it. This is very simple, entirely standard and there is absolutely no chance that you have not seen it before (indeed, I've been in discussions with you before that have ended in exactly this manner).

Conforming to modern British practice is what my proposal was. But Martin and Pmt7ar weren't willing to accept British practice as a basis for units on these articles. Given as I'm not willing to metricate beyond modern British practice, we have no consensus. In the absence of consensus, the last position to reach consensus applies. That, on these articles, was imperial-first.

But that demand, and the rest, is a blatant attempt to Wikilawyer your POV into the articles with an absolute disregard for the consensus-building process. Once we get consensus on what to change the units to, then we can change the articles to conform to that consensus. But we should not be trying to force units through before a consensus is reached. Pfainuk talk 16:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the discussion was headed in the same direction as previously, I have opened a WP:WQA discussion. I feel the discussion would be better served there rather than cluttering the page. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 17:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge others who have expressed an opinion in the question of what measurement units should take precedence to follow this link [[32]] and express their opinions on the question there. Michael Glass (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have Pfainuk's proposal on the table, which conforms to WP:MOSNUM. It was apparently objected to but those objecting haven't actually come up with a reasoned objection as to why it is inappropriate. I propose we implement it now. This has consumed far too much time on niff naff and trivia. If you want to change wikipedias policy on units take it up in the appropriate forum, others have work to do. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 17:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from outside and just having made a little survey of what I could find from the Falkland Islands by way of use of units, I have two (related) comments on WP:FALKLANDSUNITS:

• It is already very uncommon that people mix Imperial units such as miles and yards, or yards and feet. This should not be encouraged. For example one would write 6 1/2 miles or 6.5 miles, not 6 miles 880 yards.
• For the life of me I can't understand what inches and centimetres are doing in a guideline passage about "distances onshore". If it can be measured in inches or centimetres, it's not a geographical distance but just a length of an object or something. This is bound to lead to disagreements later on if adopted in this form.

Otherwise it looks reasonable to me. Hans Adler 20:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. How about we replace the first point under distances with (changes in bold):

Distance:

• For geographical distances onshore (including coastlines) and across inshore waters, use statute miles or yards and convert to kilometres or metres

My original intention was that the exception should address geographical distances, as opposed to lengths in general. A such, I am willing to accept metric units for lengths (as opposed to geographical distances) if it will get us consensus. This wording also makes it clear that it should be miles or yards, rather than miles and yards, and addresses one of Martin's concerns, that nautical miles should not be used for inshore waters. Pfainuk talk 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly looks good to me. Hans Adler 21:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using statute miles for inshore waters looks amateurish, especially when all nautical charts use metres for short distances and kilometres or nautical miles for longer distances.

Please look at the figures given in the articles to date - how many have been changed form metric to imperial to satisfy the "Imperial units" rule and how many in imperial units in the original source documents. I think that nmost have been converted to imperial units. Doesn't this tell you something? It tells me that you risk compromising the quality of the articles in the eyes of readers who know more about the subject than you do (such as sailors who never use statute miles). Martinvl (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Delete the words "and across inshore waters" then and we'll use nautical miles. The only reason I put it like that is because the units you now announce are technically correct are those that - just three weeks ago - you announced were technically incorrect (08:09, 2 April 2010). I am trying to address your concerns here - but your response smacks of obstructionism.

What I won't accept is the conclusion that you're obviously trying to force on us, that we have to use kilometres, in spite of British usage, any notion of consistency and the MOS. Incidentally, the British do often use statute miles in this context. The most obvious example I can think of is the width of the Dover Strait, which is generally measured in statute miles in the UK. Pfainuk talk 21:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever changed the fishing catch from tonnes to long tons/short tonnes/tonnes had not read the relevant section in the Times Style Guide (under "T", not "M") here. It says "tons, tonnes prefer to use tonnes in most contexts, though in historical passages tons would be more appropriate; and note "tons of help" metaphorically". This is another instance of poor use of units. Why don't you stick with the source units? After all, Wikipedia is based on verifiability (WP:VERIFY) and the whole argument of using imperial units is based on the totally unverifable contention that the Falkland Islanders use imperial units - 'even though all their offical publications are in metric units. Martinvl (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's as per the existing consensus. The existing consensus is for imperial units first as you well know. We are now talking about changing that consensus to one based on WP:UNITS and the Times Style Guide.

Source-based units are, as previously, liable to be inconsistent and of course there are editors who will pick their sources based on the units. Falklands articles should not be the only articles in which we don't follow the standard practice of using the most appropriate units in context.

Why the backtrack, incidentally? Previously, you were willing to accept that the islanders use imperial units in some circumstances (based on your assertions of UK law). It seems positively bizarre to insist that the Islanders use unconverted miles for distances along roads - and we can demonstrate that they do - but kilometres for every other distance overland. Such a split would be counterintuitive in the extreme and difficult to sustain in practice.

I further dispute your contention that all official sources on the Falklands use metric units. It is not difficult to find counterexample. And even if they did, the spirit of WP:UNITS is that we use the units that are used locally by people, not necessarily by governments. Pfainuk talk 06:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Source units" is just an excuse to impose metrication by the back door, in that sources that use metric units will be used in preference. No, that proposal was rejected long ago and to continue flogging the equine long shuffled off this mortal coil is not moving forward. I will repeated if you wish to change the MOS, do so. Don't hijack this set of articles for your own purposes.

There is a proposal on the table, please focus on that and don't obstruct consensus moving forward. We've had a proposal to fix articles for months now and no progress is being made. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that there is broad agreement on what the units should be. The improvements suggested by Hans Adler are definitely an improvement and I am glad that they have been taken up. However, the sticking point is about the extent of using miles.

On one side we have:

• Distance:
  • For distances onshore (including coastlines), use statute miles or yards and convert to kilometres
  • For distances offshore, use nautical miles and convert to both kilometres and statute miles
  • For distances that contain significant parts both on- and off-shore, use statute miles and convert to both kilometres and nautical miles

If this was changed to something like this:

• Distance:
  • For road distances use statute miles or yards and convert to kilometres
  • For other distances generally follow the sources.
  • For distances over water, provide nautical miles as well as statute miles and kilometres.

I think that the latter would be preferable, particularly for the smaller islands. Take for instance the article on Jason Islands. The article has metric distances throughout, as per the source but there are conversions to miles, feet (for heights) and acres (from hectares). And there are lots of figures. To change these figures into a mixture of units would turn the article into a dog's breakfast, and all to follow a doctrinaire and inflexible "miles-first" rule. Far better to use some common sense. In another forum, Hans Adler wrote: " I think metric first for everything except road distances might be the most reasonable consistent choice for the islands." I agree with this statement, and it was what I was trying to achieve in putting forward this suggestion. I have noted that Hans did say that he did not agree with this proposal. Perhaps he and others could comment in more detail here. Michael Glass (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If you want to make units into a dog's breakfast on Falklands articles, follow this proposal. Take it at its word and we'll have to switch constantly and unpredictably between kilometres and miles - to our readers, this would potentially appear little better than randomness.

Similarly the notion that the British actually use kilometres for land distances and switch to miles for road distances is silly. Such a split does not exist in British usage and I see no benefit in creating one. Again, this would create an apparently random split in units, giving us horrendous inconsistency.

But we all know that in practice that this would just mean full metrication of these articles through the consistency rule. Unacceptable. The standard we should be following is WP:UNITS.

I see no particular inconsistency in using one set of units for land height and another set of units for distance - even if they are from different systems. This would seem to be fairly standard practice everywhere: even in countries where they measure mountains in feet and distances in miles, or mountains in metres and distances in kilometres, they still use different units. But if you feel that this is significant inconsistency, my proposal addresses that. Pfainuk talk 06:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in fact Implacably Oppose There is no sticking point, just one obsessed editor repeatedly making the same proposal that others have repeatedly rejected. Get the message, no. As Pfainuk points out, at best it will make the articles look like a dog's breakfact, in practise it will mean imposing metrication by the back door as you've tried to do it all along. No, no, no. There is already a proposal on the table that has broad agreement. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see no problem in following the sources. It wouldn't worry me if the articles were consistently metric first and consistent with the sources, though I can see that both Justin and Pfainuk would be opposed to it. I think that Pfainuk's concern that articles will be inconsistent under my proposal is misplaced. As he would be well aware, if we followed the sources on West Falkland the article would be metric first and if we followed the sources on East Falkland the article would be metric first, except for one historical reference to Mr Lafone's land grant of 500,000 acres. I think that we would find exactly the same thing with Falkland Islands. However, the point I am making is this: if these guidelines are accepted, we should apply them with some flexibility. Otherwise they will become a straitjacket.

Finally, it's not the case of one editor against the rest, and Pfainuk's proposal doesn't have broad agreement. If it was just me the proposal would be in place, even though I would still be pointing out its limitations. Now, however, several other editors have spoken up against it, so if we want an agreement we will have to negotiate something that is more broadly acceptable.How do you think you could address the concerns that have been expressed? Michael Glass (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept that what you're actually proposing is 100% metrication by another name? Allow a couple of token imperial units and then everything else is metric? That's no compromise, it's the same thing as before, just repackaged and repeatedly proposed, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for most of the last thirteen months. It it's just as unacceptable to me as it was the last umpteen times you proposed it. We will not get consensus unless pro-metric editors are willing to make some form of compromise from 100% metrication. Pfainuk talk 18:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, and until further notice strongly recommend leaving the units issue alone for the time being. Apcbg (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea, but based on how often Michael and Martin bring this up it doesn't look likely. Pfainuk talk 18:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a moratorium on all metricating and unmetricating of Falklands articles for the time being would be a good idea. The only exception might be the weather details, where it is obvious that there is overwhelming support for a change. Michael Glass (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a few other exceptions - that forecast oil production is only recorded in barrels (cubic meters are only used in academic papes), that fish production is only recorded in tonnes (the Time Style Guide explicitly states that imperial equivalents of tonnes should not be given) and to keep consistency in mirroring units of measure used on the international wholesale commodities markets, that wool production is only given in kilograms. Martinvl (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no exceptions, as in the past thats used as the thin edge of the wedge to "test the consensus". Justin talk 07:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am proposing is that for national production figures we use exactly the units that reported in the financial pages of the press (specifically those in The Times and Financial Times). This is entirely consistent with WP:VEFRIFY and WP:POV. Conversions are not neccessary because hardly anybody will use the converted values. Martinvl (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if and when we get a consensus in favour of a specific change to the current units those will probably be part of the mix. We have no business in changing from the current system before we get a consensus for a new system. Pfainuk talk 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of closure, I will agree with Michael's proposal. Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to spend weeks doing this again? Michael's proposal isn't closure. The opposite: it's him pushing for another argument. We've just had this debate on about five different pages. No. The existing consensus remains until a new consensus is reached. Pfainuk talk 06:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed that we have a moratorium on all metricating and unmetricating of Falkland articles for the time being, with the possible exception of the weather details, where there is overwhelming support for a change. This is a proposal to stop arguments, not start them. Why do you object to a moratorium on changing articles? Michael Glass (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop saying moratorium and then saying 'Apart from X/Y'. It is as much a moratorium as the hunting of whales in Japan. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narson, what is your problem with my proposal? Do you have a problem with changing the weather data or do you have a problem with having a moratorium on all other changes or do you have a problem with both proposals? Or is it simply that you don't like my use of the word moratorium? Michael Glass (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're proposing that instead of the argument about what units we use, we have the argument about what we do if there is no consensus. You say you want to stop arguments, then propose something that you know perfectly well will have exactly the opposite effect. Pfainuk talk 06:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that my proposal would have exactly the opposite effect than calming things down? Could you explain what you find controversial about a proposal for a moratorium? Michael Glass (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, as a first step towards that moratorium, we start with a moratorium on this fruitless discussion? Apcbg (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like that, but the last time I thought we would have no more controversy about units, Pfainuk went and changed the units in West Falkland to Imperial first against the history of the article and against the sources that were quoted. When I propose a moratorium I propose one where there is no more switching of units in any of the articles for a period of time. That means no inflammatory moves on either side of the divide. Michael Glass (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you've spent the last week demanding - however you choose to present it - is not an end to arguments but a restart of an argument in which we just spent three weeks doing nothing useful. You seem to have dropped that demand, but I still have objections. For example, you've repeatedly insisted that simply reverting an undiscussed switch was "deliberately provocative" (it wasn't, incidentally, and neither were changes to West Falkland) and yet seem to see nothing wrong with adding or switching to metric units full in the knowledge that you are defying the existing consensus - in some cases without even converting them. Fact is, you and I both know full well that in three or four weeks you or Martin will bring this up again, almost regardless of what I do and what's agreed here. Pfainuk talk 17:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go into what you call "the existing consensus" but I remind you that when I added information to articles I followed the sources, and I also included conversions to the older units. When you and Justin changed the units in the articles you did so against the history of the articles and against the sources.

Let us both accept that you don't like me adding information in metric units to articles and I don't like you and Justin changing articles to make them Imperial first. I think we both agree that this conflict is unproductive and it is best to find a way to end it.

This is the reason I am asking for an agreement that there be no more switching of units for an agreed period of time. Do you have any objection in principle to such an agreement? Michael Glass (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, a moratorium was proposed, you simply have to say yes or no, not waffle on or propose something different. Justin talk 10:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, I proposed a moratorium and Martin agreed to it. It's up to you, Pfainuk and others to agree or disagree. What is your answer? Michael Glass (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you proposed was not a moratorium. The opposite: you proposed that we restart an argument that went on for about three weeks in about four separate forums with no benefit to to the encyclopædia whatsoever, and that we restart it under the guise of a moratorium. I do not accept that that argument needs to be restarted. Pfainuk talk 09:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, what part of the word moratorium don't you understand? I asked that we stop all changing of units in articles for a period of time. Exactly what do you object to in my proposal? Michael Glass (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the word perfectly well. And you can carry on calling it that until you're blue in the face. Fact is, what you proposed is not a moratorium. Your proposal was that we only allow switching of units that you want to switch. Which, as should have been blindingly obvious before you proposed it and even more obvious now, is unacceptable to me. Pfainuk talk 11:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed switching no units, except perhaps the weather units (please note the word perhaps) Also note my reasoning: that such a change had overwhelming support among those who expressed their opinion about it. The proposal has nothing to do with the units that I want to switch. It's about stopping switching of units. I can now see that you are not prepared to agree to such a moratorium. Therefore there is no further point in discussing the matter with you. Michael Glass (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You tried to restart an argument that lasted about three weeks on about four different forums without any benefit to the encyclopædia whatsoever, by proposing the same units be changed again. Your proposed "moratorium" is anything but. And you wonder why I might have a problem with this. Pfainuk talk 08:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, and quite unfair. I tried to find a way of stopping conflict. Please stop this personal attack. Michael Glass (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a personal attack, and I don't think it was unfair. Pfainuk talk 12:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again and for the final time. I did not try to restart an argument. I proposed a moratorium on change. You have said no. Michael Glass (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not a case to put this to arbitration? Martinvl (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In which case can I propose that we start the process of bringing articles to the common standard as we proposed nearly a year ago as it seems two editors are not interested in listening but only to impose metrication by the back door. Justin talk 21:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, please look carefully at the edit I made. The square miles appears first. The coding "disp=output only" means that the converted value (square miles)appears in the text but not in the coding. To make the hectares appear, they have to be added separately.

Farmland accounts for 4,339.73 sq mi (1,123,985 hectares), more than 90% of the Falklands land area.

Therefore, I have respected the moratorium on changing units, as the text remains square miles first. However, I have corrected the figures according to the source, and corrected the proportion of land given over to farming, which works out to about 92 per cent of the total land area of the Falkland Islands. I hope that this allays your concern about my edit. Michael Glass (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I switched it to sqmi/sqkm (as opposed to acres/ha) in the first place was that it makes it easier to compare with the total land area of the islands, and I am glad that you have retained that for square miles in particular (given as the conversion between acres and square miles is non-trivial). I still rather feel that giving the bracketed figure in square kilometres (instead of hectares) would be more convenient for our readers: it's easier to compare 11,200 with 12,200 than it is to compare (1,120,000/100) with 12,200. Pfainuk talk 06:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, in which case I apologise. Justin talk 08:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be over now at any rate. Pfainuk talk 18:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to a moratorium provided that you do, Pfainuk. What I will not agree to is a one-sided moratorium. How about your agreement to quit changing articles? Michael Glass (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, when the dog was asleep, did you not just let it lie? Why did you feel the need to kick it? Why do we have to have the same pointless discussion every three weeks? I seem to have got this about right when I said (above) "you and I both know full well that in three or four weeks you or Martin will bring this up again, almost regardless of what I do and what's agreed here." Turns out it was three weeks. Pfainuk talk 16:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I checked the dates and you made the changes before I had proposed a moratorium. Nevertheless, I do find it annoying that you changed this quite technical article from Metric first to Imperial first. I'll put a comment in the discussion and leave it at that. Michael Glass (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is dispute as to the most appropriate units of measure to use on articles related to the Falkland Islands. Whereas it is generally agreed that (in the absence of evidence of contrary usage), units used on Falklands topics should be the same as those used on UK-related articles, there is no agreement on what this means in practice. Revent proposals are either for units based on common usage in the United Kingdom as per this proposal, which is based on WP:UNITS, or for units based on a strict interpretation of European Union Directive 80/181/EEC. The most significant distinction on Falklands articles is as to whether distances that are not along roads should be measured in miles or kilometres. Pfainuk talk 07:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal noted is based on WP:UNITS as regards UK-related articles. The exceptions listed by the proposal are the same as those listed by WP:UNITS, which is in turn based on the style guide for a major British newspaper. The only part that could be regarded as a deviation is the preference for nautical miles for offshore distances and speeds (where WP:UNITS does not note whether "miles" are statute or nautical). This is appropriate given that those units are generally by mariners, and based on the fact that statute miles are rather less common for those distances.

The rule regarding "significant inconsistency" is likely in practice only to be used when dealing with land areas and coastlines given in the same sentence. It is perhaps fair to suggest that this:

“

East Falkland... has an area of 6,605 square kilometres (2,550 sq mi) and a coastline 1036.9 miles (1668.7 km) long.

”

is significant inconsistency, but I see no significant inconsistency in giving a coastline length in miles and the height of a mountain in metres, as per common British usage. It is appropriate to default to imperial in such circumstances, because - as per the Times style guide on which WP:UNITS is based - square miles remain in fairly common use in the UK. Indeed, this is true of imperial units in most contexts not listed. Under this proposal, it is only those contexts where common usage in the UK is overwhelmingly imperial-first that are listed as imperial-first by default.

I consider the proposal to adopt the EU directive problematic for several reasons, but primarily because it restricts the use of miles to the very narrow context of distances along roads. Miles are overwhelmingly more common in practically all contexts in modern British usage, and thus are fairly clearly the the most appropriate unit of distance in most contexts used on Falklands articles per WP:UNITS. The proposed split between kilometres for crow's-flight distances and miles for road distances has no basis whatsoever in modern British usage and artificially introducing such an inconsistency on Falklands articles seems distinctly illogical. I note that a proposal to change the list of exceptions in WP:UNITS to try and enforce such a split was recently resoundingly rejected at WT:MOSNUM. Pfainuk talk 07:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous problems with non-metric units outside of the US and UK. Among these are

1. Distances over land are measured in statute miles only in the US and UK. The rest of the Commonwealth countries have converted to kilometres. Distances at sea and in the air are normally measured in nautical miles and speeds in knots (nautical miles per hour). For navigation, the nautical mile is far more useful (one nautical mile = one minute of latitude).
2. None of the fluid measures are the same in the imperial and US systems, so you need to clarify which units you are using. For the benefit of US readers, you need to be clear that you are using the imperial pint, gallon, and fluid ounce rather than the US pint, gallon, and fluid ounce, because they are different sizes. However, Americans are quite familiar with the litre (which they spell liter) because many of their beverages are sold in litres and millilitres.
3. If you use the ton, you need to specify whether it is the short ton, long ton, or metric ton (tonne). All three are in common use in international shipping.
4. Very few people outside of the UK understand the stone as a unit of weight. In fact most people outside of the UK do not know that the British use it as a unit of weight.
5. The younger generation in Commonwealth countries outside of the UK are unclear what imperial units really mean, because they are no longer taught in school.

The refusal of the British to fully adopt metric units as part of the EU is something of a problem for us in the rest of the Commonwealth countries, because we have largely converted to metric, and as I said, Imperial units are no longer taught in school. I am in Canada, and one of the reasons Canada converted to metric was the numerous incompatibilities between the British and American units of measure. We often hear US units of measure on TV, but as I said they often are different than the Imperial measures with the same names..RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk's proposal to have a separate rule for Falkland Island articles comes with the following baggage:

• It was presented as a take it or leave it deal after it became obvious that a majority of editors were dissatisfied with an Imperial first rule for all Falkland Island articles.
• When people suggested some modification of this proposal, Pfainuk withdrew it unilaterally.
• He then claimed that the previous "consensus" prevailed, which was an Imperial first rule that had been imposed on the Falkland Islands article and also East Falkland, West Falkland and finally Geology of the Falkland Islands. (At the beginning of last year, the articles, including Falkland Islands were mixed. Some were Imperial first, others were metric first and some were mixed.)
• Pfainuk states that his proposal is a "reasonable compromise", that other proposals amount to 100% metrication of all Falklands articles and that there is nothing further to discuss if it is not accepted in full. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeology_of_the_Falkland_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=364803553&oldid=364799558>
• The proposer has characterised anything but a strict application of this proposed policy as metrication by the back door.

This rigid and uncompromising stand must change if we are to come to any agreement on the articles.

I have the following issues with the proposal as it now stands.

• It means in effect that there would be four different policies for units on Wikipedia: one for most of the world, one for the United States, one for Britain and one for the Falkland Islands!
• The proposed policy is far stricter and much more inflexible than the British policy. Where the British policy says that UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts, the Falkland Islands proposed policy prescribes which units to use and when and where. This is a caricature of the British policy and a straitjacket for editors.
• The proposed policy is a "one size fits all" imposition. If it was flexible, this wouldn't be so bad, but a rigid policy becomes an impediment and a nuisance when applied to technical articles and geographical article stubs, where the source information is all metric.

My own preference is for a policy that generally follows the sources. However, I am willing to compromise on a flexible interpretation of the rules for UK articles. Another possibility might be to apply the proposed policy to the main Falkland Islands article, while letting the other articles follow the sources. Michael Glass (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to have a specific policy for units of measurement for the Falkland Islands? I am not aware of one for Australia, South Africa, Canada, India or for the West Indian islands. How do they manage? They just use the standard WP:MOS. Why can the Falkland Island group not do the same? Why can we not use the same units of measure that appear in the source, and if there is a dispute follow the rules in WP:MOS?

The biggest way in which the Falkland Islands differ from these other territories is that the ownership of the islands is disputed between the United Kingdom and the Argentine. If we are to take this into the equation and we are to follow a WP:NPOV, then we should ensure that there is no British or Argentine bias – in the case of units of measure, this can be achieved by following WP:MOS and disregarding the section that applies to the United Kingdom [and., if it existed, to the Argentine]. Martinvl (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, surely our using the Argentine-preferred units is just as biased as using the British-preferred units?

I see no NPOV problem on the UK-Argentine dispute. The fact of the dispute does not mean that we cannot acknowledge the current British administration of the islands. Hence the use of the British flag and naming, for example. If the islands were administered by Argentina and claimed by the UK, then Argentine-based units should apply. In this case they are British-administered and so units it should be British-based. Pfainuk talk 06:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) When you say "when people suggested some modification of this proposal, Pfainuk withdrew it unilaterally", that's not true. I've discussed and made modifications since then and am open to further changes as needed. But I, like everyone, have my limits. When Martin proposed we eliminate the mile from all but the most limited circumstances, and when you told me I should continue compromising until I reached Martin's fixed position, of course I didn't accept it. And I'm not going to try and force a set of units that has never had consensus. So the previous consensus stood - just as everywhere else. If I was trying prevent any change to consensus, your charge of obstructionism would make sense. As it is, it doesn't.

Now, we barely use any of the "imperial-first" contexts I list other than miles for geographical distances anyway. When I characterise the alternative of ditching that particular measure as "100% metrication in practice" - it would be. Getting rid of every instance of miles - as Martin proposes - is effectively the same as 100% metrication in practice.

I find it interesting that you object to the notion that there may be a separate units policy for the FI and then propose that we do exactly that by repeating the call for source-based units that has repeatedly been rejected at WT:MOSNUM. (I reject the notion that we have three, incidentally: the policy to use the most appropriate units is the same everywhere). I see my proposal as not much more that a restatement of the guideline for UK-related articles. My view is certainly that if there is a good reason to do something that doesn't technically meet the proposal, we should not not consider it just because it doesn't meet the proposal. I'm not proposing a strait-jacket - this should be seen as a default position, not the only possible position allowable. Pfainuk talk 06:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be aware that this discussion has been canvassed to WikiProject:South America and WikiProject:Geology using biased messages in violation of WP:CANVASS rules against campaigning. In one case, this appears to be targeted a specific audience expected to take one side in violation of WP:CANVASS rules against votestacking. Pfainuk talk 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Pfainuk's second last comment (above), I acknowledge that he did modify his proposal in the light of one comment and I accept that there may have been other modifications that I am not aware of. However, when Martinvl and I expressed our different concerns, Pfainuk was not prepared to budge. In fact, in the face of this sticking point he was not even prepared to consider the metrication of the weather data, even though it had overwhelming support. The effect of Pfainuk's proposal (distances must be in miles rather than kilometres) would be to introduce significant and quite unacceptable inconsistencies into several of the geographical stubs on the smaller islands. I therefore welcome this comment: "My view is certainly that if there is a good reason to do something that doesn't technically meet the proposal, we should not not consider it just because it doesn't meet the proposal. I'm not proposing a strait-jacket - this should be seen as a default position, not the only possible position allowable." If this is applied to the smaller articles it certainly will help. Another thing that could help is an acknowledgment that scientific articles - such as the geology articles - are also a special case. However, this would soon become cumbersome and overly bureaucratic where every last article on the Falkland Islands has to conform to the same rigid standard, unless it is granted exemption. In other words, the Falkland articles would be straitjacketed.

I think the problem is trying to set a rigid standard to which all the Falkland Islands articles must conform. A one size fits all policy is too restrictive and unwieldy. Better to trust the editors of each article to come to their own arrangements, and if it is inconsistent, well, too bad. (I know I began last year by mocking the Monty Python variation between different British articles. Now, however, having seen the jackbooted alternative, come back Monty Python. All is forgiven!) Therefore I now think it is better not to set an overall policy beyond what applies to British articles as a whole, and to leave it to the good sense of editors to work out what is most appropriate for each article separately. I also think that such a policy would be more in line with Wikipedia philosophy, which trusts editors to make their own decisions on articles within the overall Wikipedia guidelines.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge Pfainuk's detailed and thoughtful response to my concerns. It gives me hope that we can bring this discussion to a successful and mutually satisfying conclusion. Michael Glass (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment I made earlier this year on this topic (when I thought this had consensus) was that it was always going to be worth considering other matters as well. I've never felt that every single article with our banner on it needs to conform to exactly the same standard - that would be silly. There are articles that are clearly purely FI articles. But there are others that are only tangentially relevant that need not be included. I would have no intention of changing our articles on migratory birds, for example. Another obvious one is Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina): it would clearly be daft to consider that to be a Falklands article for these purposes.

However, I think that it is a good idea to have a basic default standard, to apply in all cases in which there are no special circumstances. This promotes consistency while allowing for differences where circumstances require it: this is, I believe, the reason behind giving suggested units in WP:UNITS. For FI articles, that standard should be based on WP:UNITS as applied to UK-related articles. My proposal expands on WP:UNITS (with nautical miles as I noted above), but I do not believe it goes further than the exceptions listed by WP:UNITS.

I do not see brevity as a special circumstance. I do not see the use of miles for distance as inconsistent with the use of metres for mountain height, any more than it is inconsistent with the use of feet for mountain height. Indeed, for many it's probably easier to work in metres and miles than it is to work in feet and miles (YMMV, but I find dividing by 16 easier than dividing by 53). However, I would not attempt to block the use of feet for land height if it is felt that putting metres and miles close together is inappropriate.

It would be a bit of an about-face on your part, but if it was to get us consensus I would also not attempt to block the use of miles and square kilometres close together. I think it would be significantly inconsistent in most cases, but if it will get us consensus I can live with it.

I'll end with a bit of admin. I would still consider it totally inappropriate to change articles to match a consensus that has not been reached. Obviously, if consensus is reached, then that's moot. I'll add that if we reach consensus here, I think it fair to call for a seven-day waiting period (the same as for AFD and RM, for example). If there is no objection in that period, we should consider ourselves to have a new consensus: this will resolve the issue we had before where a user claimed to maintain a standing and unspoken veto on change. Pfainuk talk 18:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to date has not dealt with the issue of how units of measure would be handled in articles such as Geology of the Falkland Islands. The issue of measurements raised its head there when Pfainuk started imposing the "imperial first" rule on that article, even though it is a scientific article where units of measure are covered by WP:MOSNUM. Would Pfainuk please publish a final text of what he is proposing before the seven-day period starts, or is he expecting the group to hand him a blank cheque? Martinvl (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we manage to get a new consensus then obviously the old consensus will cease to apply. Until we do, it remains in place. I think it's best if we try and get a new consensus.

I believe the discussion has already covered the issue you raise fairly clearly. Though in the article you list, I suggest that it is not difficult for you to look through the article and apply WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to see exactly what effect it would have. In particular, I suggest you go through the article counting all geographical distances; speeds; fuel economies; personal heights and weights; volumes of beer and cider; units in historical contexts and contexts for which imperial units are in more common use internationally. And then come back and tell me which of the zero instances in which imperial units would be put first you are worried about.

That said, obviously, unless WP:FALKLANDSUNITS gets consensus, it cannot be applied to articles. Pfainuk talk 18:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about this as an interim consensus position: We agree that for the purpose of weights and measures we treat the articles as British articles as set out in MOS and MOSNUM, the details to be worked out on an article by article basis. Now the obvious objection to this is that we have different interpretations of that policy and this gives no clear guidance to editors. However, the present situation, where we have been fighting for more than a year over which order to put the unit in is even worse. At this point the difference between us has shrunk to debating what we do about miles and kilometres and square miles and km². Enough already! We have agreed not to change the stubs. We have agreed - or I think we have agreed - that articles about geology and the like should be treated as scientific articles for the purpose of choosing units. We have agreed to metricate the weather data. What I propose is that we agree to those three things straight away, but we also agree that there will be no more changes in the order of of units in articles until 1 September 2010. In September 2010 we can then come back here and discuss any further changes that may be needed at that time. What about it? Michael Glass (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't agreed that stubs don't need changing. For the most part, they do. I do not believe there is a split on square kilometres: provided the distances are in miles, I will not complain if areas are in square kilometres. (I think this would be a bad idea since it's horrendously inconsistent, but I wouldn't actually block it.) However, I see neither reason nor benefit in attempting to create an artificial split in distance measure where none exists in British usage. As per MOSNUM, miles should be used for geographical distances on UK-related articles.

Your proposal? I had taken it as a given that consensus should be based on considering Falklands articles as equivalent to UK articles. Trouble with leaving it there is that all it does is export exactly the same issue dozens of articles. Instead of one discussion we have dozens of individual discussion, a position that I feel is unnecessary.

Now, it has to be said that this would be a whole lot easier if Martin wasn't apparently trying to sabotage this discussion. He knows that randomly adding information that does not just not conform with the current consensus but makes that article more metric than WP:UNITS demands on units about France is very provocative. You complained bitterly about my having made changes in line with consensus two months ago. Perhaps now you could point out how deeply unhelpful Martin's insistence in repeatedly violating both the current consensus and WP:UNITS on Falklands articles - by not just putting metric units but refusing to even accept conversions into imperial units - is. Pfainuk talk 17:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. Back to square one! It would be so much easier if we simply followed the sources and included conversions as per the policy. Michael Glass (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except of course that source-first is not the policy and has never been the policy. On the contrary, your proposals to put it in the MOS have been rejected on WT:MOSNUM more times than I care to count over the course of the last eighteen months. The rule is that we use the units in use locally (which in this case means, as we agree, UK units). There is no reason whatsoever why units on articles related to the Falklands should have such a fundamentally different rule from the rule for articles related to places other than the Falkland Islands, as you propose - particularly when the rule you propose has been rejected at WT:MOSNUM so many times.

I am disappointed that you have apparently backtracked on your comment at WT:MOSNUM that "[w]e need to respect local customs". Artificially creating a split in usage where none exists in local usage is not respecting local customs. Insisting that we have to use a unit that is barely used locally in place of a unit that is used nigh-on universally locally is not respecting local customs.

I don't know what gave you the impression that I had agreed to leave all stubs, when I explicitly said that "I do not see brevity as a special circumstance". There's a good reason for this. Articles are intended to get longer. It seems to me to be perfectly illogical to have a rule that states that articles have to change all their units as soon as they reach a certain length. I see no benefit in such a rule, short the fact that it would speed things up in the short term. I don't mind going through the stubs and doing a fair bit of the leg work if necessary.

As I've said, I'm quite happy to consider any genuinely special circumstances in any article. But if there's no good reason to say that there are special circumstances, then by definition there are no special circumstances. As noted, the fact that the article is a stub is not a good reason. If the source prefers a different unit from the rule then that is not, in and of itself, a good reason. If an article has more to do with Argentina than the FI, then that's a very good reason.

Now, I've been trying not to let Martin's attempts at sabotage succeed. Instead I've been trying to demonstrate good faith by allowing things in the mean time that violate both the existing consensus and WP:UNITS but that may require different changes under a new consensus from those required under the old. Given this, I am disappointed that you apparently feel that provocation is only possible on one side. I am concerned that my attempts to sort this may have been based on an assumption of good faith where good faith did not exist. Please show me that this is not the case. Pfainuk talk 17:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, after reading your long posting carefully I can see that you hold the following beliefs

• You are holding off from converting the stubs as a show of good faith.
• You do not believe that the stubs are a special case.
• You believe that the mile is used virtually universally in the UK while the kilometre is hardly used at all.
• You believe that what you call the old consensus still holds until it is replaced by a new consensus.

In contrast, I hold to these opinions:

• I accept that the mile is virtually universal on UK roads
• I note the evidence that the kilometre is used in other UK contexts. Why would The Economist recommend the kilometre in contexts other than the US? <http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=738514>Why do so many UK websites use kilometres? Like the Envionmental Agency (see the third page) <http://www.seered.co.uk/shrewsburyfloods.pdf> or this <http://www.londontoolkit.com/whattodo/windsor_walk_4.htm> or this <http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/recreation/boating/31577.aspx>? I might be mistaken but I don't think the use of kilometres in the UK is as rare as you make out.

I'd go on but you have heard it all before from me. So I'll leave it at that. Michael Glass (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words you've decided, based essentially entirely on your own original research, that the British genuinely do put miles on the road signs with the sole intention of irritating foreigners. You're telling me that every uninvolved party who has commented on the use of miles in the UK is wrong. You're ignoring the very clear consensus at WT:MOSNUM that came up against this when you tried to change the word "distances" to "road distances".

And the kicker? You reject all of this, arguing based on nothing but your own feelings that the British put up with the most absurd mess in dealing with the same unit in the same context. Do you genuinely think that we all switch units based on whether the distance happens to be along a road or based on crow's flight? Do you not think that it is fundamentally useful to be able to compare the two? Maybe you also think that we switch from miles to kilometres every third Thursday when there's an 'r' in the month? Or that we use miles when it's sunny and kilometres when it's raining? That makes about as much sense as what you're arguing.

I'm afraid there is no way that I can possibly accept the notion that you genuinely believe this in good faith because it is so plainly ridiculous. Do you really want the imperial-first consensus to remain that much that you are prepared to block consensus to change it based on nothing but your own decision that your manifestly absurd position is right? Pfainuk talk 15:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, I hope that you have calmed down enough to listen to reason.

• What is original research about noting that the Environmental Authority uses kilometres?
• Where in the world did you get the idea about irritating foreigners? It certainly isn't my idea!
• What makes you think that I think that Britishers switch from miles to km and back again willy-nilly?
• I have agreed that the British do use miles for roads. That is common knowledge and easily verified. However, it is equally verifiable that they also use kilometres in some contexts.
• Of course I want an agreement, but we can't have one without some flexibility. Michael Glass (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I suggest that you think British people switch between miles and kilometres willy-nilly? Given as your argument is entirely based around the notion that British people switch between miles and kilometres willy-nilly, it's either that or you're being obstructionist. If you don't think that British people switch between miles and kilometres willy-nilly then perhaps it would be a good idea to stop arguing that they do.

Speculation as to the standard unit choices of a country based on the unit choices of some website you found is original research. Government websites and publications in the UK (and US) have always gone further to the metric side than actual local usage. This is entirely to be expected and doesn't actually tell you anything at all. Given as we aren't part of the British government, we don't have to follow them. Our style guide tells us to use local usage. That means miles for all distances, be they along roads or not.

You seem to be using "flexibility" as a euphemism for letting you use whatever units you want. Unacceptable. Flexibility is a good thing, but it does not give you permission to push 100% metrication by the back door, and does not give you permission to try and force us to adopt a system that has been rejected dozens and dozens of times at WT:MOSNUM. Pfainuk talk 08:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are writing as if it was the British Government against the British people. It is not speculation to point out that some British Government websites use kilometres, it is evidence of usage. MOSNUM has a specific clause about science related articles, so this is one exception to a rigid application of a "miles only" policy. MOSNUM only uses the word may about using miles, not must so there is no need to impose miles in every instance. Finally, when it comes to usage, different British style guides give somewhat different rulings, so there's no need to banish the kilometre as if it was some foreign interloper. Michael Glass (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are also going to go through US-related articles insisting that they all switch their square miles to square kilometres based on CIA usage? It is a fact that government usage does not necessarily reflect local usage in the UK and US. And you didn't suggest that "some British Government websites use kilometres". You found a government website and announced that all British people by definition use the units used therein.

Nobody has said that there is no room for flexibility where there is good reason for some other system to be in use. But that still doesn't give you licence to push 100% metrication by the back door. The fact that a source might use a unit is most certainly not a good reason to announce that we do. Particularly when that source isn't even relevant to the subject at hand, as you seem to be calling for now.

It seems clear at this stage, however, that you are unwilling even to consider the possibility that the many people who have pointed out that the British genuinely do use miles for distances other than road distance are not all lying. That, despite the clear implausibility of it and the aforementioned people, you will continue to insist that the British randomly switch units depending on whether a distance happens to be along a road or not. Given this assumption on your part, it seems clear that consensus is impossible. I didn't have you down as someone who prefers the imperial-first consensus to anything else, but given your clear obstructionism I must conclude that this is the case. Pfainuk talk 10:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNINDENT

This is not a case of Pfainuk against the rest, there are several editors who happen to agree with him. Unfortunately they've been put off by a dialogue of the deaf and among one of the lamest content disputes ever; I'm simply no longer interested in a dialogue with people who never listen. This started months ago with a suggestion to improve the quality of Falklands articles by adopting a common policy on units based on local usage and in line with WP:MOSNUM. Unfortunately that proposal was hijacked by editors on a crusade to metricate wikipedia. An RFC is supposed to allow outside comment, it isn't there to bicker incessantly and deter outside comments. I think the time has come to simply invoke Pfainuk's guidelines and press on, the other editors will never agree unless they get their way. And their way violates WP:MOSNUM. To be blunt if you want wikipedia to become metric convince people to accept a policy change, pending that don't hijack our drive to improve articles in our area of interest. Justin talk 22:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think following the local sources has the advantage of reflecting local usage. I agree that this is not always the case, as with the CIA using metric measures. Nevertheless, when both measurements are supplied it is helpful to have a general rule to put the source measurement first. This is not a matter of forcing metrication by the back door. I do agree that the British use miles, but they also use kilometres on occasion, too. Nevertheless, I do agree that this conversation has gone on too long, and there appears to be no chance of any agreement. Michael Glass (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again "source" based unit order means that we can have the ridiculous situation of switching units in a single sentence. Its not a policy that found consensus at WP:MOSNUM and won't find it here either. I don't know how many times we have to point out this blindingly obvious point but it seems you're simply not prepared to listen. Justin talk 12:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source-first rule to which you constantly refer has consistently failed to get consensus at WT:MOSNUM. I reject your notion that we should make the Falklands a permanent exception to the general rule that we base our units on local usage.

I find it interesting that you now seem to accept that miles are, generally speaking, the unit used for distances in the UK, regardless of whether they are along roads or not. Given that this is what we should be basing our units on per WP:UNITS, I believe it is clear that your position that we should adopt kilometres against local usage and thus against WP:UNITS is unsustainable. Pfainuk talk 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments of 05:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC) have not yet been addressed, or is it proposed that teh text be adopted as it stands? Martinvl (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current proposal is that WP:FALKLANDUNITS be adopted, one could infer that since no one has objected for nearly a month that is accepted as a consensus. Given the reams of comments that followed you comments clearly were adressed. Justin talk 08:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that there should be any difference in the way units are presented in Falklands articles than any other British articles. There is no evidence that applying a source based approach to deciding units would cause problems. Asserting that it would cause problems without evidence is empty rhetoric. Nor is there any evidence that the occasional use of kilometres would be contrary to British usage or local usage. On the contrary, applying a rigid "miles first" policy would be against both the sources and against British usage. Finally, silence does not imply consent. Still less does it imply consensus. Michael Glass (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that there should be any difference in the way units are presented in Falklands articles than any other British articles. Either you are advocating the use of source-based units, a system repeatedly rejected at WP:MOSNUM as a poor reflection of local usage, or you're advocating that we use local usage as per British-related articles. You can't be advocating both because they contradict one another.

On past arguments, you're not arguing for "the occasional use of kilometres". You're arguing for the use of kilometres in practically all circumstances even though you accept that miles are in common use in the UK. As I've made clear, I'm perfectly willing to accept the use of units that do not strictly comply with WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - if there is a good reason for it. But this bizarre contradictory notion that you adopt UK usage by accepting units that are not in common usage in the UK is plainly ridiculous.

The Falklands should not become a permanent exception to the general rule that we adopt local usage for units on our articles. Local usage means using miles for distances. If there's a good reason to use some other unit then we should of course consider it. But if there is no good reason then it should be miles. Pfainuk talk 06:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth adding that silence does imply consent and always has implied consent. You can't continually maintain a silent veto on all change. And the fact that people who have not commented may or may not agree with something cannot block consensus. Pfainuk talk 06:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again you have stated that following the sources would cause problems. No evidence is supplied.
• Once again you have stated that I want to force a kilometres only policy in the Falkland Islands. No evidence is supplied.
• Now here are some facts to counter and correct your empty rhetoric.

I am happy to use miles when the sources use miles and kilometres when the sources put kilometres first. I am not arguing for the use of kilometres in practically all circumstances. I am only arguing for putting kilometres first when local sources use kilometres. Thus, when a British source says that the distance from Stanley to Mount Pleasant is 35 miles. [33] then that's no problem. Similarly, when local information gives distances in kilometres, as with [34] I see no problem in giving the distances with the kilometres first.

I hope that this clarification will put an end to your straw man arguments. Michael Glass (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're still not just pushing for us to ignore WP:MOSNUM, but pushing for a position that has been rejected literally dozens of times at WT:MOSNUM. Your argument is that the Falklands must be a permanent exception to our guidelines on units - that where every other place in the world bases units on local usage, the Falklands may not do so but must instead use whatever units Michael Glass wants, based on the sources he's chosen specifically because of the units they use. Yes, this is unacceptable. Of course it is unacceptable. The notion that it might possibly be acceptable, given everything else we've seen here is plainly absurd.

I never had you down as someone who preferred the imperial-first consensus. But you continue to try and force sets of units that you know are never going to get consensus on us. It seems more and more likely that you don't want a new consensus and want instead for the existing imperial-first consensus to continue. Can I take this as a reaffirmation of that consensus? Pfainuk talk 08:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again: a haystack full of straw man arguments.

• Pushing to ignore MOSNUM.

On the contrary, I am pushing you to follow MOSNUM which says,

• UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts. Note the wording, please. Note that the wording uses may. Note that the wording does not use must.

• 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 round brackets. Note the wording, please.

• Pushing for a position that has been rejected at MOSNUM

A second piece of nonsense. I am pushing you to follow MOSNUM.

• Arguing that Falklands must be a permanent exception to the guidelines on units

A third piece of nonsense. I am arguing that the Falklands articles should be follow the rules that are already set down for UK articles.

• Picking sources because of the units they use.

Another straw man argument. No evidence is produced to back up this accusation. If you think I have cherry-picked sources, then find better ones, and I will gladly follow a better source. However, what you do is accept the sources that I and others provide but reverse the order of the units, again and again and again.

• Pushing for the imperial only consensus to continue.

This is the most fanciful accusation of all. What I want is for Falklands articles to do is to follow MOSNUM and not some Imperial first nonsense that is not even British practice. Michael Glass (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except of course every single one of your arguments is bullshit. A mixture of wikilawyering and plain lies.

"Pushing for a position that has been rejected at MOSNUM"? Yes it has been rejected at MOSNUM. It's been rejected at MOSNUM so many times that I don't feel the need to go back and count them all. It's not just a couple of times that you've brought this up at MOSNUM and it's been rejected. You've tried to push this position every three to four weeks for over fifteen months. And it has been rejected every single time.

Can I accept that you don't know this in good faith? No, of course I can't. The only scenario in which your comments can be taken as being in good faith are if we assume you have a sever case of amnesia. Which I do not believe for a moment. So, Michael, I suggest you stop lying.

You continue to argue that while everywhere in the world can use local units, the Falklands which have to use whatever units are used by sources, regardless of whether they are the units in use locally or not. Despite the fact that that position has been rejected dozens of times at MOSNUM. You're arguing, in other words, that the Falklands must be a permanent exception to MOSNUM. If you don't like the fact that you are arguing this, then stop arguing it. Pfainuk talk 11:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the best that you can do then you are not worth corresponding with. Please take the following steps:

• Learn to correspond without resorting to gutter language.
• Read MOSNUM, including the parts I have quoted. Quoting the parts of MOSNUM that you don't like is not wikilawyering.
• Instead of accusing me of lying, stop inventing straw man arguments that turn my position into lies.

Finally, I suggest you take a break so that you can calm down and recover your composure. Michael Glass (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the fact that the position you're arguing for has been repeatedly rejected at MOSNUM as "nonsense" is a lie. You know it's a lie, I know it's a lie. We all know it's a lie. I suggest that if you don't like being accused of lying, perhaps you should stop doing it. Pfainuk talk 11:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wake up, Pfainuk. You are discussing words that have been rejected; I have quoted the words that are in the policy. You don't address the points I am arguing because you are too busy responding to the straw men of your own imagination. Please take time to read what I have proposed instead of resorting to instant replies that reveal your lack of manners and your failure to address what I have actually proposed. Be warned, your present course of action is not wise. Michael Glass (talk)

I have addressed what you're proposing. You're proposing, for the umpteenth time, that we adopt a hodgepodge of units that has been rejected by MOSNUM every one of the dozens of times you have proposed it there. You announce that the dozens of discussions in which it has been rejected never happened - despite the fact that you initiated those discussions and took full part in them. You selectively quote MOSNUM in an attempt to put the letter of the rule over the spirit of the rule: in other words, you are Wikilawyering.

You cannot expect other users to pretend that what you're proposing is fresh and new when it has been proposed and rejected dozens of times before both here and at MOSNUM. You cannot pretend that MOSNUM supports your system when it has been rejected there dozens of times before. And you cannot expect other editors to pretend that trying to take the letter of the rule to overcome the spirit of the rule is not Wikilawyering.

You cry "straw man! straw man!" but none of my arguments are straw men. In fact, your own announcement that all my arguments are straw men is itself a straw man.

If you and Martin would accept MOSNUM then we wouldn't be here. We'd have sorted this out long ago. The reason we're still discussing this is because you won't accept MOSNUM as a basis for units here. And in this discussion you continue to insist on non-MOSNUM-compliant units. Unless you're willing to accept MOSNUM - all of it, including miles for distances on UK-related articles - then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Pfainuk talk 12:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, I do accept MOSNUM. What I do not accept are your bad manners, insulting language and accusations of bad faith. There are differences in our interpretation of the policy, and that is about whether miles may be used (MOSNUM's wording) or must be used (your interpretation of the policy). But let us step back from our differences. Several Falkland Island articles do not conform to MOSNUM policy because they put Imperial units first when British usage or technical and scientific usage favours the metric system. I propose that we concentrate on the areas of agreement and leave the areas of disagreement as they are. This is a way that we can agree rather than disagree. Of course, this presumes that you are genuine in your proposal to bring the Falkland Islands articles into llne with your interpretation of MOSNUM policy, and I will be interested to read your reply. Michael Glass (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that we should start changing units even though we have no consensus on any system to convert them to? We've been through this one before. Again, we've been through it several times before. As per standard procedure on Wikipedia, once we get consensus on a change to articles, then we change articles. And not before. Pfainuk talk 06:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I should add, I've never argued that miles have to be used: just that, as per local usage, they should be the default that we should have a good reason if we want to deviate from it. And I don't accept Michael Glass's mood as a good reason as you seem to be demanding. Pfainuk talk 06:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, if you insist that we have to agree on everything before we change anything, then your proposal on Falkland Islands units is a ruse, a tactic to achieve an Imperial first policy in all Falkland Island articles. If that is your game, then please be upfront about it.

If, however, your proposal on Falkland Islands units is on the level, and you mean what you proposed, then we may be able to work out a way forward.

What is your response? Michael Glass (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The supposition that my position is some kind of ruse is difficult to support given known evidence. My proposal, that we use WP:FALKLANDSUNITS as default, ignoring it where there is a genuinely good reason to do so, stands. But I am not going to accept your whims as a good reason not to follow it.

If and when we get a consensus on what units to change to, we can change. But I won't accept this bizarre notion that, in the absence of consensus for any particular change, we should instead start changing units without consensus. Pfainuk talk 06:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, your actions speak louder than your words. On 25 February 2010 you reversed the order of units on the West Falklands article [35]. On 5 June 2010 you reversed the order of units in the Economy of the Falklands Islands article [36]. It seems you are more interested in making articles Imperial first than working out a way forward.

I present you with something to demonstrate that your proposal is not a ruse: agree to change the weather data in the Falkland Islands article. Failing that, agree to put it to the vote once again.

We both know that this change had overwhelming support. We both know that this change is in accordance with British practice. We both know that this change is in accordance with the source, the BBC. Will you demonstrate good faith by agreeing to this change or, failing that, agree to check if this change still have overwhelming support? Michael Glass (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it did not Michael and stop this kind of confrontational nonsense; challenge? Whats next, the velvet glove across the face and pistols at 20 paces? The only thing stopping progress is your pig-headed insistence we have to metricate everything in complete disregard of WP:MOSNUM and local usage. The blatant bad faith accusation should stop now. Justin talk 09:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, a request to demonstrate good faith is not an accusation of bad faith. The question was addressed to Pfainuk, not to you. The proposal was to metricate the weather data, not to metricate everything. Misrepresenting my proposal is not helpful, so please stop. Michael Glass (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And round and round and round and round and round this goes. Always the same thing over and over again. I maintain my position: once we get consensus to change units, we change units. Not before. As per standard practice on Wikipedia.

Why is it, in your view, that it is always me that has to demonstrate good faith? Why do you, the person who has spent sixteen months trying to metricate these articles by fair means or foul, who has not made any significant compromise whatsoever in this matter, do not feel that you need to demonstrate some good faith? It seems clear to me that this is the one-sided haggling again. You're expecting me to haggle myself down to your position while you do not move one iota. That's not acceptable to me. Pfainuk talk 16:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, I just asked for one change and one change only: changing the weather data in line with the policy that you proposed. I'm not asking at this point for any further changes. Are you or are you not prepared to agree to this change? Michael Glass (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it, in your view, that it is always me that has to demonstrate good faith? Why do you, the person who has spent sixteen months trying to metricate these articles by fair means or foul, who has not made any significant compromise whatsoever in this matter, do not feel that you need to demonstrate some good faith? It seems clear to me that this is the one-sided haggling again. You're expecting me to haggle myself down to your position while you do not move one iota. That's not acceptable to me. Pfainuk talk 06:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are not prepared to move, even on the weather data demonstrates to me that you had no intention all along of making any concessions whatsoever. You know you are misrepresenting my request. I am asking for just one change at this point, and that is to change the weather data. As you won't agree even to this, even though it is less than what you yourself proposed, then I can't believe that you are genuine in the proposal that you made. I don't trust your word any more.Michael Glass (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I am misrepresenting your request. You demanded something for nothing and then tried and represent the nothing as a "gigantic concession". You don't need to assume what I'll do if we get consensus: you've seen it. If we're going to get consensus you're going to have to make some kind of compromise. If you're not willing to compromise, then please stop continually reopening this discussion. Pfainuk talk 08:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, considering your previous dishonesty on this page, I'd not go around throwing bricks from inside your greenhouse. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been dishonest. I find this comment puzzling and hurtful. I was suggesting the possibility of getting the Falkland Island articles more in line with modern British practice by moving step by step. However, as this has been spun as demanding something for nothing, further discussion appears to be pointless. Michael Glass (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't what you've suggested. "further discussion appears to be pointless" for about 3-4 weeks, anyone give me odds? Justin talk 07:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, this page is, unfortunately, on my watchlist, but I try to stay out of the circle-treading as much as possible. I do believe that Michael has been perfectly honest in his dealings here. Please assume good faith and avoid accusations that breach wp:civil. A strike-through of the accusation is in order, IMO. Tony (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I struck through the lot, even though I'm not entirely sure what you have a problem with, but tell me, if Michael were to suggest "source based units" in 3-4 weeks time, will you be warning him about tendentious conduct? Justin talk 10:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you have on at least one occasion said 'I'll leave it be' and then rather quickly come back to it. Sorry, but that along with other things means your attempts to accuse Pfain of not being genuine smack of hypocrisy and just fail to ring true. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narson, I do try to stay out of it, and not reply to comments such as the one that Justin, to his credit, just struck out. However, someone will then say or do something that I really feel is wrong or provocative. What do you do when you try your best to effect change, give up, and then someone else tries to do the same thing? Do you sit on the sideline and say nothing or lend a hand? What do you do when someone denies you said something that you clearly said four times in the previous couple of days? Do I let this nonsense stand or try to correct the record? If I do, people complain that I go on too much; if I don't, nonsense may have the last word. Michael Glass (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin was right. Even now, you don't seem to recognise that there is a problem with coming back to the same page, over and over and over, to demand the same thing, over and over and over. There is. It's annoying and it prevents us all from doing what we're here to do: actually write the encyclopædia.

We've been through all of this. Now, I know you're probably not going to listen to me, but I'll say it anyway. What it looks like from here is that you're trying to get concession after concession out of me without ever conceding anything yourself. At best, you're only prolonging the inevitable. Whatever the intention, given all the history, that's what it looks like.

You want me to believe that you're seriously interested in getting consensus? You're going to need to make some actually meaningful concession on the final outcome. Others have made concessions in an attempt to get a final consensus here. Nobody is arguing for imperial-first units any more, despite it being the first preference for some. Now it's your turn. Will you allow us to get on with actually writing the encyclopædia? Or are you just going to keep calling for source-based units every three weeks for another sixteen months while the imperial-first rule remains. Pfainuk talk 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, as you have asked me questions, I will answer them. (Apologies to Narson, but I'll be as brief as I can.)

• Justin was wrong. I asked for a change in the weather data whereas he claimed that I was asking once again for source-based units. I am glad that Justin struck these comments out.
• Your charge that I am trying to get concession after concession out of you is also wrong. I was trying to find a way round our differences by suggesting a step by step way to bring the Falkland Island articles into line with British usage. In this way we could work on the areas where there is no difference between our positions.
• You claim that no-one is arguing for Imperial-first but that is the way that you have been editing articles. Actions speak louder than words. Your refusal to consider changing the weather data, or even to find out if this move still had support does not make your claim credible.
• You talk about concessions that you want me to make. I have offered to work on the things where we don't disagree. That's a concession. I have suggested that we change the weather data. That's a concession. I have suggested that we take a step by step approach to change. That's also a concession. None of these proposals touch the sticking points about when and where to use miles, so none of these proposals ask you to make any more concession than you have already made.
• You talk about an imperial-first rule. This rule is contrary to MOS, contrary to MOSNUM, contrary to the Times Style Guide, contrary to the majority of editors who have voiced an opinion on this matter, contrary to almost all the sources that are quoted and contrary to the history of several of the articles that have been changed to conform to this rule.
• Sorry about the repetition, but I want to see these articles conform to MOSNUM. Michael Glass (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth bloody time, MOS IS A GUIDELINE --Narson ~ Talk • 12:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind User:Narson that guidelines should be followed unless there is good case not to do so. As an example, a few weeks ago I modified the Motorways article to handle mph and km/h in a manner that is different to the one envisaged by WP:MOSNUM - nobody complained - I had followed the spirit but not the letter of the guidelines.

The Highway Code is a real-life case (in the United Kingdom) where guidelines do not constitute the law, but breaching them can land you in trouble. Maybe we should treat MOS and MOSNUM in the same way as we treat the Highway Code. Martinvl (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And when we get consensus on a set of units, then we can follow it more closely. Until that time, the existing set of units stands as the last position to gain consensus - a position, I might add, that was in line with MOSNUM's then-current one-or-the-other rule at the time that it was adopted. MOSNUM changed, but we've never since got consensus on what to change to.

As to the Michael's points, it's like he's never even bothered to read what I've said to him. I believe that I've made my position perfectly plain: that I am willing to consider changing units as part of a stable new consensus but am not willing to accept changes without consensus. You don't need to have faith in my willingness to change articles in line with a consensus: I've already demonstrated that willingness. All of this has been misrepresented by Michael so many times (including in that last message) that I wonder if he's actually starting to believe his own spin.

As to your role in all this, I believe it's fair to say that it has been distinctly unhelpful. Your attempts to force through metrication either on technicalities of the wording of guidelines, or by changing the rules to make life awkward for people, or by other means that all fall under the banner of Wikilawyering, have had zero benefit to the encyclopædia and have served only to make this dispute quite a lot more acrimonious than it needs to be. All in all, they have made a long term stable consensus quite significantly more difficult to attain, and I would ask you to please stop doing it. Pfainuk talk 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, I do understand that you are stating that you won't change articles until we have consensus on all points. You have also stated that the same rules should apply to all articles, though you have conceded that they need not apply rigidly. As we all know, this has ended in disagreement, and there appears to be no way of resolving our differences at this point.

I believe that we need to work out where we have consensus and the areas where we disagree. Then I propose that we agree to work on changing the areas where we have consensus, and leave aside the areas where we disagree. In proposing a step by step approach to change I am putting forward a way of working that will help us get the articles more in line with MOSNUM without making concessions until we have changed the units where we have consensus.

As far as I can see, the only substantial difference between your proposal and Martin's proposal is that you want to put miles and square miles first unless there is a very good reason to reverse the order while Martin is prepared to use miles first for road distances only. There has been dispute over technical articles, but I believe that MOSNUM is clear that usage here should follow the industry or scientific standards that apply. That standard should therefore apply to technical and scientific articles. In all, there is a lot that we can work on without touching the areas where we disagree, so why not work on the areas where we have consensus? Michael Glass (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that it was claimed I accused Michael of pushing source based units again, well on 1st, 4th and the 27th when the discussion restarted, thats exactly what you did. Not to mention the "challenge" to another editor to "prove" they were prepared to compromise. There is a proposal on the table its WP:FALKLANDUNITS and you appear to want to go back to square one yet again and to discuss each and every usage of units. Whats plain is discussions are hamstrung by a refusal to compromise, whilst accusing others of the same conduct. I really do think this has gone past the point where you can reasonably think that you're ever going to be prepared to enter into a reasonable discussion. I gave up on my little project months ago as it was clear it would never be allowed to go anywhere, that was about improving articles. There is too much energy wasted in a fruitless discussion and to be honest it appears to be nothing more than filibustering to wear people down into agreeing to metrication. I really do think this needs to be a user conduct issue now. Justin talk 12:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, Michael does not appear to me to be going "back to square one"; he appears to be moving the project forward in this area, something we are all looking forward to. Tony (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is going back to square one. Continually back to square one. Back to square one over and over again. Every three to four weeks, exactly the same argument, over and over. If you think he's been moving the project forward, you've obviously been reading a completely different discussion. Pfainuk talk 17:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, which discussion are you reading and please explain to me, how going through each and every unit isn't going back to square one? We have a proposal on the table, one for which we had a consensus on moving forward, we restarted the project to bring the articles to a consistent standard and then he objected after saying nothing for a month. Its the same thing again and again, 100% metrication and ignore local usage because he thinks wikipedia should be metric or grudgingly accept that the British use miles on roads but claim they don't use miles for anything else - being British I might know something on that subject. This isn't about improving the articles at all. If it were he wouldn't have obstructed a small project for something like 16 months coming back again and again with the same suggestion, with it being rejected each and every time and its not like this behaviour isn't unknown at WT:MOSNUM. If I sound irritable, its because I like others joined the project to write articles not to see them held hostage by one editor obstructing a group moving forward. Justin talk 18:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be aware that Michael has initiated discussion at the talk page of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. I have suggested that further discussion remain here for simplicity. Pfainuk talk 17:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting discussions elsewhere is disruptive behaviour, really this has gone on for far too long. Does no one else think this is a user conduct issue. Justin talk 18:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. WP:IDHT and WP:WIKILAWYER would both seem pretty clearly to apply. Pfainuk talk 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk and Justin. If you wish to have the discussion here that's fine by me. I have noted your request, the fact that you assume bad faith on my part and the hostile way that you both express yourself. Nevertheless, I will try to treat you with every politeness, even if it is not returned. Michael Glass (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about WP:IDHT and WP:WIKILAWYER is not an assumption of bad faith. We don't need to assume, we have over a year of experience of both. Pfainuk talk 07:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I regard the above comment as another example of unwarranted hostility. I, too, have experienced your behaviour for over a year, and though we have differences, I try to treat you as politely as possible. Please refrain from ad hominem comments and stick to the issues. Michael Glass (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is still not an ad hominem comment. That you have tried repeatedly to put the letter of the rule above the spirit of the rule is not in question and is not an ad hominem comment. That you have "perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input" is not in question and is not an ad hominem comment. Sixteen months of exactly the same argument. Again. And again. And again. And again.

It's not my fault that you've been Wikilawyering. If you didn't want to be told you are Wikilawyering, why have you tried continually to put the letter of rules before their spirit? You haven't just done that once or twice: you've done it continually. If you didn't want to be accused of WP:IDHT-style tactics, then why have you disrupted this project by bringing up the same arguments, repeating the same points, over and over and over, for months and years on end, even though they have been repeatedly and continually rejected both here and at the guideline concerned.

It is not a personal attack to take notice when editors' behaviour falls short of reasonable standards. The fact is that in continually repeating the same points after they have been rejected so many times, you disrupt this project. Article development has ground to a halt largely because of this dispute. Editors are becoming increasingly disaffected with the entire project. The mere fact of your continually bringing this up is strongly detrimental to our coverage of the Falklands on Wikipedia. By perpetuating this dispute, by restarting this discussion every 3-4 weeks for last sixteen months you, Michael, have damaged the encyclopædia's coverage of Falklands topics in a way that is far worse than common vandalism. Your behaviour is disruptive in the extreme and should be stopped for the good of the encyclopædia. Pfainuk talk 09:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am glad to read something from you that is not obviously written in haste. Your charge that I have put the letter of MOSNUM above its spirit is an interpretation that ignores this clause: "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 round brackets." Call it wikilawyering to refer to this clause if you will, but ignoring this clause strikes me as wikilawyering, too. However, I want you to note that though I have drawn your attention to this clause, I have at all times strived to reach an agreement with you.

You say I have been arguing the same thing for 16 months. This ignores the fact that I have modified my views in the light of more information and I have changed my requests in an attempt to reach some accommodation with you. I, too am heartily sick of this controversy and would like to reach some agreement with you. Perhaps it would help if I restated what I feel would be a good thing for the Falklands articles.

• I would accept Martin's compromise proposal.
• I would not contest your proposal if you were to be more flexible in its application or if you were prepared to make some adjustments to ensure that your rules were not used to demetricate technical and scientific articles, and put a wrecking ball through the consistent presentation of units in the stubs.
• If it is impossible for us to agree on every point, then it would be better to change the units where we have no disagreement and leave the others as they are.

What I am asking you to do is to look at these three proposals once again. I know you reject Martin's proposal. I know that you have rejected any meaningful compromise on your proposal so far. However, I can't see for the life of me why you can't work with the third proposal. It gives you everything you want in the major articles, it leaves the stubs as they are, and the only substantial change would be in the scientific and technical articles, where the only thing that would be changed is that the presentation of units would be brought into line with MOSNUM policy.

You say the controversy is damaging. You have asked me to make a meaningful compromise. There it is. The next move is up to you. Michael Glass (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the proposal in which Martin tried to represent 100% metrication as a "compromise". The insistence on your and Martin's part that the British switch units willy-nilly based on nothing but your own suppositions. No, that's not a compromise at all.

Your second proposal - let's remember once more that I am perfectly willing to accept units that go against my proposal if there's good reason for them. I'm also perfectly willing to accept that where WP:MOSNUM overrides the rule to put the "most appropriate units", we should do so. What I am not willing to accept is a wording that is so flexible as to undermine the existence of the exceptions to enforce 100% metric-first - which, given your previous reliance on the word "may" in your attempts to force through metric usage against local usage, appears to be what you mean by "flexibility" here.

I'm not willing to accept that scientific and technical contexts should be 100% metric when so much science and technology is done (or has historically been done) in non-metric units. But perhaps you could give me an example of a scientific or technical context on a Falklands article in which you feel that the rules already proposed would give the "wrong" outcome? Perhaps it's the rate of extraction from the beerwells in the waters around the Falklands?

You remove the rule that says we should follow MOSNUM's lead when it overrides the "most appropriate unit" rule and then complain about this one specific case. Do you not think that nominal or defined units should put the unit that is nominal or defined first? Apparently not. Where MOSNUM overrides the "most appropriate unit" rule, we should. But we shouldn't create additional situations where MOSNUM does not.

Fact is, your first two demands amount to the same thing. You propose in both cases that we allow imperial units in theory but have full metrication in practice. One would have thought that over the last year and more you'd have worked out that this is not going to be acceptable to me, but apparently not.

Your third proposal amounts to extending this debate effectively indefinitely. You have caused far too much disruption by continually bringing up the same points over and over again already. I do not accept your proposal that we allow you to continue to bring this up every three to four weeks. This needs to end here and it needs to end now. You need to come up with a meaningful compromise that does not mean 100% metrication in practice. You're going to need to give up these tricks, these openings that you demand to try and force metrication through by the back door. Other people have already made significant and meaningful compromises. Your turn. Pfainuk talk 10:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk,

• You are misrepresenting my position with your mantra that I'm trying to metricate everything. Please stop.
• You are misrepresenting my position to describe my proposals as demands. This is not fair.
• You are misrepresenting my position to describe my third proposal as extending debate. It is an attempt to stop debating by agreeing to disagree on several points, and changing the things that we agree on.
• I am not trying to introduce metrication by the back door; I am trying to come to some agreement with you.

I said above that I would not contest your proposal if it applied to the main articles, even though several of them were demetricated by you and Justin in the last year. However, the stubs and the technical and scientific articles are a different matter. In the matter of technical and scientific articles all I am asking that MOSNUM policy be applied, and as you know that is not a totally metric prescription. In the case of the stubs, much of the information came from a scientific source and is presented in metric units. I believe that they are better left alone, and there is nothing in MOSNUM to say that they must be changed. However, the totally Imperial articles are out of line with MOSNUM and should be changed in line with MOSNUM. Please note that I specifically stated that the articles should be changed in line with MOSNUM. Please stop referring to this as a demand to totally metricate everything. It is not and I think you know it. Michael Glass (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought it might be like this. You're trying to claim that a source is inherently "scientific" and so the text must remain metric in spite of local usage and the fact that the information being used cannot reasonably be described as particularly scientific or technical. Why can we not see an end to this kind of trickery? You cannot reasonably expect us to accept your proposals at face value while you persist in trying to push this kind of thing through under the radar.

You say your proposal is not a proposal to extend this. Last time we left it there, and every other time we've left it there, the peace has lasted maybe three, maybe even four weeks before you've come back demanding metrication again. And so we both know that, while you might say this now, you will still be right back here demanding something else in three or four weeks' time. And three or four weeks after that. And three or four weeks after that. Not acceptable. The paralysis caused by your little filibuster has gone on long enough. It must end here.

The reason I describe this as a demand to metricate everything is because that's what it is. As I've said many times now, I have no problem with ignoring the rules set out if there is a good reason to do so. But what you've announced you want is to be able to ignore those rules even when there is no good reason to do so. To act as though the rule doesn't even exist. How can I possibly accept this from an editor with such a long and continuing record of attempted trickery and Wikilawyering? I can't, obviously.

Martin's "compromise" was for 100% metrication in practice. You're now calling for 100% metrication in practice. You say it's in line with MOSNUM. It is not in line with the spirit of MOSNUM, as you well know, to insist on using one set of units where another is clearly preferred locally - which is exactly what you are pushing for. Pfainuk talk 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are using me as an excuse for keeping the articles imperial first instead of following UK usage. You say I'm the cause of your filibuster? OK. I'll take you at your word. If you can reach consensus with other editors with your proposal, I won't contest it. Michael Glass (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martinvl has proposed that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS be merged into WP:MOSNUM. All editors are invited to contribute. Pfainuk talk 20:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, Justin and Pfainuk have asked that changes in the wording of the draft policy on Falklands Units be discussed here. Here, then, is the entire discussion, transferred from

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As you object to the discussion taking place on the discussion page of the project page, I will transfer the entire 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) 04:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, I note that you have made a several points about wording of the draft policy. Here is my reply to the points you have made.

• Your first point is unclear. It might help if you restated it with examples.
• Your second point strikes me as a concern about the meaning of significant inconsistency in practice. This, I imagine, would be decided by the editors. If they are satisfied that the inconsistency is not significant then the text would stand; if they agree it is a significant inconsistency, then the text should be changed to make it consistent. In my opinion this should mean that the metric system should come first. However, I am willing to discuss the wording of this point further.
• Your third point was largely a personal attack.
• Your fourth point states scientific and technical units are already covered. If that is the case then you should have no problem in agreeing to restate it explicitly, as this would elucidate the policy rather than changing it.
• I agree with your fifth point that the matter of internal consistency bears repeating.
• I have agreed to continue the discussion at this place.

Michael Glass (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is on units clear. But I can restate it with examples. If we have a sentence which contains a land area (split usage in the UK) and an geographical distance (overwhelmingly imperial usage in the UK), and it is felt that this causes significant inconsistency, then it is the usage where there is not a clear preference in the UK that should yield to the usage that where there is a clear preference.

You suggest that the exceptions should yield to units covered by the default-to-metric rule. No way. For the reasons given above and because given your previous arguments, I believe it's perfectly obvious that you would promptly announce significant inconsistency not just in the circumstance above but across paragraphs and across sections. I believe it's reasonably clear that you would use it to delete the exceptions entirely - by putting the letter of the rule over the spirit of the rule.

Contexts where usage is split in the UK - which, like it or not, is most contexts in which metric units are used in the UK - should always yield to contexts where usage is clearly on one side (those listed in the "exceptions"). And there is no way that I am ever going to accept that we should metricate an established and overwhelmingly more common imperial usage based on a rule that a mixed usage defaults to metric.

On "may", no it isn't. This is part of a common tactic of yours, when someone says something that you don't have a response to, to call it a personal attack - whether it is a personal attack or not. Fact is, you have a record of trying to force through metrication against local usage (the spirit of the rule) based on the use of the word "may" in the letter of the rule. That seems to me to be a good reason to avoid using the word "may" here.

On scientific and technical units? WP:FALKLANDSUNITS as it stands does not override the rules provided by WP:MOSNUM. If the "most appropriate unit" rule is overridden there because of scientific or technical contexts, then it is here as well. But the point is also basically irrelevant because none of the imperial-first contexts are likely to be scientific or technical contexts in the Falklands. We don't need to discuss the Large Hadron Collider here. Pfainuk talk 07:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, it is obvious that you will not conform to the default to metric rule that I have so often quoted, so let's leave that aside in the interest of trying to reach some meaningful compromise. In accusing me of trying to force through metrication you are misrepresenting my position, which is to come to an agreement with you. I stick to my point that scientific and technical articles should be mentioned specifically. Michael Glass (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is for local usage. I will not accept your attempts to force metrication against local usage.

If this is the case, then why are you removing that part of the proposal? Do you not feel that nominal or defined units should be given in the measure in which the units are nominal or defined? You're demanding an additional rule while removing the rule that already covers this.

Scientific and technical units should not always be metric. Of course they shouldn't. Where MOSNUM overrides its "most appropriate unit" rule, then yes, we should as well. But there's nothing inherent about scientific or technical contexts that should force us to go beyond that. Pfainuk talk 11:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that scientific and technical units should be mentioned specifically in the draft policy on Falkland articles. If we mention personal weights in stones and pounds, even though this is unlikely to come up in any of the articles and we go into greater detail about this matter than MOSNUM does, then we certainly should mention what to do with scientific and technical subjects, which form the basis of several articles. MOSNUM has a subsection on this matter. A reference to this policy would be appropriate, I think. Michael Glass (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We go into greater detail than MOSNUM in areas where we need to. In this area, there is no need or benefit into going into any particular extra detail on the subject. If there is a good reason to use some unit other than that provided by the proposal, we should do so. If MOSNUM overrides its rule that the "most appropriate unit" applies, then we should do so. But there seems little need to go into any extra detail than that. Pfainuk talk 16:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, I noticed that you did a wholesale revert on some apparently minor changes to the wording of the policy. Saying "Still oppose changes." doesn't explain your reasoning. I have now replaced one passive voice construction with the active voice. If you have any particular problem with using the active voice in this context, please state it. (The active voice is usually preferred, because it's clearer, shorter and more direct.) Michael Glass (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, I have replaced To this end, and with Therefore. If you have any particular problem with replacing a ponderous phrase with a plain English word, please state it. Michael Glass (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced Generally speaking with In general. It's slightly shorter and more direct.

I have also replaced a this with the. Michael Glass (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a "such as" because no examples were given. Michael Glass (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored a more concise version of other measures to the text. Personal heights, weights and quantities of beer and cider are hardly likely to arise in Falklands articles, so I have put them more concisely, specifying UK usage. Michael Glass (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, once again you're introducing changes to introduce ambiguity, which based on past experience you will use to try and force metrication against local usage. I for one support explicit guidelines for that very reason. I do not support your proposed changes for that very reason and have already made clear my support for Pfainuk's objection to that proposal - yet you're still trying all ways to introduce ambiguity. Personal height and weight may or may not be relevant, when it is we will have a guideline so we don't have Matthew Brisbane's weight in kg and height in m.

Further accusing editors of bad faith for a perfectly reasonable complaint of starting multiple discussions is not helpful. You should know better as a experienced editor that such conduct is considered disruptive. A presumption of good faith does not require suspension of disbelief or to ignore past conduct and in this respect you only have yourself to blame. I can clearly recall your attempt to "test the consensus" by introducing metric changes, whilst other editors presumed good faith and trusted you to edit according to consensus and did not verify changes you made to articles on their watch list. Justin talk 10:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin,

• I introduced changes to make the text more concise and for no other reason. My edit explicitly specified British usage. Nevertheless, I have noted Pfainuk's reversion of my edit and I accept his reasoning on that point. As far as I am concerned that matter is closed.
• I note, however, that you still assume the worst. I now know that many British are particularly sensitive about the issue of metrication, both for and against. It is a cultural issue that I was not aware of when I began to edit Falkland articles. However, you had not noticed that some Falklands articles were metric first until I pointed this out to you, and you did not notice my changes were metric first until I pointed them out to you. That's why I did not believe that you were so het up about metric measures. We live and learn. Michael Glass (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael I do not presume the worst, do not project your own feelings on to others. That I believe cuts to the heart of the matter. You talk as an advocate of a particular rule, whereas others argue from a pragmatism that uses what is appropriate not necessarily what is "right". As an engineer I use the metric system almost exclusively, we've only ever argued for a system that reflects local usage, which is to mix imperial and metric in a largely illogical way. I didn't notice your changes as I trusted you as a wikipedia editor to follow the consensus agreed; one you participated it. Indeed you live and learn.

Neither were you changes to make the policy more concise, they were to introduce ambiguity; one that we have already explicitly stated is not acceptable since past history teaches us it will be used to edit the articles against consensus. It is also a little disingenuous to water policy down and introduce ambiguity, then claim to be making it more concise. You might like to consider that before you make yet further accusations that solely serve to increase the temperature.

I still see no substantial reason why the current proposal conflicts with WP:MOSNUM, if you're not so het up about metrication you could perhaps explain your objections. For me, I'm fed up and tired of being unable to progress because of progress being stymied by unproductive discussions. Justin talk 14:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, I stated clearly that I accepted Pfainuk's reasoning about the wording. I made a change, I stated my reason for the change. Pfainuk reverted the change and stated his reason for the reversion. I explicitly said that I accepted Pfainuk's reasoning. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter. I reject your accusations. They are completely baseless and a figment of your imagination. Michael Glass (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right so you accept WP:FALKLANDSUNITS in its entirety, we have consensus and can get on with the business of writing articles once more? yes/no. Justin talk 19:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, my comments were confined to the edit I made and that Pfainuk reverted. It did not apply to the policy as a whole, which I still have reservations about. However, it has become obvious that anything I say or write on this subject is likely to be used as an excuse to delay action to bring the Falklands articles in line with MOSNUM. I suggest you check to see if that wording has consensus without me. If it does have consensus, I won't contest it. Michael Glass (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so your entire reason for all this is to ensure we are in line with a guideline that clearly says things don't have to be in line with it and there are always exceptions etc.? And ignoring sections in other guidelines about localisation? Yeah. Not sure this is the best use of anyone's time. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to your baseless accusations anymore. If there is anyone with a policy based objection to the current proposal going forward now is the time to speak. If there is no response within 7 days we will presume consensus. Justin talk 11:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High time we get on with normal business too. Apcbg (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Pfainuk talk 16:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 days are up. We have four who appear to be in favour, and one who has opposed on the basis that he doesn't think we will carry forward with the proposal. Can we reasonably call this a non-unanimous consensus? Pfainuk talk 16:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the facts that

• This has now been open for twelve days;
• We have four editors apparently in favour of compromise;
• Our only opposing editor said that he would not contest a consensus if one was reached without him;
• Other editors that have opposed proposals in the past have edited this page during those twelve days, and have not voiced opposition;

I believe we have a non-unanimous consensus in favour of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS as it currently stands. I thus intend to carry forward with it over the next few days. Pfainuk talk 13:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are yards mentioned in the draft policy?

• Yards are not mentioned in either MOS or MOSNUM.
• The Times Style guide prefers metres to yards.
• I am not aware of any source that mentions yards as a measurement.

I would prefer the following wording: "For geographical distances onshore (including coastlines), use statute miles and convert to kilometres." Michael Glass (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting events still use yards eg 20 yard pistol, 1000 yd rifle match and shooting sports are important in the Falklands. Suggest you write to the NSRA and have the 20 yd match renamed to the 18.288 m pistol match, otherwise we keep yards in the policy where appropriate. Didn't you say, less than 24 hrs ago you would accept the policy as is? Justin talk 22:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy wording refers to geographical distances onshore. Your example is not relevant to geographical distances. Michael Glass (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very relevant Michael, you said yards weren't used and off the top of my head I came up with an example right away. With your changes the 20 yd pistol match becomes the 18.288 m pistol match and they are geographic distances. So yes it is relevant, very much so and didn't you say less than 24 hrs ago you'd accept it and now you're quibbling again trying to remove measures? Do you never wonder why people question your credibility when you say you will accept something and then back track? Justin talk 23:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Justin, I said I would not contest the policy unless someone else did. It's not policy yet. My change would not affect a 20 yard pistol match. In fact, I would oppose putting the measurements in that way, just as you would. Michael Glass (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself have argued against using one scale for short distances and one for long. It was a little while ago so I suggest you review those arguments.

I wouldn't intend to use yards in most situations where the distance is more than about ½ mile or 880 yds, but the facility should be there to use them as and when they are necessary. Pfainuk talk 06:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, if you are going to use miles, I think it would be better to use miles and tenths of a mile for measurements than to mix yards and miles. As for pistol shooting, the specification to use yards would be a problem when the distance at pistol shoots is measured in metres, (see the report on Murray Middleton in the Commonwealth Games in [37]. You see, specifying either yards or metres would cause potential problems. Better not to mention either. Michael Glass (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Commonwealth Games take place under ISSF rules, whereas most matches in the Falklands take place under NSRA rules. One specifies metres, one specifies yards. Yards are still in common usage, the policy should allow their usage. The appropriate units used in each case and we should allow the policy to do so. Fixating solely on metric units and pretending imperial is not used locally is utterly ridiculous. WP:MOSNUM specifies local usage. Justin talk 12:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the measure is in yards, then yards should come first; if the measure is in metres then metres should come first. However, if you insist on yards first, it means that there are inconsistencies when reporting on the Commonwealth Games, for instance. Michael Glass (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're both arguing for the same thing. In the Commonwealth Games, where things are measured in metres, we put metres first. In local competition, where things are measured in yards, we put yards first. WP:FALKLANDSUNITS and WP:UNITS both allow for this ("nominal or defined units"). Pfainuk talk 10:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I think it is very different things, Michael is trying to remove yards as a unit to be used for small distances "I am not aware of any source that mentions yards as a measurement", whereas all I have said is the policy should allow use where they are appropriate. I have never once said yards should always come first - that is a Red Herring. Justin talk 10:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, it's not about what you said or I said but what the policy says. I don't want the policy to insist on putting yards first when the source uses another measure. The Commonwealth Games is one instance. This is not a jihad against the yard. Michael Glass (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguing that, given the choice between a nominal or defined unit and a source-based unit, we should use the source-based unit? You can put that down as another reason why source-based units are unacceptable then. No way am I going to accept that.

When measuring the length of a cricket pitch, we should say that it is 22 yards long. Even if the source gives the metric equivalent first, the distance is defined in yards and so we should always put the yards first. On any article, whatever the national context. Pfainuk talk 11:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yards will be used where they're appropriate, even where the source may use a different. Michael, how many times does your source based unit order preference have to be rejected before you will take the hint? Justin talk 13:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At present the wording of the draft policy says to prefer metric units and convert to kilometres. This is bad practice when the original information is in miles, as it introduces rounding errors. I think that the intended message (to put the metric units first) would be better expressed in a way that doesn't carry this unwanted meaning. Michael Glass (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see it, we're not specifying use of the conversion templates, they have a feature to specify output order anyway. Justin talk 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the use of the conversion templates. The policy is specifying the order of the units. To say to convert implies the use of some means to convert the figures. We don't want to have anything in the draft policy that would prompt people to use derived figures as the original and therefore introduce rounding errors, especially when we are dealing with small numbers.

Please note that this has nothing to do with which unit to put first; it is about accuracy of expression and saying what we mean to say.Michael Glass (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael has pointed out a number of items of sloppy drafting - wouldn't it be better to just adopt the text in WP:MOSNUM by following the merger proposal? Martinvl (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem in principle with Michael's change (assuming that he got his units confused in the first message). It puts the point more clearly and allows for the fact that in some cases we may well be putting the converted unit first as per local usage. I don't accept Martin's point for all the reasons already given before. Pfainuk talk 06:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, put down the stick and step away from the deceased equine. Your proposal was rejected. Justin talk 07:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When and by whom? Michael Glass (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC) While I agree that the wording of the draft policy could and should be improved, the major problem is that in several places the meaning is different from MOSNUM, something that both Martin and I have pointed out. Michael Glass (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At WT:MOSNUM last week. Don't tell me you're going to pretend that that discussion didn't happen either? Yes, it did. It's so recent it's still on WT:MOSNUM.

The wording of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is fully compatible with WP:MOSNUM. At the discussion at MOSNUM, Martin even acknowledged that the exceptions listed there are almost exactly those listed at MOSNUM - so this is a very quick 180° turn. But even if it weren't compatible with MOSNUM, MOSNUM is a guideline, not gospel. The rule is a clear statement of what the most appropriate units are to be used on Falklands articles. It allows for exceptions and it allows for MOSNUM to override it where appropriate. What it doesn't allow is for you to try and use the wording of MOSNUM to override the spirit of MOSNUM, as you have continually tried to do. Pfainuk talk 17:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the repetition. There are several incompatibilities:

• The prescription of yards in the policy. MOSNUM doesn't mention yards and the Times Style Guide prefers metres to yards.
• The prescriptive wording where MOSNUM uses the word 'may'.
• The default to imperial position about the exceptions. MOSNUM specifically says "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 round brackets."

These are the main reasons I have suggested an alternative approach. Michael Glass (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And none of those points violate MOSNUM:

• Nowhere does MOSNUM say that we are not allowed to use yards if they are the most appropriate unit. Mixing systems in the same context would seem to be inconsistent.
• MOSNUM says that we should use the units most appropriate to the location we're discussing - the units in use locally. In our case, that's represented by WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. It does not say that we have to allow editors to change units away from the most appropriate units willy-nilly as you demand.
• You cite part of MOSNUM that's not relevant to the point you're discussing. MOSNUM does not say that we cannot default to imperial where there is inconsistency. Further, it says that we should use the most appropriate units to the location we're discussing - which means the units in use locally. This would imply that a context where usage is overwhelmingly one way should not be switched because it's inconsistent with a context that's defaulting the other way because there's no consistent rule.

So, none of three of your claimed "incompatibilities" are actually incompatible with MOSNUM. Or even close to it. But even if they weren't compatible with the letter of MOSNUM, MOSNUM is a guideline. As I noted before, it's not gospel. Pfainuk talk 06:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, I'm afraid you have missed at least one of my points. I don't want to ban the use of yards but that they should not be specified in the draft policy as these could lead to problems as I have pointed out. Your second point is more difficult. What is the better measure of local usage, the prescriptions of MOSNUM and the Times Guide, or the local source that quotes either Imperial or metric measures? Your third point appears to be that you want an iron-clad rule to stop the likes of me to argue the point. However, this is inconsistent with the more flexible prescription of MOSNUM. I hope that this explanation helps to clarify what I see are the problems of the present wording. Michael Glass (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said that they were "incompatibilities" with MOSNUM. They are not incompatible with MOSNUM as you claimed. Your claim was false.

You say that using yards "could lead to problems as I have pointed out". You have not pointed out any problems that could be caused by using yards. You have not given any examples or mechanisms by which using yards for short geographical distances might cause problems.

Source-based units, which is what you argue for, have been rejected both here and at WT:MOSNUM literally dozens of times. You demand the right to change units based on sources that may or may not reflect local usage, that come from bodies that may or may not be aiming to reflect local usage in their choice of units. Source-based units, as has been pointed out to you many times with examples, frequently do not match local usage. Basically, you're arguing for the right to switch units willy-nilly, something you can't reasonably expect me accept.

The wording of MOSNUM prescribes the "most appropriate unit". Yes, the rule to default to imperial in cases of inconsistency is partly there to discourage gaming the system. Given that we're dealing with two editors with such clear and persistent records of attempting to game the system, such provision is an absolute necessity. But it also ensures that we don't override cases where local usage is clear with cases where we're defaulting to metric because usage is mixed. Your attempts to do just that reek of another attempt to game the system. Pfainuk talk 10:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, here is my response to your three points:

• I believe that the following provisions are incompatible:
  • (MOSNUM)"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 round brackets.
  • (FALKLAND)"Where this would create significant inconsistency with the exceptions to this rule noted below, put imperial units first and follow with metric and US customary units."
• Perhaps you have forgotten the point I made about reporting on pistol shooting in the Commonwealth Games in the section above. Remember, I'm not conducting a jihad against the yard.
• As I acknowledged in my previous posting in this thread, it is difficult to work out what local usage is because it is contested territory. I proposed following the sources as a way of cutting through these arguments, not as a way of forcing metrication. I believe that my proposal was rejected because it was too metric for comfort.
• The "most appropriate unit" rule is open to interpretation. Your answer, to default to imperial, could be regarded as gaming the system in view of the provision to put the source value first and the converted value second if editors can't agree.

Can you think of a way of getting round these difficulties? Michael Glass (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You quote two entirely unrelated rules and announce that they are incompatible. They aren't. They don't even deal with the same situation.
• You claimed that the use of yards was incompatible with MOSNUM. That a MOSNUM-compliant rule could not authorise yards. Don't try and pretend you didn't - it's right there in this very section. You now seem to be trying to argue that source-based units should override MOSNUM's rule on nominal or defined units on Falklands articles - a system that genuinely would be incompatible with MOSNUM.
• The fact that sovereignty is disputed does not make local usage more difficult to determine. That claim is false. It's not as though administration is split, and it's not as though there's a significant Argentine presence on the islands.
• The "most appropriate unit" rule means use local usage, which we take to mean British usage. I'm only saying we should default to imperial where there is significant inconsistency with an imperial unit that is used in a context where imperial units are overwhelmingly more commonly used. No way will I accept that a context where imperial units are overwhelmingly more common should be metricated against local usage because contexts where usage is mixed default to metric.
• Your claim that you can override the "most appropriate units" rule by announcing that you dispute every single unit in an entire Wikiproject is Wikilawyering; it's gaming the system and has always been gaming the system. And you wonder why we feel the need for anti-gaming provisions.

Basically, you're arguing for the sake of arguing now. Time to end the filibuster and allow us to get on with editing articles. Pfainuk talk 12:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk,

• I believe the rule from MOSNUM and the rule from the draft policy that I quoted are at odds.
• I made no claim that using yards was incompatible with MOSNUM; I said that a yards first rule was incompatible. Yards are compatible with MOSNUM; a "yards first" rule is not.
• I stated why I proposed source-based usage in the first place, as a way of settling disputes over usage. It was not to overturn MOSNUM.
• Apologies for using "contested territory" as a metaphor. This was not intended as a reflection on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, but was a figurative reference to the division in the UK on the use of units of measurement.
• Saying that "most appropriate unit" is open to interpretation is not a declaration that I'm going to dispute every single unit in the Falklands.
• I am sorry that you think that raising these concerns is arguing for the sake of arguing. My purpose was to find solutions, not drag out this dispute. Michael Glass (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What if I said that your source-based rule is at odds with WP:ATHLETE? It makes about as much sense as your statement. You quote two different rules that deal with completely different situations and announce that they are incompatible with one another. And you say you're trying to find solutions? Very funny.
• It doesn't matter which you said. There is nothing in MOSNUM that says we cannot put yards first, any more than there's anything in MOSNUM saying we cannot use yards. Your claim that any rule saying that yards should be put first is incompatible with MOSNUM is plainly false. Again, this is an example of your looking for problems and not solutions.
• The way you seek to apply source-based units would have the effect of overturning the rule at MOSNUM that we use the "most appropriate unit". It would also have the effect of overturning the spirit of the rule, that we use the units in use locally. Lots of sources don't use the most appropriate unit for the country concerned, don't use the same units as locals would use. Let's bear in mind that you tried to claim that the Falklands all use metric units based of the unit choices of a Chilean scientific journal. And let's bear in mind just how many dozens of times source-based units have been rejected both here and at MOSNUM.
• While many units of measure in the UK are not clearly on one side of the fence or the other, there are some contexts where one set of units is overwhelmingly more common. It's not a case of people switching units willy-nilly: in some cases usage is just as clear-cut as it would be in the US, Australia, Canada or France. Under WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, all those contexts where usage is mixed go metric, unless that would cause significant inconsistency with a case in which usage is clear-cut. Only those contexts where imperial units are overwhelmingly more common are listed as exceptions at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS.
• Fact is, you have a history of gaming the system to force metrication against consensus. That's not assuming bad faith: there's no assumption necessary. You've done it so many times before that we would be foolish to assume you'll not try to do it again. You reap what you sow.

You say you're looking for solutions. No, you're not. If you were looking for solutions you wouldn't have suddenly come up with all these new objections, none of which were a problem three weeks ago. If you're looking for solutions, stop this filibuster and accept what is a perfectly reasonable proposal as it stands. Pfainuk talk 13:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything above, this is nothing but filibustering and inventing non-existent problems to frustrate consensus and moving forward. Why cannot we make this a user conduct issue now, its clearly an example of disruptive conduct. Justin talk 13:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is plain from the above comments that further comments of mine on this thread are futile. Michael Glass (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you'll actually let us get on with article-writing, or are you going to be back in 3-4 weeks trying to force source-based units through the back door again? Pfainuk talk 17:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues with the draft policy on Falkland Islands Units.

1 Questions about drafting and wording

2 Questions about its compatibility with MOSNUM and/or MOS.

One way to resolve these issues is to replace the draft wording with something like this:

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 sentence has the following advantages:

• It states clearly and unequivocally that Falkland Island articles should follow British practice.
• If adopted, it would link directly with the relevant policy at MOSNUM.
• When MOSNUM is changed or modified, this policy would be automatically updated.
• It would end wrangling about whether or not the Falkland Islands policy reflected MOSNUM. Michael Glass (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - given your record of Wikilawyering around this subject, you would be shocked if it were otherwise. We need rules precisely because of your insistence that British practice is a whole lot more metric than it actually is. Simply saying "British practice" leaves us wide open to this kind of abuse. WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is fully MOSNUM-compatible and despite your claim above this is the first time you've argued otherwise. But this is the same thing again - you're still filibustering. Please stop filibustering and let us edit these articles in peace. Pfainuk talk 17:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, I've been quite upfront about my reservations to the wording all along. It would be interesting to see what others think. Michael Glass (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have amended WP:FALKLANDSUNITS so that it is aligned with WP:MOSNUM. Martinvl (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, you're complaining about it on a technicality. If this was the problem, maybe it might have been a good idea to mention it. I infer from your comment that you now accept that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is fully in line with WP:MOSNUM. Pfainuk talk 17:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've never argued that it violated MOSNUM. You've argued that you should have the right to ignore it whenever you feel like it, and you've argued that we can't have it because it doesn't meet a standard that has been rejected dozens of times at WT:MOSNUM, but I don't believe you've ever argued it doesn't meet MOSNUM. Pfainuk talk 17:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, I have explained in detail the problems I have with the wording of the present draft policy. Do you want me to repeat them here? Michael Glass (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Michael, frankly you had very little credibility with me, now you have none. Less than a week ago you said you wouldn't oppose this and now yet again you're pushing for changes toward greater metrication and ignoring local usage. Frankly this is one of the lamest disputes ever, its paralysing any progress and I do feel there needs to be an examination of user conduct and a topic ban proposed. I have had enough. Justin talk 12:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin,

• on 12 July I wrote "I suggest you check to see if that wording has consensus without me. If it does have consensus, I won't contest it."
• I'm pushing for Falklands articles to be edited in line with MOSNUM. Please read my proposal::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.

As you can see, this is asking for the application of UK usage. I hope this clarifies the point. Michael Glass (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said you wouldn't contest it. We made a call to see if it had consensus and you promptly contested it. Doesn't do much for your credibility or our ability to assume you'll keep your word, does it? Pfainuk talk 10:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is no co-incidence that more filibustering occurs just before the 7 day deadline suggested. I agree, it utterly undermines Michael's credibility or any trust in him sticking to an agreement. Just like editing against concensus to "test the concensus" undermined it previously. No doubt this will be airily dismissed as everyone assuming bad faith. Justin talk 11:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an agreement I won't contest it. I am not the only one who has reservations about the proposed policy and the proposed policy has not been agreed to yet. I understand your frustration with this situation but perhaps it would help to concentrate on just two areas of contention:

• mentioning yards in the policy
• the "default to imperial" rule

Because it is so difficult to see how resolve the differences I have proposed the wording above to replace the draft policy. Michael Glass (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are, you are the sole obstacle to moving forward and it is filibustering nothing more, its arguing over trivia for no benefit.

Mentioning yards? You are the only person attempting a fatwa on the mention of yards where they're appropriate. Yet again its sourced based units by the back door. When will you take the hint?

There is no "default to imperial" rule, red herrings, filibustering nonsense. Cease and and desist please. Justin talk 13:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, the temperature is far too high, and I think the project would benefit if the parties agreed to go to mediation. It looks stressful for everyone, and this is no good on either the personal or the project level.

Would you like me to arrange this? Tony (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you think we should repeat all the same arguments all over again in a different place? Sounds like a waste of time to me. Prolonging the filibuster won't end it, and it's an end that we need. Pfainuk talk 17:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation, provided you include yourself in it and recognise that your interventions have served to escalate tension and have been very one sided. Yeah start it if you like but I remain sceptical it will achieve anything. Like Pfainuk I liken it to further filibustering.

Mediation requires that people are prepared to shift position. Personally I see this as down to a single editor refusing to shift position and obstructing the consensus building process by agreeing to a position and then recinding, so I do not see mediation as suitable, rather this is a user conduct issue and as such a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate. Justin talk 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not emotionally involved, and I have largely been a bystander, although I have made my support for Michael clear. I do not believe my comments have been inflammatory; I am allowed to express my opinion, as I do, in moderate terms. However, the atmosphere seem to be toxic here—that is good for none of you. That is why I suggest that mediation is the next step. Tony (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to provide diffs to demonstrate your comments have been inflammatory? Yes you are allowed to express an opinion but you have not always done so in moderate terms or in a manner that has been helpful. The atmosphere is not so much toxic but it is getting bad tempered because of the behaviour of one editor; the very editor you express support for. If you support his position you would have better served him by telling him when he has been disruptive rather than cheering from the sidelines and encouraging him to continue doing so.

I'll also remind you that a user conduct RFC is a part of the dispute resolution process that is intended to inform editors of unproductive or disruptive behaviour. Again mediation requires that an editor is prepared to respect another's viewpoint but neither you nor Michael have been prepared to recognise that a Utopian dream of complete metrication is not appropriate for this article set. Justin talk 18:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see: occasional support for an editor's stance is inflammatory. Tony (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[38] So is impugning editors as not living in the 21st Century not inflammatory? Whilst some parts of the world have gone completely metric, other parts of the world haven't and the guideline of WP:MOSNUM is to respect local usage. My comments were also that encouraging disruptive behaviour was unhelpful, if you wish to twist that into something else, then indeed you are being inflammatory. Now I have made a suggestion for dispute resolution, why then do you seek to take the discussion down alternate rabbit holes. Justin talk 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am acting in good faith. Please do not be angry. Tony (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in the least bit angry, that is of itself inflammatory, unhelpful and a presumption of bad faith. Tony do not make bad faith comments that make matters worse whilst piously claiming to be acting in good faith. Justin talk 07:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, I saw your comments here. If those comment were in order, then any mediator would find in favour of you. Why then do you refuse to accept mediation? Martinvl (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not raise tension by pretending I have rejected anything when I haven't. Mediation does not impose content, it is supposed to guide editors toward consensus - mediators do not "find in favour" of anyone. Mediation with the MedCab I see as a waste of time, because Michael has not budged one iota in his demands. Worse he has stated he wouldn't oppose something, then proceeded to do exactly that. What I have suggested is also part of WP:DR, I could equally ask why you're avoiding dispute resolution in favour of encouraging a disruptive editor? Justin talk 11:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [39], this is now simply bloody minded obstructive behaviour for no discernable benefit to the project. It is now worse than vandalism as it has diluted effort in improving these articles. Do you agree with this position of Michael's or do you agree it is an obvious user conduct issue now? Justin talk 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with Justin. Pfainuk talk 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]