Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:43, 8 December 2012

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

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

Substantial differences between the suggested wordings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really Tony, where did you do that here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOSNUM

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

Merger with MOSNUM

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

Moving this page into MOS-space

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

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

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

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units be renamed and moved to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Falkland Islands units of measure. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

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

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

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

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

WCM, This discussion is supposed to be about policies, not personal animosities. Nevertheless, several points need to be made:

• FALKLANDSUNITS are "more prescriptive" than MOSNUM. Therefore FALKLANDSUNITS is at variance with MOSNUM.
• A "can" is not a "must". Therefore FALKLANDSUNITS is at variance with MOSNUM.
• FALKLANDSUNITS prescribes the use of Imperial units when MOSNUM would appear to favour metric units. Therefore FALKLANDSUNITS is at variance with MOSNUM.

Now on your accusations against me:

• I challenge you to find one instance when I have made one edit on any Falkland related article that challenges or contradicts FALKLANDSUNITS since this policy was established.
• MOSNUM has changed. That means that the prevailing consensus on MOSNUM has changed.
• It's perfectly legitimate for me to advocate changes to policies, just as it's perfectly legitimate for you to oppose them.
• It is not gaming the system to advocate change.
• WP:RETAIN is about varieties of English usage such as the way to write a date or about spelling. I don't agree that it applies to which measurement unit goes first in UK articles.
• I accept that you don't like my edits elsewhere. However, most of them stand. It appears that you are alone in your concern about them.

Let's stick to issues, not personalities.Michael Glass (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The rationale behind the creation of this page, as described by Wee Curry Minster above, shows a number of basic flaws. There was obviously a dispute between editors. The procedure for resolving disputes is described in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Imposing a solution (as was done by the creation of this page) is the perogative of uninvolved administrators, not of editors who are party to the dispute. Martinvl (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Comment I would like to discuss why a different style is needed at all. Shouldn't these be considered UK-related articles? --Langus (t) 19:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that articles in which the Falkland Islands work group are also of interest to other groups - for example the article Geology of the Falkland Islands is of interst to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Geology, the article Falkand Islands is also of interest to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Argentina etc. These groups expect to find any MOS-type consensus in MOS-space (along with consensus on a large number of MOS-type issues). I am asking that this page be moved from its present location (where nobody else would dream of looking) into MOS-space alongside a large number of other pages (See Category:Misplaced Pages Manual of Style) where it will be properly categorised and merged into MOS as a whole so that other groups such as WikiProject Geology and WikiProject Argentina know where to find and to access it. Categorisation will of course be done in conjunction with the Misplaced Pages Community at large. Martinvl (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Langus, I agree, and the article should follow WP:MOSNUM. The problem is Michael and Martin will not, they argue can is not a must so they don't have to follow any style guidelines ie they will do what they want or they'll look to game the system. Like claiming Geography is a science, so any article should be converted to SI units, rather than following the common usage guideline. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess Wee must have meant "Like stating that Geography is a science", since Geography most definitely is a science. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Why do we even need a separate guideline for this? bobrayner (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Good question - I tried deleting it, but as it was in WP: space, my request was automatically refused. In accordance with the centralisation of all MOS-type pages, it will be flagged as {{Historical}} or as a {{style-guideline}} once it is in MOS-space. If it is classed as a style guideline, links to it will be made from other pages in the MOS tree. If it is classed as "Historic", relevant information (if any) will be merged into other pages in the MOS tree.

To summarise then

Step 1 - Move this page into MOS-space

Step 2 - Let the Misplaced Pages community at large decide how to handle it and to properly record what has been done. (82 other files have already been handled as part of this program).

Martinvl (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bob, there is a separate guideline that is quite prescriptive for a reason. The consenus position was to follow WP:MOSNUM, reflecting common usage and a proposal was agreed to standardise on a particular format. Martin and Michael Glass refused to accept this, they would agree, then come back a month later and make the suggestion to give preference to the metric system. They kept on doing this to the point where the task force assembled to improve Falklands articles could not function. Moreover they engaged in a habit contrary to WP:RETAIN of going round and changing to their preference, claiming MOS did not mandate the approach, which in the middle of an article improvement programme seeking to standardise on format was disruptive as editors in the group had to follow them round fixing the damage they'd done. and they're still doing it, having failed to gain a consensus they tried all ways to game the system to impose the solution they desire. I do not have faith in Martin to move this to MOS and then incorporate the guideline into the style guide, since bitter experience shows this will be used as an opportunity to water the guideline down and have yet another interminable discussion as to why the metric system is the best thing since sliced bread and only a Luddite thinks different. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WCM is not telling the truth to claim that I did not abide by the FALKLANDSUNITS policy when it was agreed to. I challenge him to show one instance when I made an edit against FALKLANDSUNITS to Falklands articles after it was agreed to. Michael Glass (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

One example. No, you didn't abide by it. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Would WCM please retract the last statement - the reference he gave is timestamped 00:55 21 January 2012 - more than two months before the creation of the page called "FALKLANDSUNITS" (timestamp 17:17, 30 March 2010). At the same time an answer to my question timestamped 07:46, 4 December 2012 woudl be appreciated. Martinvl (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No I won't we are both aware that the consensus on unit format preceded the creation of the page. The refusal to follow it promoted its creation. As regards your comment, I see no question only yet another attempt to claim I refused to follow WP:DR. Well the record on the talk page in that respect is clear - you'll find I proposed it. But you know that, just as you know I stopped using my real name due to off-wiki harassment and to defend myself I'll have to provide a diff to a statement made under my old name. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Support since I see no reason why Falkland-related articles should be treated any differently. Is there any I might be missing? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear from the discussion that the need for a page detailing separate and clearly-spelt-out rules for Falklands articles has not gone away.

Michael Glass has made it clear by claiming that the principles behind WP:RETAIN don't apply to units. He is well aware that they do (it's been pointed out to him repeatedly before) - and if there was any doubt, WP:MOSNUM makes the same principles clear in no uncertain terms. Martinvl has made it clear by arguing that according to MOSNUM, we're not allowed to use miles in a "geographical" context. Which is to say, any context in which one might use them. Including in brackets. Including when dealing with strong national ties to those countries where they are officially used, such as the USA and UK. He knows well - it is obvious - that this is counter to both the intention of the rule and how it is applied in practice. These are both obvious examples of editors attempting to game the system to further their POV, which attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to further the metric system in the United Kingdom.

The major reason for having clear and unambiguous rules for units on Falklands articles - as supplied by FALKLANDSUNITS - is that they are difficult to game in ways such as these. Such tactics have been a continual feature of Michael and Martin's four-year campaign to force metrication on Falklands articles. It has long been clear that if the rules are in any way open to gaming, then these two editors will try to game them - and will try so repetitiously that no significant development will be possible in any part of the topic and any new and potentially productive editors will be driven away. Before FALKLANDSUNITS was implemented, that was a situation that this topic found itself in for a full eighteen months. And it probably caused more damage to Falklands articles than everything that they have experienced on British-Argentine relations combined.

The basic rule on Misplaced Pages is that all changes should be of net benefit to the encyclopædia. The position here is not a close call in this regard. To assume that this proposal is not an attempt by these two editors to relax FALKLANDSUNITS so that they can continue their campaign of disruption would be a triumph of naïve hope over many years of experience. Without an indefinite topic ban for both Martin and Michael from units and measurements on Falklands articles and the rules that govern them, any relaxation of this rule (which I note is the consensus of 2½ years' standing) would be catastrophic to Misplaced Pages's coverage of this topic. As such, I must oppose. Kahastok talk 23:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to welcome back Kahastok after a two month absence.

• I note Kahastok's claim that he has repeatedly stated that WP:RETAIN applies to the use of units of measure. I believe that he is reading this into the wording. I do not agree with this interpretation of the wording.
• Martin has already pointed out to WCM that the edit he linked to was made two months before FALKLANDSUNITS came into existence. As I said, I have abided by the policy. To the best of my knowledge, I have not made any edit that went against this policy.
• Therefore, Kahastok's claim that I have conducted a four year campaign about metrication on Falklands article is not in accordance with the facts.
• I think it needs to be pointed out again that FALKLANDSUNITS is inconsistent with MOSNUM. Because of this I want to make it unambiguously clear that I support the proposal.

Michael Glass (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Requested moves