Talk:Falkland Islands: Difference between revisions

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Falkland Islands. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Falkland Islands at the Reference desk.

Falkland Islands received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falkland Islands article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 60 days

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islands B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Argentina B‑class Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine politics. If you would like to participate, you can improve Falkland Islands, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. South America: Falklands B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Top-importance).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Fernández de Castro, Rafael (12 October 2012). "Wikipedia Seeks Historic Truth in Falkland Islands Controversy". Huffington Post.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

Archives

Archive 1 (July 2004–March 2006) Archive 2 (March–April 2006) (includes naming debate and poll) Archive 3 (March–Sept 2006) Archive 4 (Oct 2006–Oct 2007) Archive 5 (Oct 2007–Oct 2008) Archive 6 (Oct 2008–June 2009) Archive 7 (June–Dec 2009) Archive 8 (Jan–Feb 2010) Archive 9 (Feb–Jun 2010) Archive 10 (Jun 2010 – Apr 2011) Archive 11 (Apr–Jun 2011) Archive 12 (Jun–Aug 2011) Archive 13 (Aug–Sept 2011) Archive 14 (Sept 2011 – Jan 2012) Archive 15 (Jan–Mar 2012) Archive 16 (Feb–Mar 2012) Archive 17 (Mar–June 2012) Archive 18 (July 2012 – )

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Template:Notice-nc-geo

I think there should be an article strictly about the British Overseas Territory, possible titled 'Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory)' and that the article 'Outline of the Falkland Islands' should be the main article under the name 'Falkland Islands' and should talk about the archipelago geographically from a neutral perspective. Considering the archipelago is disputed territory by the United Nations, i do not think it's fair to shape the main article on who it is currently administered by, on an international wiki. Even as a Briton, i feel this article is highly biased towards the British as the Motto, Anthem, Flag, etc do not represent the archipelago internationally, and only to those who recognise it as being a British Oversea Territory. On the Spanish Wikipedia, where the main article is not about the British Oversea Territory, the reader can experience a much less bias view on the archipelago geographically as well as get information about the archipelago as a British Overseas Territory. Thanks, Rob (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVFORK. The fact that the Spanish Wikipedia attempts to downplay the existence of the FIG should not surprise: in this as in just about all other Falklands-related matters, they take a very strongly pro-Argentine editorial line - in some cases meaning that es.wiki takes a significantly more pro-Argentine POV than even the Argentine government would accept.

It would not be neutral, and would do our readers a great disservice, for us to pretend that we have two sides here in the same position, when in real life that's not what we have. The existence of the FIG as the principal authority on the islands is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. Kahastok talk 16:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well i agree that the Spanish Wikipedia has a pro-Argentine view however i still feel this article is very much pro-British and I think having a strictly geographic 'Falkland Islands' article with links to 'Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory)' and 'Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina' would be more appropriate. Thanks, Rob (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of the Falkland Islands already exists, if that is your concern. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, i think that article should be the main 'Falkland Islands' article with links to both 'Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory)' (this article moved to a new name) and 'Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina' because currently this article, being the main 'Falkland Islands' article, is suggesting that the islands are internationally recognised as being British which is simply not true. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't suggest anything such thing, I see that as a complete strawman argument, since the article contains a section that addresses the sovereignty dispute. I do not see any of the bias you suggest is there, nor do I see you trumpeting "I am British" as having any relevance. In short, I see an allegation of bias, which does not exist, and I don't see any merit in your proposal. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is based on current occupation as it shows the British Overseas Territory Flag, Motto, Anthem etc, and not the international view on the islands, which although i now agree isn't bias, possibly may not be the best way to approach the article. I understand your point and i'm only suggesting an alternative possibly more appropriate approach, however, going with the general consensus, most seem more in favour of the current approach. Thanks, Rob (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no international view of the Islands. Some nations recognise UK sovereignty, whilst others a support Argentinians claim. Most seem to hold no opinion. Moreover I would point out that [Argentine Antarctica] includes both the flag and the coat of arms, but is disputed with two countries.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The International view is that the islands are disputed, whereas this article having the British Flag, Motto and Anthem suggests that the British claim is more significant then the Argentine claim. As for the 'Argentine Antarctica' article, that is specifically talking about a disputed territory from the argentine perpective, and is not the main article for the region (West Antarctica). This article is the main article for the region and essential makes out that the British claim is more significant then the the Argentine claim, which i can understand as it is currently occupied by the British. Thanks, Rob (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been stated, there is no "international view" of the islands, Slatersteven is correct in every aspect.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact you keep using the term 'occupied' speaks volumes. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:STICK can be dropped at this point...--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the map with the article, the westernmost point of the Falkland Islands appears almost on the same latitude as the easternmost point of Isla de los Estados (off Argentine mainland). However on Google maps they would appear further apart. I have heard some maps produced in Argentina show the islands closer to the continent - could someone sympathetic to the Argentine cause have inserted such a map !? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.111.196.81 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of maps in the article with Patagonia and the Falkland Islands. Which map are you concerned about? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one in the infobox, I think. The problem isn't Argentine bias - just a poor choice of projection.

The first issue is that, for some reason, somebody decided that all overseas territories location maps should contain the country whose overseas territories they were. In cases where the territories concerned are relatively close-at-hand, this isn't a problem. But Britain and France have overseas territories dotted throughout the world, and you end up with a map like this one that shows a large proportion of the planet.

Because they are so distant, whoever it was chose a projection on which lines of longitude are curved rather than straight (except the prime meridian). Here is a world map with a similar (though possibly not identical) projection. The advantage of this is that it avoids making areas near the poles seem a lot larger than they actually are. The disadvantage is that away from the Equator and Prime Meridian it means that north and south are no longer up and down the map.

The inset map is just a larger version of a portion of the main map. The islands appear to be directly above Isla de los Estados, and the OP has made the not-unreasonable mistake of assuming that up is north and down is south. I say "not-unreasonable", because the inset map is a small area that doesn't actually need a curved projection and there's nothing to suggest that it uses one. But it does. The map is formally accurate but sufficiently misleading to be a problem.

We should probably be using a better map. Kahastok talk 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the analysis Kahastok. I guess the next question then is: what other map can we use?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Kahastok says, all BOT maps were changed to this format relatively recently. The previous map was, however, awful. How about making a standard globe map, based on File:South America (orthographic projection).svg, with an insert? An insert could be made easily from say File:UK Falklands comparison.svg, if the projection there is suitable (after making it north up of course, per standard cartographic convention). I don't think we need to include the UK and the former Falkland Island dependencies like the current map does. CMD (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through other-language articles (all those Wikipedias with >100000 articles) and the Commons, and I'll put a gallery in here so that we can see them clearly.

• 
  (1) This is the status quo, used on French, Dutch, Japanese, Polish and Chinese Wikipedias.
• 
  (2)This is a map that we have used in the past IIRC. It is used by the Spanish and Vietnamese Wikipedias.
• 
  (3) This is used by the German Wikipedia.
• 
  (4) This is the map used by the Italian Wikipedia.
• 
  (5) This is used by the Portuguese Wikipedia.
• 
  (6) This (or a variant) is used by the German, Russian and Swedish Wikipedias.

To be honest, I don't think any of them are particularly good for the purpose. Numbering them 1-6 from left to right, 3 and 5 are too small-scale to see the islands properly. 4 suffers the same problem as ours (1) - north is not at the top of the map because it's just a square taken off a larger map. The main problem with 2 is that it doesn't look very professional and is not in the style of those used for other similar states (territories or countries). And 6 fails to actually locate the islands to the reader.

FWIW I wrote this before Chipmunkdavis' text but I agree with his conclusions. Kahastok talk 20:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer to projection from the Portuguese wikipedia (number 5) to the standard South America one, as it's tilted further south. I also prefer the colour scheme, although it's not the standard one, and I don't think the red will look good blown up. How does number 5 with an insert sound? (It would look similar to File:Trinidad and Tobago (orthographic projection).svg.) If acceptable, opinions on colours? CMD (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like 5 because it shows how close the islands really are to Antarctica. The others don't. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? CMD (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covering the South American continent is not good. The T&T image has the insert on the Atlantic; this one could probably do the same.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you want the inset slightly smaller and between South American and Africa? That seems to be the largest area of water if you don't want it to cover any land. Any other thoughts? CMD (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could also cover the South Pacific.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That rather obvious point never occurred to me. Very well, I've shifted the inset to cover French Polynesia. Better? CMD (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment: wouldn't it be better if the inset was moved to the South Atlantic? I mean, so it wouldn't cover any land mass. Just my 2 cents, the map is fine with the islands to the left but I think it'd look cleaner moved to the right. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor trade off with size. To fit in the South Atlantic without covering the African coast, the inset has to be a bit smaller. I personally like the inset going off the globe a little, as it makes it more distinct. At this point it's a matter of taste I reckon. CMD (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a matter of taste. If both you and Marshal are ok with this last version then I'm ok too. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the map for a while, it started to strain (hurt) my eyes a bit. Not sure if the rest of you are also having this issue. For whatever reason, the left-to-right alignment of the current map (in the article) and the T&T map does not cause this effect.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  (8) another one
• 
  (9) one more
• 
  (10) one more
• 
  (11) one more
• 
  (12) like (11) +grid (zoom in to see but maybe not 100% accurate) +inset
• 
  (13) like (12) w/close zoom
• 
  (14) like (10) +inset

I've added one two more you may consider. Please tell me at de:Benutzer Diskussion:TUBS if you have more suggestions (as long the suggested map matches my usual color scheme).--TUBS (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

upon request at de:Benutzer Diskussion:TUBS one more --TUBS (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(11) and a very similar but more detailed one --TUBS (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like 10, but would like for it to have an insert (projection of the islands) on the southern section of the image.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map 10 is the best one in my opinion (the rest waste too much space). I'd like to see one with an insert as Marshal requests if TUBS is willing to do it. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. I think number 7 is fine, but I think it loses slightly in that the shading for the inset covers the islands' closest neighbours in the south of South America, so I prefer the layout of number 8. I'm not so keen on 10 because it lacks detail - I'm concerned that this will be noticeable on the scale we're going to want it. On the other hand, the longitude on which north is vertical is through the islands - on numbers 9 and 11, the region around the islands is slanted slightly in the opposite direction (I believe that 90°W is vertical whereas on number 1 it was the Prime Meridian?)

The best theoretical option I think would be a more detailed version of 10, possibly with an inset. Failing that, I would probably go for number 9, which has lines of longitude and latitude, which I think are useful if north isn't up the map. Kahastok talk 21:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't have a very nice template for the grid for (11), so I didn't paint it, but it should equal this one: File:South America laea relief location map.jpg, (9) is centered at -90°, (1) is centered at +11.30°. Just for your information. Don't know if that helps you. Depicting land near the poles is always a tough one..... --TUBS (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

added alternatives derived from (11) + (10) w/inset as requested /(can't make it more detailed 'cause I'm lacking better templates)--TUBS (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be content with 14.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My preference goes to (10) or (14), with (11) or (12) acceptable as well. I am hesitant on two points. First, the level of detail. Details look fine with contrast colours used as e.g. in our old location map, even with no coastline drawn. With the present soft colours, the less detailed versions — (10) and (14) — would possibly look better in the infobox, without being opened for closer view. Second, I am not sure if we need a second insert depicting the Falklands. The location map becomes somewhat overladen, and the article already has a detailed map of the islands anyway. So, I would probably opt for (10), but if the majority happens to favour some of the other versions mentioned, that would be fine with me, too. Apcbg (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we definitely need a map showing location on the globe/world map, whether as the whole map or as an insert, as readers may well not recognise Southern Patagonia/the Antarctic Peninsula. I also agree with Apcbg that we shouldn't use two inserts. Either we have a close up of the area with a world insert, or a global map with a close up insert. CMD (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(10) is still the best option IMO. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view no (7) is the best option - firstly it has the largest representation of the islands and secondly it is quite celar as to where the islands are. Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think an even better option would have elements of both (7) and (8). Like 8 with the planet rotated slightly east, so having the islands at the center, and then enlarged in a rectangle to the right, over the Atlantic. But having that rectangle be the one from 7: larger and with the islands in green. Jonathunder (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathunder, I'm sorry I'cant help you on this issue. Neither I do the grey/green scheme nor I'm really capable of creating new globes. Please ask the guys of Commons:Grey-green orthographic projections maps & Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps (ask there or there) - or ask one of the contributors there like user:Gringer). In addition to only rotating the globe, you could also try to center the map over Falkland Islands. I' dont know if this helps (maybe that map looks too odd) but you could give it a try. Greeting from Germany.--TUBS (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While polling is no substitute for discussion, it does help, when we have a large number of options, to help us see which options are favoured and which ones are not.

We have fourteen options above, usefully numbered 1 through 14 - though I believe we've rejected options 1-6. I propose that each editor say which of the remaining options (7-14) they would be willing to support and which they would be willing to accept, in order of preference. I'd encourage you to provide comments and reasoning alongside this, and if you have a particular objection to any map, say that as well. (If someone feels that I'm wrong and actually wants to advocate one out of maps 1-6, by all means do.) Kahastok talk 20:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still see 14 as the best option. Perhaps changing the color from red to green.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My best choice is (10). Second — (11). Further details given in the discussion above. Apcbg (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Choice 1: (7), choice 2: (14). Reasons as above. Martinvl (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't commented, for the simple reason its down to a matter of taste. However, I still see (1) as perfectly valid and has the added benefit of demonstrating the relationship with the UK and South America. My second choice would be (6) as it provides more details of the islands themselves. Inclusion of both I don't see as a problem, unless I've missed something. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding (6) to the infobox makes the infobox very long - IMO the infobox is already too long, though I am not sure what should be removed - we certainly should not be adding to it. IMO Map (6) should be left where it is - in the Geography section. Martinvl (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My preferences are 13 and 14 in that order. I like 12 but was slightly concerned about the accuracy point in the caption (and I think the what appears to be the 60°S line is a little too far north, as it appears to be north of Southern Thule. 9 is also probably a fourth place. Kahastok talk 19:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My choices would be 10 and 14 in that order. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in 14, as it seems to be a common second choice. MarshalN20 prefers it in green, no other opinions were expressed on that, but if so I'm sure it's a minor matter discussable below. Hopefully this takes us out of the WP:Bikeshed. CMD (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This occurred to me based on the IP edit this morning.

The infobox currently presents the time zone as UTC-4 in winter and UTC-3 in summer. The IP changed it to suggest UTC-4 year-round. In fact, the islands have been on year-round summer time (UTC-3) since September 2010. This is mentioned in the infobox, but should we move to make it more prominent - to present the islands' time zone as UTC-3?

(There is also the question of Camp time, in that most Camp settlements did not in practice observe DST before 2010 and presumably remain at UTC-4, which could perhaps be mentioned). Kahastok talk 15:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that this paragraph is appropriate for an encyclopaedic discussion about the Falklands War – if it were more specific about the degree of support given by the Falkland Islands, it might have been suitable for the section on the Sovereignty dispute, but if we added it there, we would have to comment every time that Kirchner rattled her sabre. The result will be a "My daddy is bigger than your daddy" type stand-off.

The sentence about Gibraltar was pure WP:SYN. Martinvl (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I quite agree. Well done for taking it out. --John (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have removed this before and I certainly support its removal now because I can't see how it is significant enough to be included, here or elsewhere. Kahastok talk 20:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends,
I have made a series of recent changes to the article. The goal is to first get this article through the GA process and, finally, take it to FA status. The recent changes all focus on subjects not related to history (such as geography, biodiversity, culture, etc.). I would appreciate that all interested contributors to take a peek at these changes, check that everything is OK, and post here any concerns/comments you think are necessary.
I plan to work on the history-related sections next. User:Basalisk has kindly agreed to serve as a supervisor to my edits in the article, but I encourage all of you to double-check my work and point out any mistakes.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't vandalize the article like that again. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is vandalistic about my improvements. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reacted too quickly on a page likely to be vandalized. I apologize. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology. If you find anything wrong with the article's information, please do comment here or on my talk page.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably point out that I am shaping the structure of this article using the FA article Peru as the model. I think we are close to completing this article, but the history-related sections are the true tough cookies. If any of my edits in those sections raise concerns, please remember to assume good faith but please notify me of any problems (the worst thing you can do is stay quiet). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem is in the second sentence of the article. Miles? Is that nautical miles in one instance, or two, or none? And why lead with miles for a metric country? Jonathunder (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment. In most books I have ever read, nautical miles are clearly written as "nautical miles" (or nmi). I understand your question, but no need exists to worry for clarification. Miles are just miles.

As to why miles are used instead of the metric system, that's a question beyond my realm. It seems to be a consensus established in this article. I honestly don't care much about it since both measurement systems are used simultaneously. However, if it's an issue that really bothers you, by all means do go ahead and start a section here focused on that matter (to find a change in consensus).

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of imperial vs metric units has been the source of many debates between various parties never had any consensus - all that it had was a ridiculous page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - if you read the associated Talk Page you will see how ridiculous it is. Also, if you look at the article text you will see that every unit of measure as a "disp=flip" qualifier (Added by User:Wee Curry Monster). You will also notice that the source of virtually every unit of measure is in metric units. If you want the article get "Good Article" status, I suggest that your ditch FALKLANDSUNITS and scrap all the "disp-flip" qualifiers. Martinvl (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would need a consensus to change that the current consensus is to use imperial first as per the WP:FALKLANDSUNITS Keith D (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from its talk page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is disputed, but setting that aside for a moment, this article doesn't even follow it. "For distances offshore, use nautical miles and follow with both kilometres and statute miles." I asked above if the offshore miles are nautical. Apparently, they are not. The source is in metric. If the source figure is 500 km but the article implies some kind of miles are the primary unit and km is a conversion, it will never pass good article review. Jonathunder (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised this has turned into a small disagreement, but I'll add that the sources I used did not have any nautical miles which I could use in the article. I'll further add that indeed both Guo and Sainato (the authors cited) use the metric system, but the metric number reflected in the article is not a conversion (I simply added the metric number into the formula, which converted it into miles). Ultimately, as long as the consensus at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS stands, I'm pretty sure the article can pass GA review. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: It is not a purely metric country. It is a mixed system. Using the local variance is quite the norm in many cases - the same with the -our/or and -ise/ize issues. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]