Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Putting "at about" here is clumsier than "approximately at", because it doesn't work with the words that follow. The fact that the latter is more syllables does not make it automatically clumsier regardless of context. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
:Putting "at about" here is clumsier than "approximately at", because it doesn't work with the words that follow. The fact that the latter is more syllables does not make it automatically clumsier regardless of context. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
::This is a personal attack Mr Glass . It has to be said that Mr Glass has a great talent for writing content that is dull and uninteresting. That is intended as constructive feedback. Another bit of constructive feedback, making personal attacks and acting all hurt when you get a robust response is typical behaviour that is disruptive and has inflamed many discussions. Please stop it. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:01, 23 August 2015
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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.
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 within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
An editor added an edit summary, "The FI's is a British overseas territory, in other words it's part of the UK. This Article is about the UK's claim." In fact, no sources claim it is part of the UK. TFD (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a part of the UK per se, but jurisdiction and sovereignty of them does belong to the UK, so British Overseas Territory is correct but the editor trying to insert "part of the UK" is wrong. Situation is just like Puerto Rico and the United States. Mabuska19:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Which has nothing to do with this article. It is only the legal status of the Falklands that counts, not how another nation administers it's territory.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
So Basicly other entities like Greenland or Hong Kong legally aren't part of the People's Republic of China nor the Danish Realm, even though most countries recognize them as part of the country of which they are part of. As well as many of the inhabitants of the territories, and various sources would say that they are. Seqqis (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a constitutional difference. Greenland is a constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark and Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. The constitutions of those territories designate them as part of their respective sovereign state. Whereas the Falkland Islands Constitution and UK legislation clearly define British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies as dependent territories of the United Kingdom but not part of the sovereign state itself. --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Mr Steven's comments are right on the money, dependent territories are not part of the parent state. WCMemail11:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Right. It is always dangerous to try to map the constitutional arrangements of special/overseas territories of one country on to another because the situations are almost never the same. Kahastoktalk12:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hong Kong, like the Falklands, was once a British overseas territory, but not a part of the UK, it was part of China. And America, Canada, Australia, India and numerous other countries were once subject ot the UK, but were never part of the UK. When Iraq was governed by Paul Bremer, it did not become part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. There are different arrangements regarding the relations between mother countries and their overseas possessions. In some cases, such as the French overseas territories, they are formally part of the the French Republic itself, even if they are geographically far away from France. In the case of the British overseas terrtories, however, they are independent entities, not part of the United Kingdom. Probably every country, which has such terrtories, has its own system. Perhaps the French one is smartest. French Guiana is not on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories, because it is administered in the same way as regions in Metropolitan France. --Muniswede (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
User Viet-hoian1 is trying to insert politics and personal opinion into the article.
User Viet-hoian1 is trying to insert politics and personal opinion into the article by adding "Islas Malvinas" to all mentions of the islands. Can't the article be protected from this sort of Vandalism? 23:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeJacketGuy (talk • contribs)
Yes. The name in English is the Falkland Islands. The name they are know by in the islands is the Falkland Islands. They have many other names in other languages, and those will be used on other language Wikipedias. Argentina's claim has no status in international law, and so is not part of the formal name, or a name used internationally by countries other than Spanish speaking ones.--JohnBlackburnedeeds03:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
We already mention in the first sentence that the Spanish name is Malvinas and later explain how they had originally named it and that Argentina claims the islands. There is no need to repeat Malvinas every time Falklands is used in the article. TFD (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Introduction
I suggest changing "The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas ) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean on the Patagonian Shelf." by "The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas ) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean on the Patagonian Shelf annexed by the United Kingdom."
Every single disputed territory article as Ireland let the main article deals with the island itself, instead of the political entity. What's the difference here? Guidaw (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The dispute is only mentioned in the "History" and "Sovereignty dispute" sections. There are plenty of other sections that deal with with island-specific topics, with no relation to the dispute. Have in mind that Ireland is a centuries old important country, and the Falklands are a small country subdivision (of whichever country they were a part of; they have never been an independent nation) with a low population. It should be no surprise that the article on Ireland will be longer and with much more information that this one. Cambalachero (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the issue may be a misunderstanding of Ireland. Ireland (the island) is split into two completely different jurisdictions and neither is disputed (the Republic used to claim the North, but gave up that claim under the Good Friday Agreement). So the situation there is quite different. This article follows the normal rule in terms of covering disputed territory on Misplaced Pages. Kahastoktalk22:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Falklands are one of the world's most important penguin breeding sites, and yet penguins are barely mentioned at all in this article. There is no penguin population data. Suggest adding peer-reviewed scientific publications quoting reliable popluation data and population changes:
Rockhopper penguins:
1984 - 2,500,000 breeding pairs (Croxall, J.P., McInnes, S.J. and Prince P.A. - (1984) The status and conservation of seabirds at the Falkland Islands. In Status and conservation of the world's seabirds, ICBP Technical Publication No.2, (ed. J.P. Croxall, P.G.H. Evans and R.W. Schreiber), 271-291, ICBP, Cambridge.)
1995 - 300,000 breeding pairs (Bingham, M. (2002) The decline of Falkland Islands penguins in the presence of a commercial fishing industry. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 75: 805-818.)
2015 - 189,503 breeding pairs (Mercopress online, July 15th 2015 - http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/21/falklands-penguin-population-rising-gentoo-doubled-and-rockhopper-remains-stable)
This rapid and on-going decline in penguins is due to the reduction of food availability caused by the removal of large quantities of fish and squid by the Falklands commercial fishing industry, causing lack of food and longer foraging trips during chick rearing, leading to low reproductive success. These same species in nearby Chile and Argentina are protected from commercial fishing by no-fishing zones and are increasing in population. Peer-reviewed scientific publications stating this are:
1. (Bingham, M. (2002) The decline of Falkland Islands penguins in the presence of a commercial fishing industry. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 75: 805-818.)
2. (Bingham, M and Herrmann, T (2008) Magellanic Penguin Monitoring Results for Magdalena Island 2000-08. Anales Instituto Patagonia (Chile) 36(2): 19-32.)
3. (Luna G, Hennicke J, Wallace R, Simeone A, Wolfaardt A, Whittington P, Ellis S and McGovern M (2002) Spheniscus Penguin Conservation Workshop Final Report, IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, USA. 83pp.
4. Patterson KR (1987) Fishy events in the Falkland Islands. New Scientist 1562: 44-48.
5. Putz K, Ingham RJ, Smith JG & Croxhall JP (2001) Population trends, breeding success and diet composition of gentoo, magellanic and rockhopper penguins in the Falkland Islands. Polar Biology 24: 793-807.
Please can you add this population data. Pinguin Man (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Pinguin Man (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Rejected Mr Bingham, you need to declare your WP:COI in promoting exposure of your research. Which also appears to be significantly out of date, since the population has recovered and now is at levels last seen in 1933. WCMemail10:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
they are called islas malvinas and they were stolded by british goberment on 1982 now they are occupying the islands so please change on the introduction this part thanks "Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, although Argentina maintains its claim to the islands. In April 1982, Argentine forces temporarily occupied the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War." dont lied anymore
Not done: it's not clear exactly what changes you want to be made, but I think it is clear that there is unlikely to be consensus for an edit as described. Please propose specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and attain consensus for them before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Kahastoktalk19:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
"Approximately at" vs "at about"
While it's only a small point, I really do think that "approximately at" is rather clumsy wording. It would be better expressed as "at about" or "at approximately" if you go for the longer word. What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Err yeah, it does read a lot better Michael, writing interesting prose has never been a strong point of yours. Pity you couldn't just allow other people to comment without having a pop at other editors either. WCMemail16:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"writing interesting prose has never been a strong point of yours. Pity you couldn't just allow other people to comment without having a pop at other editors either." Just a bit of irony there, in that juxtaposition. Making fun of other editors' prose is unlikely to be constructive.
I'd say there typically isn't much difference between "about" and "approximately", except that the former sounds more normal in spoken English. I'd lean towards using expressions that sound less stilted and clumsy, as a rule, but in this case "are situated approximately at latitude..." seems acceptable to me.
On the other hand, MOSNUM does say one thing which might be relevant here: "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way, unless the reader might otherwise be misled." Since you'd normally assume such a range of coordinates to be approximate, we might more simply phrase it as "are situated at ..." Archon 2488 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Is your intervention necessary Michael? You can hardly be surprised, given quite how extreme your history of disruption of this topic area is, that regulars here might not welcome you with open arms.
Putting "at about" here is clumsier than "approximately at", because it doesn't work with the words that follow. The fact that the latter is more syllables does not make it automatically clumsier regardless of context. Kahastoktalk19:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a personal attack Mr Glass . It has to be said that Mr Glass has a great talent for writing content that is dull and uninteresting. That is intended as constructive feedback. Another bit of constructive feedback, making personal attacks and acting all hurt when you get a robust response is typical behaviour that is disruptive and has inflamed many discussions. Please stop it. WCMemail20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
Not done: it's not clear exactly what changes you want to be made, but I think it is clear that there is unlikely to be consensus for an edit as described. Please propose specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and attain consensus for them before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Kahastok talk 19:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)