Talk:Falkland Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Falkland Islands is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 6, 2015.
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Falkland Islands is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Falkland Islands at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 
Version 0.5 (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Geography.


Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015[edit]

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. [1] Which also appears to be significantly out of date, since the population has recovered and now is at levels last seen in 1933. WCMemail 10:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2015[edit]

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

181.169.140.118 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

"Approximately at" vs "at about"[edit]

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)

Mmm, no, your proposed wording is even clumsier. WCMemail 16:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Rreally? Since when were three syllables deemed clumsier than six? You've got to be joking! Let's hear from other editors. Michael Glass (talk) 16:27, 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. WCMemail 16:34, 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)

Would "nearly" do? Jonathunder (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Please stop the personal attack. It's offensive and unnecessary. Michael Glass (talk) 16:51, 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. Kahastok talk 19:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


This is a personal attack Mr Glass [2]. 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. WCMemail 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

WCM: I don't take kindly to offensive language.Nor do I take kindly to obvious misrepresentations. Michael Glass (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia[edit]

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:MarshalN20, User:Wee Curry Monster and many other editors for their effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know Jarodalien and congratulations on the FA. WCMemail 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the note Jarodalien! This article is the result of a beautiful collaboration between opposing perspectives. I'm glad that you have been able to translate it! Translating is a difficult (and separate) task in and of itself, so make sure to give yourself strong credit as translator of the article in Chinese!--MarshalN20 Talk 18:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016[edit]

Malvinas/Falkland Islands are under the status of "Non Autonomous Disputed Territory" according UN resolution 2065. Links: http://www.un.org/es/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml - http://www.dipublico.org/5886/resolucion-2065-xx-de-la-asamblea-general-de-las-naciones-unidas-cuestion-de-las-islas-malvinas-falkland-islands/ Please, make this clear. 61.186.153.105 (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

2065 is included in the article and "Non Autonomous Disputed Territory" is not a suitable moniker. UN refers to Falklands as a "None Self-Governing Territory", a designation reflecting the fact they were named as a colony by the UK in 1947 not because of 2065. In addition, the article already includes a section on the sovereignty dispute. As the request is based on incorrect information and no actual edit is suggested this request will not be actioned. WCMemail 12:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent changes to history section[edit]

[3] I reverted two recent changes to the history section as after reviewing them I did not feel they improved the article. Prior to the changes the article flowed in a logical chronological order, whereas after the changes it flipped from mid-80s back to the 1970s. Reading before and after, admittedly a subjective opinion, the changed text did not seem to be as well written as before. As this took a lot of effort to get to GA status bringing here to discuss. WCMemail 09:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the thing I noticed most was that the new text implied that RAF Mount Pleasant was built in the 1970s (i.e. before the war) when in fact it was built in the 1980s - critically, after the war. This is an error of fact and contradicted the previous paragraph.
I also noted that the first Shackleton report in the new text was not introduced as well as the second, which potentially was unclear: it was possible to - incorrectly - read between the lines that Wikipedia editors had got confused and found two reports where only one existed. Kahastok talk 10:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)