From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeGibraltar was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 18, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Version 0.5
WikiProject iconThis article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Geography.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team  
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article was included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Gibraltar at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.


Source discussion[edit]

Monthly high and low temperatures[edit]

As an editor today found fault with the article's statements about January high and low temperatures, I looked to the source to see what it says, and it doesn't seem to back up either version. The statement is,

In the coldest month, January, the temperature ranges from 11–18 °C (52–64 °F) during the day and 6–13 °C (43–55 °F) at night, the average sea temperature is 15–16 °C (59–61 °F)

The source,, doesn't give a range. It just gives one number, 16 for high, 10 for low, and 16 for sea. I couldn't find ranges anywhere. I note that the listed source is the 2009 version of the document, so maybe it changed.

Also there is another source, used for the table below that paragraph, which has slightly different numbers for August. It would be nice for the article to be consistent, by using the same source or sources for both.

So should we rewrite that paragraph to use the single numbers from the chart, or am I missing something?

As it stands, I have no reason to prefer the old version to the new version, as neither is backed by reliable sources. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made the change to use the single numbers from the same source as the chart.
Note that another editor has switched that source since I wrote above. Given the history of mistakes in this section, I did a quick sampling of the source and confirmed it matches the current article text. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Gib (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 May 2018[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gib (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 May 2018. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Change in the lead section regarding governance[edit]

The sentence in the lead section regarding Gibraltar governance was agreed upon after a discussion of several months/years and has lasted for 8-9 years. A proposal from Wee Curry Monster wants to change that consensus. I propose that Wee Curry Monster explains here their proposal before we find a new consensus and change it. Imalbornoz (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This sort of veiled threat helps nobody, just raises the temperature. You should know that by now.
Could you perhaps cite the precise discussion supporting this specific text? I cannot find it. So far as I can see, your own argument leads to there being no text here at all. I have implemented such a change and given your arguments above and in your edit summaries I have no doubt you will support it. Kahastok talk 20:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't support Wee Curry Monster's edit because it was very confusing regarding a very controversial expression (self-governing) which generated a very long discussion several years ago:
1) it said that Gibraltar is "self-governing", which is a term with several meanings, and one of them is in direct contradiction with the fact that Gibraltar is in the UN's list of "non self-governing" territories; therefore, if you say it is self-governing it would be necessary to clarify that it is not "self-governing" in the sense that is used in the UN's list of "non self-governing territories" (a bit of a mess).
2) on top of that, he used the expression Gibraltar is "[ [ Self-governing colony|self-governing ] ]", which has several problems: a) the chosen format hides the word "colony" (giving a very partial impression) and b) the expression "self-governing colony" is not accurate since self-governing and Crown colonies were renamed "British Dependent Territories" by Britain in 1981 and British Overseas Territories in 2002.
I think the previous expression was very neutral and it was able to survive untouched for 8-9 years: "Under the Gibraltar constitution of 2006, Gibraltar governs its own affairs, though some powers, such as defence and foreign relations, remain the responsibility of the British government" describes the real situation of governance in Gibraltar without mentioning the confusing words "self-governing" or the UN's list of "non self-governing territories". Personally, I would prefer to mention the UN's list in the lede, but I understand that it might be very controversial, so I won't insist on that.
I can accept to have no reference to Gibraltar's governance in the lede if the alternative is to have a very long and tiring discussion, given that there is a whole section with the details, although I think it is not the best option. Imalbornoz (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────There is nothing controversial about the phrase self-governing, that some people do not like it for ideological reasons is immaterial. Wikipedia is not censored. Further there was no dicussion over the text that was introduced and I tend to support its removal as misleading and not representing the main text in the article. The text in the lede was edited because it was misleading and whilst I would support its removal I certainly do not wish to see the misleading version re-added. I also don't think its helfpul flinging accusations of misconduct in edit summaries and I suggest that editors apologise for such conduct. WCMemail 11:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh and the text was introduced by Roger 8 Roger in July [1], I merely corrected it. I modified it as slightly misleading, which is what I referred to above. I would suggest certain editors make sure of their facts before they attempt to smear an established editor again. It seems there are several editors you need to apologise to for your conduct.

Finally, I'd just like to check, do you have any sources this time? Are you still relying on google searches for snippets you think support you? WCMemail 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am so glad you don't think the phrase self-governing is controversial and, futhermore, that ideological reasons should be immaterial and Wikipedia should not be censored. I will agree with your edit, then, if (in order to keep it neutral) you do not hide the word colony in the link (even though, for the sake of historical accuracy, I would add the fact that the official name for self-governing colonies is now British Overseas Territories) and include the fact that Gibraltar is in the United Nations' list of non self-governing territories. If you are looking for sources, you can see Gibraltar in the UN's list of non-self governing territories here and you can illustrate about self-governing colonies and British Overseas Territories here and here
I think it would also be a good alternative to restore the phrase that lasted for 8 years in the lead before you and Roger 8 Roger edited it. It was very neutral.
If, on the other hand, for any reason (ideological or whatever), you are only ready to stick to your original edit (hiding the word colony in the link you included and not mentioning the UN's list), then let's save ourselves a long and tiring discussion and keep governance altogether unmentioned in the lead. Imalbornoz (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
You know all the objections to everything above, it's not like you're some new editor who wasn't heavily involved in those discussions back in the day.
The real question is, if you do not want a repeat of previous discussions, why are you trying to provoke one? Kahastok talk 20:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, WCM said that the phrase "self-governing" is not controversial, that ideology is immaterial and Wikipedia should not be censored. It surprised me after his intense involvement in the discussion some years ago, so I wanted to know whether he really meant it (call me an optimist). I understand that you think that it is controversial, and maybe he does too. OK, so do I. I think we have consensus here. Let's keep governance out of the lead. Imalbornoz (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
And there you go again. If you are happy with the status quo with no text, all you had to do at this point was to say nothing at all, or "I accept the version of the text with no mention in it". Given your previous involvement, everything else you've said since that point appears to be an attempt at provocation.
So I ask again: if you do not want a repeat of previous discussions, why are you trying to provoke one? Kahastok talk 22:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So I answer again (see my answers above): I have said (3 times) that, even though it's not the best option, no text is better than a long discussion. I have also offered three options for you and WCMonster to choose from. I have said that you and I seem to have a consensus here. So no, I don't want to provoke.
Your position is clear. On the other hand, WCMonster is the one who does not offer a clear answer. (a) Does he really mean what he says (that self-governing is not a controversial term, that ideology is immaterial and Wikipedia is not censored) and is eager to mention Gibraltar as a self-governing colony (now called British Overseas Territory) and part of the UN list of non-self governing territories? (b) Does he prefer the phrase that was in the lead for 8-9 years? or (c) Does he prefer no text at all? Just information. Question and answer. No long discussion or provocation. Thanks. -Imalbornoz (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
And once again, you claim not to want a long discussion in one paragraph, and then immediately try to provoke one in the next.
The answer - to your question as to what WCM thinks, to your presumption as to what I think - is that article talk pages are for improving the article, not for having a hypothetical discussion of other things. We have a clear consensus for a specific text, that we have all accepted. At best, further discussion of this point takes editor time away from more useful pursuits, and risks creating unnecessary and irrelevant conflict that may make consensus harder to reach in any future discussions. Kahastok talk 19:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The term "self-governing" is ambiguous and requires clarification. We don't say that Greater London or pre-independence American colonies were self-governing although they had local assemblies and laws. But in all cases, the U.K. reserves the right to overrule local decisions, which is not how self-governing is normally understood. TFD (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you objecting to the current text on this in the lede (i.e. no comment at all on the subject)?
The same applies to you as applies to Imalbornoz. We've had long discussions on this before, and we appear to have a consensus on how to resolve it this time. What benefit is there to the reader in our spending the next three months arguing the toss on a pair of texts that we all agree won't go in the article? Kahastok talk 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I object to the inclusion in the lead of the expression "self-governing" or the watered down version "governs its own affairs" in the lead. My point was that if these terms were included, they would require qualification, because self governance generally implies a greater degree of autonomy than Gibraltar enjoys. TFD (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
So what? The consensus text does not include either of those expressions. Kahastok talk 21:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm mystified as to why someone would continue to insist I am responsible for an edit, when it has been clearly shown I am not. Suffice it to say, I support Kahastok's amendment, I feel no need to engage in a philosphical debate on a closed matter. I will close by referring the OP to WP:TALKNO for guidance as to how a talk page is supposed to be used. WCMemail 17:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)