Talk:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Version 0.5 (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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.

Situation is not the same as with the FI[edit]

Kahastok would you expand on this? Thank you. --Langus (t) 16:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopædia. There is no particular reason to include random Spanish in it. The guidance at WP:NCGN says to include a foreign language name only if it's "relevant", and defines what it means by "relevant". "Isla San Pedro y Sandwich del Sur" does not qualify by this definition.
The Spanish name is on the FI also does not qualify, but the Spanish-language name in that case is a significant part of the dispute. This is a significant and unusual use of WP:IAR. It does not apply here. Kahastok talk 17:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a very specific naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Falkland_Islands that provides the following guidance:
Geographical articles include both the English and Spanish names of the locality in the lead, but continue with the English name only. Articles on individual islands also note the Spanish name in the infobox.
This is a standard that Kahastok helped to build (see this diff, comment 1 and comment 2 on talk pages, and discussion at work group.)
Editor is now proposing to break apart from this standard, pointing to more broad guidelines. --Langus (t) 20:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you've noticed, but South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are not actually part of the Falkland Islands. In fact, they're quite a long way away from the Falkland Islands. It is difficult to see why we should feel the need to follow rules for Falklands-related articles even on articles that have no relation to the Falkland Islands. Kahastok talk 21:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Really Kahastok? SGSSI were part of the Falkland Islands Dependencies; that should be a hint. Also, the Falklands war escalated from an incident at Leith Harbour, South Georgia. Do we really need a RfC asking for something so trivial as whether or not the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are to be considered FI-related articles? --Langus (t) 21:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
So it was convenient to administer an uninhabited territory from their nearest inhabited territory? No, SGSSI are not Falklands-related. They are SGSSI-related. I agree we don't need an RFC. We just need a map.
Your argument is effectively the same as declaring that Argentina is in Europe because it used to be ruled from Spain. Kahastok talk 22:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it isn't. For example, Falklands war is a FI-related article, and it isn't even a place. Margaret Thatcher is a FI-related article, and she's not on a map. The convention above, established by community consensus, declares that Spanish names of the islands are "encyclopedic information, of particular importance with respect to the disputed Argentine territorial claim". This stands true for the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, directly involved in the dispute. --Langus (t) 01:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Would you also say that Ascension Island is an FI-related article? It played a pretty major role in the Falklands War. What about Portsmouth, where the fleet sailed from? Should we feel the need to give the Spanish name on London on the basis that it is vaguely related to the Falkland Islands? That's basically your argument.
I note with interest that you have taken your quote completely out of context. What it actually says is "the name Malvinas is encyclopedic information, of particular importance with respect to the disputed Argentine territorial claim." So it is, given the role that naming plays in that dispute. But SGSSI are not called "Malvinas" by anyone. Never have been. And naming does not play a similar role in the dispute over SGSSI as it does in the FI case.
There is no basis to casually assume that SGSSI are part of, or automatically related to, the Falkland Islands, or that our style rules for the Falkland Islands automatically apply to SGSSI - except insofar as they should both generally follow the wider rules for UK-related articles. Kahastok talk 17:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
My argument is that SCSSI are directly involved in the sovereignty dispute, which is the spirit of that guideline. You can tell because the guideline also recommends: Articles on individual islands also note the Spanish name in the infobox. So, it not only aims at the Falklands/Malvinas argument as you seem to imply, but encompasses the naming of every disputed island. It follows that those names are also encyclopedic information, of particular importance with respect to the disputed Argentine territorial claim.
I won't answer to your examples because they out the scope of this debate. Beware of not falling into a slippery slope type of argument. --Langus (t) 14:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Individual islands in the Falkland Islands, you mean. SGSSI are not, by any stretch of the imagination, in the Falkland Islands. Does it encompass every disputed island? That's far wider than "Falkland Islands", and it's difficult to see any evidence in the guideline that it was ever intended to mean that. And as one of the people who wrote it, I can assure you that it was not intended to mean that. Kahastok talk 21:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
In the 8 years the policy has existed, no one saw a need to extend it to South Georgia. Of itself that is no reason but it does demonstrate that the name is not contentious and that the Spanish name is not relevant to the sovereignty dispute. In reference to a slippery slope type of argument, turning the focus of every article on territories to the sovereignty dispute and trying to extend the guideline wider than intended is very much in that category. As someone who originally went to great lengths to ensure that the guideline was applied properly to Falklands related articles, I see no reason to extend it here. WCMemail 23:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure it was an oversight that Langus forgot to mention it but this was raised at 3rd opinion [1]. WCMemail 23:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it wasn't: when you ask for a third opinion you have to hide your identity by not signing the request; see Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Instructions. That allows for an unbiased approach. If I were to announce a 3O request at talk page... what would be the point of not signing the request?
I stand by my interpretation of the guideline. That SGSSI weren't on your mind when it was agreed doesn't imply that no one else considered them under its scope, or that it shouldn't be. The necessity for that normalization steamed from the dispute that exists over some islands at the South Atlantic Ocean, between an English-speaking country and a Spanish-speaking one. We're still under that situation here, and IP editor is signaling just that. --Langus (t) 03:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
BTW, are you WP:HOUNDING my contributions? --Langus (t) 03:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
So you're saying you were talking for me at WP:3O, not just without my consent but without even my knowledge, and certainly not giving me a say in what you are trying to sign me up to. Unbiased approach? Quite the opposite. Your approach allows one editor to decide how to frame the dispute in whatever biased way they like and claim the other editor's endorsement for it without even telling them that you went to 3O in the first place. Even the WP:3O guidelines say "[i]t is recommended that the filing editor notifies the second editor about the post here."
Fact remains that in the years since that guideline was added, and the far longer period since the standard was adopted on Falklands articles, no-one has ever tried to extend it beyond the Falklands before this discussion. That's just fact. So, no, I think the guideline is perfectly clear. When it says "Falkland Islands", it means "Falkland Islands". And, as I've pointed out from the start of this, the circumstances that lead to the guideline in the Falklands explicitly include the well-known dispute over the name of the Falkland Islands, a dispute that does not exist in the case of SGSSI. Note: corrected error by adding a "not" in the previous sentence Kahastok talk 18:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Finally, there is a difference between looking at an editor's contributions and harassing them. This was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the latter. Kahastok talk 07:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
If they were part of the part of the Falkland Islands, there would be no need to provide the Spanish name. But it is a different territory, the UK claimed it at a different time, and Argentina provided a claim at different times from the claim over the Falklands. Also, it has a separate administration, even if at times they may share a governor or other officials. So I would include the Spanish name just as we mention the territorial dispute between the Uk and Argentina. TFD (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There is not currently a translation per most recent consensus, and the basic reading of WP:NCGN does not require one as no name other than "South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands" meets the criteria outlined there. And note that it is difficult to see that this has anything to do with the dispute as the Spanish-language name that Langus and the IP want to include is not used by either disputant. Kahastok talk 18:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The IP editor and, strangely, the editor arguing for the inclusion of the Spanish name are in fact ignorant of what the name is in Argentine Spanish. In Spanish it would be Georgias del Sur for South Georgia and Islas Sandwich del Sur for the South Sandwich Islands, leading to the translation being Islas Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur. Both are literal translations of the English language name, indicating despite the sovereignty claim, there is no controversy or politicisation of the name. The current guidance for inclusion of the Spanish name on the Falklands is precisely because it is politicised. Current guidelines would suggest there is no need for a Spanish translation in this case. WCMemail 19:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
So why do we provide both French and Dutch names for the island of Saint Martin? Both Saint-Martin and Sint Maarten are "literal translations" of the English name. In fact we do that for every country. The only reason reason I can see to omit it is that it might legitimize the Argentinian claim. But then we are supposed to be neutral. TFD (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
On Saint Martin, both options meet the general guidelines set out at WP:NCGN as they are the local names. The local name in this case is in English. You could (though I personally wouldn't) make a case for a non-English language based on WP:NCGN - which does allow for historical local use. But that language would be Norwegian. Kahastok talk 21:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
"Local name" seems bizarre when discussing uninhabited islands that have no belongers. Probably the closest guide would be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands. Like the SGSSI, there is an Argentinian claim on a British Overseas Territory and "Articles on individual islands also note the Spanish name in the infobox." Other than the fact the SGSSI is not part of the Falklands, is there any reason to treat it differently? TFD (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
First, we're not talking about the infobox. Second, on Falklands articles there is generally an entirely different Spanish toponymy that has nothing to do with the English toponymy. "Malvinas" is part of the dispute, but so are "Isla Soledad" and "Gran Malvina" - very different from "East Falkland" and "West Falkland". The significance of "South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands" in Spanish to the political dispute is very much lower. Kahastok talk 21:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually WCM, I believed that Isla San Pedro was the Spanish name used elsewhere, because in Argentina they are always called Georgias del Sur. But there's no point in discussing that if there's no intention of including any Spanish name in the infobox or lede, is it?
Tragicomic fact is that current article presents the Spanish names at section South Sandwich Islands, at the opening paragraph and in the table of individual islands (Islas Sandwich del Sur, Candelaria, Vindicación, Tule del Sur, etc). And it's been like that since 2005.[2][3]
It's evident that this article could've been benefited from WP:NCGN#Falkland_Islands. --Langus (t) 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Isla San Pedro is in fact a small island in Chile. We have a guideline WP:NCGN, which applied here suggests there is no need to add the Spanish name. We have a different guideline at WP:NCGN#Falkland_Islands, because the name Malvinas is encyclopedic information. The literal translation of the English name into Spanish, demonstrates that, unlike with the Falkland Islands, the Spanish name is not significant in relation to the territorial dispute. There is nothing to suggest a comparable reason exists here and the emotive posturing and hyperbole isn't helpful. WCMemail 23:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Behnam Nazemi islands?[edit]

Maybe I'm being dyslexic, but I saw a small group of three islands on mapping apps, off the SW coast. The apps label this small group Behnam Nazemi. I can find no Internet data for such islands so named in the Southern Ocean. If anyone knows if the correct name for these islands, adding a footnote why Internet mapping services use the Behnam Nazemi convention might help researchers uding one, or the other name, especially if it is true that maps show a name that no Internet verification seems to be out there.

Else, if I'm making a dumb mistake, feel free to tease me. Tesseract501 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Dear Wee, there is some sort of road on South Georgia I believe, running from King Edward Point to Grytviken and further on to Gull Lake. It is clearly visible on Google Earth, extending some 3.4 km. Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)