Wikipedia

Talk:Economy of the Falkland Islands

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Presentation of wool data

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago33 comments6 people in discussion

The tabular data for wool in the article is unnecessarily complex. Wool is sold in metric units so it makes little sense to present the information in units which are not used. Even for retail sales in the UK, metric measures are used for wool. Check out these web pages: [1] [2].Michael Glass (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

So we ignore the FIG website and your "source based" reference to use some home spun commercial site instead? I don't see the table as complex. Justin talk 12:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, Justin. Look at the FIG document. Here is the link: [3] I referred to the other sites to demonstrate British usage. Michael Glass (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

British wool production also uses the metric system. See [4]. As British usage is metric, the table should reflect that. I propose that it be brought in line with the policy on Falkland Units. Michael Glass (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, why were pouinds and ounces chosen for the imperial units for fleeces? Why not pounds and decimals of a pound or just ounces. It is a matter of WP:POV - and the POV that matters is the one which is in use in the Falklands, not the POV of the editor. Until and unless that POV can be ascertained, don't convert!¬ Martinvl (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's about following WP:FALKLANDSUNITS and WP:UNITS, both of which require conversion of metric units into imperial/US measures. Your claim of POV is nothing more than a distraction and a violation of WP:POINT. Pfainuk talk 06:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think that this is taking the policy to extremes. It simply doesn't make sense to quote the price of wool per pound when it isn't sold by the pound in either the Falkland Islands or the UK. If there's a need for conversion, then put kg (2.2 lb) in the table and be done with it. Michael Glass (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

This has been discussed previously and you claim not to have a fatwa againts metric units but that is exactly what you're doing and per WP:CALC it is perfectly acceptable to have a conversion to units people are more familiar with. Your suggestion has been rejected and to suggest others have to take your disruptive behaviour to talk is putting the cart before the horse. Stop disrupting articles simply to make a point. Oh and you are in near violation of 3RR, make a 4th revert and I will report you. Justin talk 09:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Two reverts don't add up to three, Justin. Two editors have issues with the wording; two have supported it. My revised edit took into account Pfainuk's objection. I repeat, wool isn't sold by the pound in the Falkland Islands or in the UK. Complicating the table with misleading information simply doesn't make sense. Michael Glass (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz wrote "... it is perfectly acceptable to have a conversion to units people are more familiar with." Please name them - and please don't include the United States as they use American cents, not pence, also please don't include knitters who work form home as these prices refers to unspun greasy wool, not processed wool. Martinvl (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
A) the claim is the information is somehow misleading. It is not. B) Policy allows for conversion of metric units into imperial/US measures for clarity. Just because you do not approve of the use of imperial units is not excuse for a Fatwa against them. Being pointy isn't helpful either, nor are bad tempered bad faith accusations such as here or when I removed your original research from another article.
Secondly, as I pointed out to Michael previously, his previous attempt to remove imperial units was rejected. His first edit this morning was a revert. He is welcome to attempt to wikilawyer his way out of a block for edit warring if he likes.
Finally, if eithr of you put as much effort into editing articles as you do wasting other people's time with WP:LAME arguments, wikipedia could be significantly improved. Justin talk 10:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Justin, you have not answered my question. Why not? Martinvl (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
It is possibly because your question is asinine. Weights of one specific thing in one specific context when that specific measurement is not in common usage? Oil in barrels is fine, we are all fine with the context, but for wool? Output gets measured in kg and lbs, it is sold as irreguar units called bales and it is sold often as auction lots of various sized bales. In this case the sensible and easy to understand lbs and kgs are used. Your argument would be to use bales if you want to specify the way untreated wool is sold, and that would be a sodding nightmare. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
The original source quoted the price per kilogram. Also, if you look at the market reports in the daily newspapers, you will see the wholesale price of meat and similar commodities quoted per kilogram, not per carcase. Finally, I am reporting what appeared in the source document which is what Wikipedia is about. Martinvl (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
As bales are measured in lbs as well as kilos, then yes, they are sold in lbs as well. Especially true when you consider that most Falkland wool is sold in British markets where both lbs and kgs are used (and a quick glance on google books turns up quite a few sources for it). It is amusing how strongly you fight to remove information tht helps make wiki more useful. I see zero harm in including both the measurements used for pricing of this wool. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I didn't respond, because a) I had addressed the question already and b) didn't see the point in repeating myself. As Narson ably points out, a modicum of effort will turn up sources using both. That should be the end of the matter. Justin talk 17:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
The trouble is, Narson asserted that wool bales were measured in pounds and kilos in the Falklands and in the UK, but did not produce any evidence to support his assertion. When I did a quick Google search, the only documents that used lb were American or historical documents, such as old editions of the Australian Year Book before metrication. So my question is, where's your evidence? Michael Glass (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wool, Frank Ormerod, 2008 for example. Now can I get on with article writing please or do you wish to waste more of mine and other people's time? Justin talk 13:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
"General Books publication date: 2009 Original publication date: 1919 Original Publisher: Henry Holt Subjects: Wool industry Wool Business"[5] Got any more up-to-date evidence? Michael Glass (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Michael, no I don't intend to indulge you any further. I have better things to do than pander to your every demand. Justin talk 13:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's OK. I quite accept that you have failed to provide the evidence I asked for. Thanks, and have a nice day. Michael Glass (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh grow up and stop being so goddam childish [6] About 1,260,000 results (0.25 seconds). As I said for a modicum of effort you can turn up plenty of sources. May I suggest for light reading the essay WP:DICK. Justin talk 13:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Failed to be polite. Failed to provide evidence. Now go take a running jump.Michael Glass (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Justin, if you had bothered to read the articles that you turned up you would find that many of them refer to US currency, not UK currency. Those that refer to UK currency use pounds, shillings and pence which, in case you did not know, were replaced with a decmial currency nearly 40 years ago - about the same time that Britian's wholesale traders changed from using pounds and ounces to kilograms! Please try again and find an article which refers to the wholesale price of greasy wool in pence per pound. May I suggest for your light reading, the article WP:VERIFY Martinvl (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Martin, for that useful tip, after over three years of editing wikipedia I am of course familiar with the policy but thank you nonetheless. Now, for my edification could you please tell me why you presume that I did not look at any of those references turned up by Google? I of course did. Please tell me why having demanded I demonstrate the sale of wool in lb, having done so, you now wish to argue further? Please tell me why you are spending so much effort bent on expunging information that our readers may find useful as it is expressed in units they commonly use? Please tell me what the harm is making that information available? Please tell me what policy you think it violates? Please tell me what is the benefit to wikipedia of having information solely in metric units? I want to understand why you are pursuing this course. Justin talk 16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Justin, I asked you to demonstrate the sale of wool in pence per pound (which is what you were adding). I agree that the Americans might use cents per pound, but you were converting to pence per pound. My real objection however is that presenting too much redundant data reduces the value of the article. Martinvl (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Martin, please answer the question, thank you. Justin talk 07:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
You crammed this article with statistic after statistic after statistic and you're now going on about cutting out redundant information? Shoot, the entire table's redundant. We aren't an almanac of wool prices, we're an encyclopædia.
It really doesn't matter that much if wool is sold in pounds or in kilograms. Chances are, the 99.9% of our readers who aren't in the wool trade don't either know or particularly care. What they will care about is whether they can understand our article. If we really need to have this information in, it should be accessible both to those who use kilograms and those who use pounds.
If you really think that articles shouldn't have conversions into imperial and US units, that's not a matter for this page. You will need to change WP:UNITS, and to do so you will need to come up with a convincing reason why we should deliberately make the English Wikipedia inaccessible to the over 60% of our readers who live in countries where imperial and US units are in common use.
As it is, we all know that this entire debate is a massive WP:POINT violation. You're disrupting this article to try and make a point about how we should be forcing everyone to use metric units. It's got nothing to do with redundant information and everything to do with your metrication crusade. Pfainuk talk 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
A large part of the problem here is layout. I oppose the misleading and foolish inclusion of phantom prices per pound when the wool is priced per kilo. However, one of the main problem with the tables is putting the converted figures in separate cells and not in the parentheses that MOSNUM recommends. If the table followed MOSNUM a large part of the problem would be alleviated. Michael Glass (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please stop with the provocative language. It is neither foolish nor misleading to have prices listed per kilo and per pound regardless of what it is actually sold in. Although I am wondering what the point of this wool pricing table anyway since it seems to do nothing to enhance what is already stated in the preceding text, it would be better if, as you suggest, conversions were provided in parentheses rather than a separate column. Similarly for the sheep farming statistics table. wjematherbigissue 23:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wjemather, I'm sorry that you find my description of the 'prices' provocative. However, I welcome your support for my proposal to improve the layout and using parentheses for the derived figures. I hope that we all can agree on this improvement. Michael Glass (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
There is very little point in even having this table. It adds very little to the article and is apparently limitless. If we find a full historical listing of wool prices, will you be expanding the table? Or is it intended to remain be a permanent reminder of wool prices in the last decade, taking prices in years that aren't comparable, even when prices change in the future?
But if we have to have it, it should be in both pounds and kilograms, and data should be provided in a way that is accessible both to those who would like to use pounds and to those who would like to use kilograms as per the current table. Pfainuk talk 06:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Removed the tables per suggestion. Regards, Justin talk 07:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Use of ST and LT

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

WP:MOSNUM has recently come out against the use of "ST" and "LT" for "short tons" and "long tons" respectively. I don't know if the tremplate has been updated yet. However writing "X tonnes (Y short tons; Z long tons) creates data overload. I have prepared a small table that I have inserted into the article. I propose that the text of the article be aligned with the sources without conversions and that readers be expected to look at the table for conversion factors. Before enteringinto an edit war, I woudl liekot see what the oponion of other editors is. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quite why we need detailed catch statistics for all these years is quite beyond me. They seem to me to be a gaggle of figures that do not add significantly to the reader's understanding of the Falkland Islands economy. Better to just remove them. Pfainuk talk 20:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've removed the table as I couldn't see the purpose it served. Does every wiki article now need a conversion table, my preference is to use the conversion templates in the text. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Consider these three sentences:
  • "The levels of rock cod taken in the whole of the South Atlantic dropped from 399,700 tonnes in 1969-70, to 101,560 tonnes the following year and 2,740 tonnes in 1971/72"
  • "The levels of rock cod taken in the whole of the South Atlantic dropped from 399,700 tonnes (393,400 LT; 440,600 ST) in 1969-70, to 101,560 tonnes (99,960 LT; 111,950 ST) the following year and 2,740 tonnes (2,700 LT; 3,020 ST) in 1971/72"
  • "The levels of rock cod taken in the whole of the South Atlantic dropped from 399,700 tonnes (393,400 long tons; 440,600 short tons) in 1969-70, to 101,560 tonnes (99,960 long tons; 111,950 short tons) the following year and 2,740 tonnes (2,700 long tons; 3,020 short tons) in 1971/72"
In the first the figures tell the story - this answers User:Pfainuk's question "do we need the ficures" but lack conversions. In the second, the story that the figures tell is obscured by all a series of abbreviations that are not defined in either the Oxford Concise (5th edition 1964) or the Chambers (1993) dictionaries - the two dictionaries on my bookshelf. In the third, like the second, the story is obscured by verbosity. My proposal is to have the first sentence and the table (that User:Wee Curry Monster deleted). If you visit The old Motorway article you can see how the table worked. (Please note that the article Motorway and the article Freeway have now been merged into a single article. Martinvl (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with the table, if we follow that logic every article would need a table giving conversion factors for units used. I support the use of templates giving conversions per WP:MOSNUM. On the face of it, the proposal simply seems to be metrication yet again by the back door. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Tonne table

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have raised the issue of the "tonne table" that Pfainuk removed on the WP:MOSNUM talk page. Please discuss there rather than here. Martinvl (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Economy of the Falkland 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Economy of the Falkland Islands. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Economy of the Falkland Islands. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Economy of the Falkland Islands. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_the_Falkland_Islands&oldid=1256841610"