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.
Q: Why does the article include the name in Spanish at the top?
A: Because as this article talks about a sovereignty dispute, and the name is part of that dispute, both ones are referenced in the lead. The rule is to name the islands as Falklands, with a reference to the Malvinas name on first use in the article, and from then on call them simply Falklands. This rule is detailed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands. This rule only apply to articles that deal with geography or the dispute itself.
Q: The newspapers are talking about the dispute! Shouldn't the article include that info?
A: In most cases, the likely answer is no. This article tries to keep a summary of the dispute from a historical point of view, and avoid recentism. Most of the times that the press talks about this, it is either the anniversary of some old event, or something that can be shortened as "A British politician said that the Falklands must remain British" or "An Argentine politician said that the Falklands must be Argentine". Those things rarely have an actual significance for the dispute, as they are just a confirmation that both sides are simply staying at their regular positions. Sometimes, a modern event may have the required historical significance (such as the Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013), but those are rare, and do not take place on a regular basis.
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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 currently claims the 'Îles Malouines' were first named by Bougainville in 1764. I doubt this can be true, as the islands are marked under the same name in Guillaume Delisle's 1722 map of the Americas. This was pointed out by somebody called Lewis Bettany in a letter published in the Times Literary Supplement on the 13th of February 1930; he credits the naming only to the 'men of St Malo' some time after 1698. Thgomas (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An unsourced letter (let alone one from 1930) is not good enough for a positive confirmation but copies of the 1722 map, including digital scans, show the name in use earlier than 1764. Could we have something like: 'the term "Îles Malouines" is first recorded in 1722...?' Thgomas (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a bit like wp:or, if an RS says otherwise we need another RS contesting it. One issue may be maps are reissued as this was and often updated (this may have been) without acknowledgment, so we do not know if this is a 1722 1st edition or a much later (and modified) reprint. Which is why we need an RS's assessment. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am from Portugal and although I am not very sure because the article I saw was not in Portuguese, a mission by Amerigo Vespucci in 1502 for Portugal sighted the islands, let me know if I am wrong, thanks. HateSans (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent activity on the talk page doesn't seem to suggest consensus on the lack of boldface on Islas Malvinas in the lede - MOS:BOLDREDIRECT implies it should be, and there's nothing specific in WP:NCFALKLAND. I'm inclined to boldly edit (so to speak) but given the topic thought I'd make sure I'm not stepping on a settled issue. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of what WP:BOLDREDIRECT says, it is not common or standard practice to boldface non-English renderings of place names in the leads of articles, even in cases where there is a redirect from the non-English rendering. Islas Malvinas is included because of its use in Spanish, not because of any WP:FRINGE usage in English. I would oppose bolding it in this case. Kahastoktalk17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not boldface Corse at Corsica. We do not boldface Caerdydd at Cardiff. We do not boldface Helsingfors at Helsinki. We do not boldface Açores on Azores.
The cases you raise are very clearly different cases from this one, where what is being highlighted is English-language usage of these terms, outside the English-speaking world. Use of Islas Malvinas as an English term is WP:FRINGE, and it would be strongly WP:POV for us to imply that it isn't, as you propose. If anything we should be pushing toward the more common solution which is to put the foreign-language names in a footnote (as at Germany, Sweden, Brazil and the like). Kahastoktalk18:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kahastok - You cite the fact that Islas Malvinas is not an English name as a reason against it being in boldface. How do you justify the bolding of both competing names in:
The fact that one name is English and the other is Spanish only appears relevant because this is Enlgish Wikipedia - in every other case of a territorial dispute with two nations using different names we boldface both. I'm also not convinced that Islas Malvinas is fringe to the degree you maintain - its very existence as a redirect suggests it relevant enough to address. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite straightforward. A redirect from an alternative name is mentioned next to the name, and the manual of style instructs to bold the redirected name. I see no reason why this article should be treated differently from any other article. Cambalachero (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:CambalacheroMOS:BOLDSYNOnly the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article)[L] are placed in bold: Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. (Mumbai) It is obvious, don't use it. First, pls see the majic word, 'significant', which Las Malvinas is not. Second, Las Malvinas is a foreign name that should only be inserted in the lead (without bolding) if it occurs in a significant number of English sources which the term, once again, does not. Also, please don't change the lead once a discussion is happening. Wait for consensus. This is a case of editors trying to squeeze as many additions into an article as their keyboard and wp rules allow. Please use common sense, the term is in a foreign language, so treat it as such Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the cases proposed as examples are merely cases of uncontroversial name translations. That's not the case here. And I doubt that just bolding the word has any effect on neutrality anyway. "Malvinas" is included because of WP:NCFALKLAND, and MOS:BOLDREDIRECT says that those redirects should be bolded. Straightforward. This is a featured article and it should follow all relevant policies, guidelines and MOS. And I haven't changed anything in the article in either way, anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the UN does, by itself, is not relevant - look at many secondary sources, not just one. Anyway, the UN reference is using English plus Spanish, not English plus English. The term 'The Malvinas' is English and has always used in some English sources, not necessarily to do with the sovereignty dispute. But this discussion is about the foreign term 'Las Malvinas'. By way of comparison, see Río de la Plata. That foreign term for the River Plate has become well entrenched in English, to the point where it is now the commonly used term in English, but River Plate is still significantly used by sources, which allows River Plate to be bolded. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Roger 8 Roger Replying to your points above as well so as to streamline this discussion:
1. "Being in dispute is not what guides us - we look at what is used by reliable secondary sources" - I've just scanned a few recent news articles on the Falklands, and the majority mention the term IM at least once, albeit in the context "termed Islas Malvinas by Argentina". I admit this is a brief look, but I'm certainly not convinced the term is uncommon to the degree necessary to call it a mere foreign toponym.
2. "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article)[L] are placed in bold: Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. (Mumbai)" - From MOS:BOLD: "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not." - The signicance of the name is established - IM redirects to the article. Also, Bombay is just as foreign as Mumbai as a name and is still bolded - it's a Gallician-Portuguese phrase likely meaning "good bay"
3. "That foreign term for the River Plate has become well entrenched in English, to the point where it is now the commonly used term in English, but River Plate is still significantly used by sources, which allows River Plate to be bolded" - Given "Rio de La Plata", "River Plate", and "La Plata River" are all recognised and boldface in Rio de la Plata, I'm not sure you can object to "Las Malvinas" rather than "The Malvinas" being boldface. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Islas Malvinas is included in the lead at all is to some degree an exercise of WP:IAR. It's difficult to see how it is supported by WP:LEADLANG, but we have traditionally included it anyway as a demonstration of neutrality. Note that WP:LEADLANG also does not suggest that translated names should be bolded.
The trend around foreign languages in article leads has moved since the current consensus was reached. It has moved against including them in the first sentence and in favour of discussing them in more detail in a name section. It may be a good idea to do that here. Kahastoktalk20:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your first point isn't a particularly fair interpretation of my point - there's a very clear difference between typos and a distinct name, and Malouine Isles is simply the French term Islas Malvinas originates from. I do agree that Hawkins' maidenland and the Sebaldines could very well be integrated into the Etymology section, but I'm sure you'll agree neither is used remotely as much as Las Malvinas.
The fact that one name is English and the other Spanish is fundamentally not that relevant - this is a region involved in a territorial dispute, in which each side describes it by a different name, both of which are well attested by reputable sources. The convention in this situation is to have both names boldface. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By chance I am involved simultaneously with this article (Māori: Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi) Treaty of Waitangi. The foreign name was unbolded by me which I expect will be re-bolded soon. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that most of these attempts to use foreign language terms in WP articles has a lot to do with pushing a political opinion. WP is neutral and apolitical. IMO. the inclusion of a foreign language name in the lead to articles is grossly misunderstood and misused throughout WP. Incidently, the Spanish for 'The Falkland Islands, as far as I know, is Islas Falklands. with the/las Malvinas being an alternative name not a translation, which would add another factor to consider. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) On the contrary. You cannot just ignore the fact that Malvinas is Spanish when it is only included because it is Spanish. The tiny minority English-language use of Malvinas would no more warrant a mention than tiny minority use of Hawkins' Maidenland or Sebaldines, or indeed the small minority Spanish-language use of Falklands.
And when your argument is that the redirect makes it important, then you cannot say that it is important in this case but not in all the other cases.
And to be clear, the convention in this situation - where we have an English-speaking territory, where one name is preferred by the overwhelming majority of English-language sources from all parts of the English-speaking world - would be to use that one English name exclusively and not mention any other language at all, except possibly as an aside in a name section. As I noted before, the only thing that suggests that Malvinas should be included in the lead in any form is WP:IAR. Kahastoktalk20:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
