Talk:West Coastway line

message: I have added Littlehampton and Bognor to the list of stations since the timetable map includes both of them. I have also changed the title at the head of the list - it isn't "principal stations", but all of them! I intend to add to the article so that it is similar to the one I produced for the East Coastway Line: in other words a comprehensive survey. Peter Shearan 10:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Littlehampton and Bognor

message: The distances have been completely removed as Miles and chains are no longer standard measures of distance in the uk officially it's all kilometres. The information was also incomplete and  no metric equivalent was given, the information also clogged up the template in my opinion. edits were made under wiki:bold--Lucy-marie 09:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite a reference to the fact that the railways no not use miles and chains anymore please? As for Miles vs. Kilometers UK is not a fully metric country (and in fact the EU has accepted that it might never be), also remember that all highway signs are still in miles. If the maps are becoming clogged due to the distance information then you might be right to remove all distances.(SouthernElectric 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to the last comment, the Map is now breaking the page, I'm undoing the edit made by Lucy-marie simply for that reason. (SouthernElectric 11:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ask anyone over 25 and they most probably will (even if they don't know it's exact value). There is a case (as I said) for not having any distances shown but if there are distances shown they should be those used by the industry, if you can cite a railway industry source that shows the railway no longer uses the 'Chain' (or it's value) you will go a long way to swaying your argument. As for what a 'chain' is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_%28unit%29 - isn't Wikipedia a great resource... Half the point of a encyclopedia is to reference what one doesn't know. Also please remember that these railway articles are not just route maps for current users of the line but also a research tool for historian and enthusiast. (SouthernElectric 12:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm undoing the reversion (# revision 159146480) that Lucy-marie made to the map AGAIN simply because her version is breaking the page layout (in IE & Opera), also she has removed much valuable historical notes as well as the distance of measurement she disputes. I'm minded to consider the involvement of Lucy-marie in this page as vandalism as it doesn't appear she has had any other involvement in the page to date and she doesn't seem to understand the significance of her deletions to the article as a whole. If she reverts / deletes again I'll be forced to report her action (SouthernElectric 12:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Map formatting sorted by someone else, still dispute (and comment above still stand about constructive/destructive contributions to this article) the deletion of historical data from the map, this article should be more than just an AtoZ route planer. (SouthernElectric 13:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That is your problem then, don't use the Internet, there are all number of railway books that talk about miles and chains (just as there are all number of maritime books that talk about Fathoms), never mind the fact that the UK still uses Miles and yards for highway distances. Also why did you choose to delete the historical notes along with the distances? (SouthernElectric 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The removal of the distances by Lucy-Marie is vandalism.  The UK has not moved over to metric distances, and the railway uses miles/chains as this is the accepted norm.  I intend to re-instate the distances. I also agree, that this page should not be driven by editors such as Lucy-Marie who looking at her profile has no interest in railways, and is expressing a POV which is unacceptable on WP.  The fact is that miles/chains are used in the UK.  Also, Wikipedia is not just for people "Under 25" .... it is for all users.  I am "over 25" and I do not understand some metric terms, but that does not give me the right to remove kilometerages from articles.Canterberry 16:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If lucy-marie (a teenager!) continues to revert the addition of the mileages, then I suggest we invoke the 3RR rule.Canterberry 16:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly something needs to be done, by all means if she wan't to add alternate Km distances far-doo's but the Mile should be the leading measurement as the UK still use Miles and Yards for transport distances. I think her activities need reporting as all she is doing is disrupting the articles development rather than improving it. (SouthernElectric 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Whilst we "Oldies" don't like being patronized by someone who, it would appear, knows nothing about the subject they are modifying other than a 'Brighton or bust' desire to extend metrification across Wikipedia. Judging by your user page, controversy and decent seems to follow you around, have you ever stopped to think why? Oh and before you try and claim  that I'm attacking you, no, it's an observation. (SouthernElectric 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm starting to loose the Will to carry on with this, but that seems to be the way you work; either cite a reference I asked for or leave this article alone as you don't seem to be able to cite anything to back up your assertions. As I said to you, look and any road sign or any cars speedometer, people are well aware of what a Mile is,  not everyone knows what a Km is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernElectric (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ‎Distances between stations part two

message: The question is then, should the map previous to 09:57, 20 September 2007 re reinstated complete with Miles and Chains distances OR the map re edited to reinstate the deleted historical information that was lost less the Miles and chains distances OR the map to be left as it stands now? (SouthernElectric pre 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections I propose to reinstate the pre 09:57, 20 September 2007 map, complete with miles and chains, in 10 days time. (SouthernElectric 10:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Been bold but following consensu and standard practice - as for opening dates thats not been done anywhere else as far as i know, so taking on board the coments the table could be too wide and/or too much info i pulled them (closure dates are standard practice though). Pickle 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we have some idea of the consensous please?

message: My own comment removed by myself SouthernElectric 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Littlehampton Jnction 

message: Bit of a problem , should the above halt be on the map (it's long closed) and if so who would like to try and add it to the map, it was just west of Hove tunnel but before Hove junction. Seems to me that it should be on the map but a real pain in the rear to actually place on the map. Comments please. (SouthernElectric 00:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Its standard practice to list closed stations, i think i've understood you correctly and put it in the right place. Standard practice is also to give closure years. Pickle 22:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Pickle, I didn't fancy going that deep into the map. Actually Holland Rd. closed later than I first thought, 7 May 1956! I'll add a short note (opening date, closure date etc.) ASAP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernElectric (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;) Pickle 21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holland Rd. Halt 

message: * The original name for the railway between Southampton and Fareham is the "Southampton and Netley Railway". Initially this ran between Southampton and Netley, but was later extended to Fareham.  It was eventually incorporated into the LSWR. I think the line from Eastleigh to Cosham was built by the LSWR. So this lead me to the conclusion that we have two choices: (a) Create a single new article to cover the entire "South Hampshire Lines" (i.e. Soton/Eastleigh to Fareham/Cosham). This would ecffectively include the Eastleigh to Fareham article (re-named or copied to a new article) (b) Extend the scope of the Eastleigh to Fareham lines to Cosham, and also create a new article to cover the Soton to Fareham section (originally the "Southampton & Netley railway"). Once this is done, then we can cutback the map for the West Coastway route. Canterberry 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would favor option 'A', assuming I understand you correctly. It seems to me that all these lines with in this 'triangle' share somewhat of a common history and also share somewhat of a common operating service - is this correct? What is important though is to maintain a half sensible 'click-through' for people coming from a station article and tracing their journey via the route map, this I also think option 'A' will achieve. (SouthernElectric 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't there be a c) cut back to Cosham\Fareham and create articles on the line from Eastleigh to Fareham and Southampton to Fareham\Cosham\Portsmouth? Simply south 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but that produces two very small stubs, and then what about the Gosport branch - I really do think that all these lines can be accommodated on one route map whilst the history and service patterns lend themselves to one article too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernElectric (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think at the present, that we should create a single article to cover all the lines bounded by Eastleigh, Southampton and Portsmouth. There will be a small overlap with the Coastway Article between Cosham Jn and Portsmouth, but at least it does a group of services quite neatly.  If the article expands, then we could split it down (e.g. making the Gosport Branch a stub, or even the Southampton to Fareham branch a stub).  At this stage, I firmly believe that we should re-group before sub-dividing, so that we know what we have in one place, rather than spread out.  Having the data in one article means that we do not lose any information, and can be split out easier at a later date (pending the structure/headings of the article being set-up for this). As a title I suggest the "Southampton and Eastleigh to Portsmouth line". Canterberry 17:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found there is an article on the line from Eastleigh to Fareham which is not a stub. Maybe there should be an article on the Southampton to Portsmouth Line? Simply south 17:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I know that. The idea was to incorporate this into a larger article. The line from Faerham to Southampton ought to be a separate article (if we choose that option!), and this article from Eastleigh to Fareham extended to Portsmouth (again, if we choose to do so!). Canterberry 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As i understand it, i would like to leave Eastleigh to Fareham Line as is, and create a new article coving the bit currently in the West Coastway article between the SWML and the Portsmouth direct line (how we handle the pompey branch shared by both the west caostway proper and pompey direct is a question for later as it was a kpint line). If we get aroudn to writting an article on the closed/mothballed Gospart branch then that a third article. IMHO any atempt to creat some article on the hampshire "triangle" would be forught with even more difficulties than we are in now with the west coastway (there is nothing wrong with small railway line articles). Pickle 18:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the 'triangle' is not on  (which it wouldn't be anyway, more like a 'X' with Fareham at the center, as Eastleigh to StDanys is covered on the SWML article whilst the map doesn't need to extend much past Cosham.), then we need to think in terms of two articles, Cosham to StDenys, and one for Eastleigh to Gosport. (SouthernElectric 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need to construct a route templates in a sandbox someplace, nothing fancy, just the lines and a couple of the major stations for now, so we can all visualize the same thing. (SouthernElectric 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Cosham to StDenys" is the section of the west coastway we are talking about (although one would show on a routemap the rest of the line to Pompey). The "Eastleigh to Gosport" is more challenging, as one half - Eastleigh to Fareham Line is still open and funcitons as one line, while the Gosport branch is closed/mothballed - event if it was once part of a bigger line. Pickle 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm I missing, we already show parts of closed lines anyway. Again I feel the need to ask if these route templates anything other than travel guides maps, if they're not were is the problem? (SouthernElectric 19:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very generaly and theoretically speaking, my POV is that every single line should have an article. Maybe i've misunderstood here, but you seam to be advocating creating either one article for tow distinct lines, or even mergeing/expanding the existing Eastleigh to Fareham Line to cover everything in this part of the world. The routmaps are another thing altogether.- they're advent allowed editors to *easily* create maps to show what is very hard to descirbe, the old "a picture is worth 1,000 words" - techncially they are limited to 5 columns, but i don't think they are anything to do with what we're talking about here (i think - or i could be very confused!). Pickle 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed lines are not a problem within the textual content, any problem lies within the route maps (legibility), the only reason I'm suggesting that the Cosham - StDenys and Eastleigh - Fareham - Gosport line are covered within one article is because preliminary research suggests the two lines history's are linked, they don't need to be combined but I just think that there will be a lot of cross referencing and repetition otherwise. (SouthernElectric 20:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Options for splitting 

message: Does anyone care to carry on with this, although I still feel the article needs splitting / combining with other articles I really don't feel at ease getting to involved for now - for obvious reasons - how do people feel? The-fall out from the above is actually quite sickening, for those who don't know please see here and here. SouthernElectric 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said on my talk page (for the benefits of any third parties), FFS i go away for a week or so doing other things and WW3 breaks out. So skipping all the contentious stuff and moving forward. I'm not fussed either way how we move forward. The status quo isn't earth-shatteringly offensive to me, on one note one could argue its the modern evolution of the traditional line. At the same time i'm quite happy, now its been made to leave the new article Southampton to Fareham Line as is (with some tweaks and some removal of duplication from this article). The second issue i'm somewhat more opinionated upon - the Eastleigh to Fareham line should stay as is, and at some point a Gosport branch article be created. I appreciate the history of the LSWR's attempts to reach pompey (ie via Gosport) but   i don't think given the subsequent history and the current context the Eastleigh to Fareham line should be expanded to encompass the defunct line to Gosport. That's my stall as such, but i'm open to other ediotrs thought and this isn't a "red line" (to paraphrase HM gov) for me. Pickle 20:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  SouthernElectric 18:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's all there, that's for sure, but I'm not so sure about one big route map anymore. I'll restore the 'work in progress' maps on my sandbox and cogertate... SouthernElectric 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well it seems to me that there isn't any real consensus developing here, again we are up against the needs of the historian and the possible needs of the present day 'train-traveller' who is looking for travel information (were the NR/TOC web sites would be of more use), I don't see any way forward on this, I propose removing the various templates that must by now be putting others off making contributions. I still stand by what I've said though. I'll remove the said templates as I placed them (I will also remove the map suggestions from this page as they are clogging the loading time in some browsers, they will still be accessible via the history tab), if someone wants to revert/replace them feel free. SouthernElectric 14:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello SouthernElectric. I think that you might be oversimplifying the debate as to what Wikipedia line articles should contain.  While I agree with you that a historian would be interested in the early years of the line (and would welcome information on relevant acts of parliament, surveying, financing and construction), they would also want to look beyond that to the different rolling stock used, freight movements etc through the ages.  I think that post-grouping and later after nationalisation, the identity of the West Coastway as a single entity begins to emerge.  While I also agree that the train-traveller would be better advised to consult the NR/TOC web sites, there are non-historical factors which should also be included, which would not be of interest to a commuter e.g. technical information (eletrification, signalling, line speeds, line clearance gauge etc.) and here the modern classification by both NR, SWT and Southern is also relevant. An encyclopedic article about a line does not just focus on its design and construction. Best wishes Mertbiol 15:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree with all you say but my point is the boundaries, how does one square an artificial boundary set by a marketing decision made in this century with the lines construction boundaries made a century and a half ago, especially when a wiki link can take one onto the next route / station traversed by a current service (and what should happen if 'Southern' extends their service through to Bournemouth say, would we have to extend this map article even further?). I don't see a solution to the many issues you raise above, such as stock or signalling, until these boundaries are decided - the stock used on the line between Brighton and Portsmouth was very different to the stock used between Portsmouth and Southampton until the mid 1980s for example. SouthernElectric 15:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello SouthernElectric. If Southern were to re-extend their service to Bournemouth, then there would be no need to alter the boundaries of the West-Coastway page, because the St. Deny's - Bournemouth section is already covered by the SWML page (and Basingstoke-Southampton-Bournemouth would still be the main through route). The rolling stock issue is not problematic - if the Portsmouth-Southampton and Brighton-Portsmouth trains have been of similar type for twenty-odd years, surely this shows that the West Coastway has bedded down as a single entity! Best wishes Mertbiol 15:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points, you're spot on about their being no need to extend the WCWL map / article because the "Deny's - Bournemouth section is already covered by the SWML page", that is my point, the West Coastway service was originally between Brighton and Portsmouth (fact), what was being suggested was to cut this article back to Portsmouth and then create either one or two articles to cover the lines between Farlington Jnc and StDennys - the user could then 'click' though just as you suggest they could do if the current service was extended. As for stock, no the stock shows nothing like a single entity unless ones only interest in the the current or very recent past, the stock until then would show anything but a single entity. SouthernElectric 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we are going round in circles here. Let's WP:COOL and see if anyone else wants to contribute. Mertbiol 15:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree, all I was doing is trying pointing out why, IMO, we are going round in circles. There are actually bigger questions and problems here than just if to split/combine the suggested articles. SouthernElectric 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked at this problem what I would do is look at the two connecting lines as an article each, put Gosport in the Eastleigh to Fareham article, and write a new article on the Southampton to Portsmouth line which would in practice be separating out and expansion of the relevant section of the current West Coastway line article. All of these articles as they stand are inconsistent (the Eastleigh to Fareham line, for instance, spends a high proportion of its current length on the Fareham bypass issue). I feel that the quality of these articles would improve given more space. My feeling that they could be amalgamated came from the idea that they were all on one fairly short table (165) during the BR era. This is, of course, a facile analysis and given the branches off to Lee, Stokes Bay and the tale of why Gosport station wasn't built nearer the ferry, an interesting tale in itself, we could produce two decent articles on the two railways that could be said to, in general, link the two built up areas of Hampshire one way or the other. Each of these articles needs a history section where we say something like "in the past, trains from here used to run on as far as there, but this stopped when..." Or, "used to terminate at there, but now run on to wherever, because...". Mind you, I'm a child of the BR era when these lines did shake out fairly "naturally" as it were. Dunno about the stock situation; the BR era saw mostly Hampshire units with maverick Western DMU's on the Bristol trains and I would have thought this would be an area of M7 and short trains during the Southern Railway era. Before that probably becomes too specialised for an encyclopedia rather than, say, a history of the L&SWR. Actually the pre grouping company divide works for us, when you think about it: surely we can leave all the LBSCR references on the West Coastway line apart from a mention of the traditional rivalry and its importance in the formation of the current layout? All the rest is ex LSWR, surely?  None of this is holy writ but I'll leave it as me thinking out loud in case it hits off some ideas in others. PS if you wonder why I don't think this diagram complex look at the one I did for the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway!.  Britmax 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Looking back at all this debate from 10 years ago, I can hardly believe that the article was left in this format, as the Portsmouth-Southampton line has historically always been a very different beast to the Portsmouth-Brighton line and really makes more sense as a separate entity, especially as the little stubs of Eastleigh-Fareham, Fareham-Gosport and Eastleigh-Romsey have separate articles.  Even today, the majority of the services run into Portsmouth rather than across to Havant; strange to think that we wanted services for years on that route but had to go in and out of Fratton until the late 1980s.  And the line is really in SWT territory  (west of Portsmouth Direct Line) although Southern and GW do operate a significant proportion of services.  However, I guess nobody has the time and energy to split the article.  I have however done some rewording to give it a more accurate context. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picking up the mess... 

message: what is the policy of using the metric/imprial system around here. Some of the articles such as East coastway line only use Km where a this one the West coast wayline only uses Miles and Chains. Standardisation needs to occur regrding these articles. Also as this is not just UK wikipedia or US wikipedia or EU wikipedia. A convertion to the metric system or imperial system is needed depending on the system chosen.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been talked about Lucy-marie as you should well remember (here), the UK railway uses the imprial system for distances (miles, chains and feet) so that is the correct units of measurement to use on WP - so until such time as the UK railways convert... SouthernElectric (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Articles are supposed to be optimised for readers. Most readers of UK railway articles will be from the UK where the imperial system is used for distance and as such articles should reflect this. Whilst recognising that this isn't just "UK wikipedia", it is not appropriate to try to find some global standard for this as any standardisation would disadvantage readers. UK railway articles should use imperial with a metric conversion following if appropriate. See the  template for some ways of doing this. Adambro (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also add that the next two largest populations most likely to read this (English language) version of Wikipedia are those from the USA and Canada - both of those countries still use the Imperial system (not sure if Australia still does?). SouthernElectric (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I am not here to start another war ..."!  Would you like me to copy/paste extracts from the previous discussions here for all to see.  I think that it has been made quite clear to you on several occasions what the policy is, and to come here (yet again) and feign ignorance is quite breathtaking. Please remember WP:POINT. Olana North (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me but please assume good faith and if necessary read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I am here to try and find a way to sort out a problem with in uk trains articles through discussions and certain languge above does not contribute to a discusion on the content, in a civil manner.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a problem (with WP) it's people who know nothing about the subject (in question), interfering and then trying to play the WP rules against those who do when the answer to the 'problem' raised is not what they want... SouthernElectric (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  "I am here to try and find a way to sort out a problem with in uk trains articles ...".  I think that the WP:CONSENUS is that there is no problem. The only "problem" if one exists is your WP:POINT, and trying to make an issue where other editors disagree.  Apart from you, all the other editors agree that the UK should use imperial units ... there is no problem. Accordingly, please direct your efforts to other more pressing issues for the UK train projects, of which a list can be found on the project home page. Olana North (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with the arguments regarding the imperial system, I am just querying why east coast way and west cast way templates use diffrent units. I am also querying why there is no metric equivalent in brackets. As that is usually standard practice on all articles. I am not here for personal attacks, could users please refrain, from attaks and the past and discuss the issue at hand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should not be having this discussion on an article page, when it relates to the UK as a whole.  Please can we transfer the debate to the UK train Talk page WT:RAIL. Olana North (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Lucy-marie, stop it NOW, you know full well the answer to your 'question', do I need to go further?... But to answer your point, for thre benefit of others, it's because no one has yet got around to reverting the Km units back to the correct miles and chains units. SouthernElectric (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The past discussion of this subject, as well as who said what and when, is as much a part of this current discussion here or elsewhere. SouthernElectric (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Time has moved on and a certian user has been blocked indefinatly. The new disussion is completly seperate and rational. No socks and no attacks in this discussion with actual content being discussed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But he never used his socks in that dissuasion so that discussion is as relevant and valid now as it was at the time. The point is, the facts have not changed even if some of the people have SouthernElectric (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Difffrent people will bring a diffrent point of view. This issue has been raised and is being discussed in a civilised manner. I say we discuss the issue at hand and see what everyone else contributing thinks.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the facts don't change, read the tread, you are getting the same response as you did before... SouthernElectric (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other users are saying that chains are outdated and that India being the most populous englsih speaking country in the world, use the metric system and will proberbly never have used any form of the imperial system.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Aside from the fact that this discussion should be taking place on the main UK trains talk page, whom are these "other users" as I see little support for your case and a clear consensus emerging that imperial units shall continue to be used.  Olana North (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, what people appear to be are saying is that a bracketed equivalent to the Imperial unit should be given after the said Imperial unit (the measurement term should also be wiki-linked), BUT this should only happen were it is practical or possible. SouthernElectric (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  One further item, I intend to ask an admin for a review of this talk page to see whether a case for WP:TROLL can be made, and the block that goes along with such. Olana North (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and make sure you make them aware that she had already raised the same issues a few months back, and that her behaviour then (due to not getting her own way) resulted her being banned for a week. SouthernElectric (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I initiated the move of this discussion to the main UK talk page, and requested that all editors transfer their debate ... ho hum. Olana North (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric/Imperial system