Talk:West Coastway line

Littlehampton and Bognor

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)

Name "west coastway line"

Where does the name come from? I mean, I've never heard it called that. I know the touristy areas have the Tarka line and such, but is this label just naming for the sake of giving it a name? Graldensblud 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

a)I don't know!

b)we need to call the lines something

c)doing some quick research, for example SEG (http://www.semg.org.uk/)'s archive from "the railway magazine" calls (1946) it "The L.B.S.C.R's West Coast Section", in 1938 its reffered to as "Sussex coast" (not saying which side of brighton) as part of the "Portsmouth No 2" scheme.

When we haven't got a name we just tend to put names like "portsmouth to brighton" line....

Pickle 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A recent reread of the Brigton Main Line RUS refers to both lines as the "coastway" Pickle 06:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Southern's current timetable for stations along that line is named "West Coastway and Arun Valley" - see here. "West Coastway" (and possibly "Coastway West" if my memory's not playing up) have been used for that line for many years.--A bit iffy 06:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As A bit iffy says, these names - sometimes with "West" first and sometimes with it second - have been used for a long time; I have always known both Coastway lines as "Coastway West" and "Coastway East" (or, more recently, "West Coastway" and "East Coastway", which still sounds somehow "wrong" to me!), and my interest in railways began in the late 1980s. Furthermore, two mid-1980s books use the term in a way which implies it had already been around a while even then: Route Recognition 1: Southern Region (Colin J. Marsden, 1985, ISBN 0-7110-1553-8) states "In recent years, the route from Portsmouth to Brighton and Ore has been deemed as the Coastway line" (page 83); and Surrey and Sussex by Rail (ed. Graham Collett, 1988, ISBN 0-7117-0331-0) makes numerous references to Coastway East and West in the relevant chapters - 5, 6, 8 and 9. Another one I've just found: while the Middleton Press route guide South Coast Railways - Brighton to Worthing (1983) makes no mention of the name, their later guide Southern Main Lines - Crawley to Littlehampton (1986) says this beneath photograph 105: "...the Mid-Sussex Line ... joins the LBSCR West Coast route (now Coastway West) at Arundel Junction." (my emphasis) So a mid-1980s date seems to be the case, certainly for Coastway West/West Coastway. Hassocks5489 20:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added that in as ref tags (someone who knows how to do it properly might fix it up latter) to the article. THanks for the info. Pickle 10:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we now able to answer the question that was raised in an indirect way ... Do we need to rename the article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canterberry (talk • contribs)

Do we want to run one of those moving polls thingys between "Coastway West Line" and "West Coastway Line" (i presume they are the options). Pickle 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for interest, the Coastway name was originally adopted in the early 1970's and covered the Portsmouth-Brighton and Brighton-Hastings-Ore services. At the same time, the Portsmouth to Salisbury/Southampton/Eastleigh/Reading diesel services were branded Hantsway. Somewhere I think I still have the timetable leaflets marked "Ride Hantsway". The latter name did not stick, though. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Distances between stations

In the route diagram the distances between stations was given down to the nearest metre which I think is unnecessarily precise. Taking my lead from the German Wikipedia (the originators of this most excellent diagramming mechanism) I have rounded the distances to the nearest 100m. (Here's an example from the German Wikipedia).--A bit iffy 16:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The distances have been converted from miles/chains given in the quail maps, so they are accurate to at least 20m. If you want to round them, then do it to 2 digits.Miner2049er 16:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started a debate on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Distances between stations on route diagrams.--A bit iffy 17:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason not to have 3 digits. After all, there seems to be a concerted campaign to have map coordinates added to the maps. Miner2049er 17:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Against each station in the diagram itself, do you mean? Then that would be over the top in my view and would seriously detract from the legibility of the map.--A bit iffy 17:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Miner2049er, it occurs to me it's not clear what I was referring to in my above question and statement. I was actually referring to the "campaign to have map coordinates added" thing, which made me wonder if you meant someone, somewhere is adding things like latitude and longitude or OS grid refs. to each station in the diagrams - that to me would be a big problem. My question and statement wasn't about the "no reason not to have 3 digits" thing. Sorry if I've misled you, and hope I've cleared things up a bit!--A bit iffy 21:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I view of your stance, I have decided to change everything back to miles/chains ... not exactly progress towards the metric system, but at least it corresponds with the original data for the purposes of checking/verification.Miner2049er 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Actually, I would be against miles and chains - sorry! The reasons are that (a) the UK is (very slowly, admittedly) going metric, and (b) many people don't know how long a chain is. (Also, a chain is perhaps still too precise. Miles or kilometres on their own are too imprecise) As for verification, there's nothing wrong with simple calculations such as converting from imperial to metric.--A bit iffy 17:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can do whatever you so wish. I have just been reprimanded by Adambro, so I am giving up my contributions to this page. Miner2049er 18:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained on Miner2049er's talk page, I haven't ask that they stop editing, merely that they use the preview button to avoid clogging up recent changes and the page history.

Anyway, to the issue at hand, I would suggest that it is most appropriate to state the distance in miles and chains. This is the standard measure of distance in railways. Also, I see miles as the most common measure of distance in the UK, where I'd expect most readers interested in this article will be from. Metric just doesn't seem to be used widely in the UK for distance of these magnitudes.

What is the source of this data by the way? Adambro 18:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Adambro, I see your point about miles being the usual measure for the article's usual consumers. I still don't like the chains though. How about if we had decimals of miles - e.g., 3.1 miles, 8.6 miles and so on?--A bit iffy 21:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree: miles seems a reasonable unit, but chains does not. How long is a chain, anyway? --RFBailey 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The length of a cricket pitch :)--A bit iffy 23:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

...which is 4 rods, poles or perches! Lynbarn

I am working on a map for the L&B in which I am using miles chains from the Up terminus, with wikilinks to miles and chains in a footnote. (see here). I think it works quite well, particularly for heritage railways in the UK. (Also see WikiProject UK Railways talk for a parallel discussion) - Regards Lynbarn 12:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A minor detail - but Drayton has been placed the wrong side of Chichester on the line diagram. Drayton is in fact between Chichester and Barnham.

81.179.127.186 20:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Steve Blighton.

OK it cna be fixed Pickle 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it was then placed on the Bognor branch! Now moved to it's correct position east of Chichester.

‎Distances between stations part two

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)

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))

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))

Speak to any person under 25 in the street and they will think you are mad if you ask them what a chain is. Britain has moved on form the imperial system and now uses the metric system. Also no other template has any form of distance on it so having the distance is pointless and confusing. please be more constructive and think about joining modern Britain and not old imperial Britain.--Lucy-marie 11:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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))

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))

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))

I am struggling to find a source which can back you up let alone disprove you, I think chains are so far gone it has missed the internet.--Lucy-marie 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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))

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)

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)

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))

I am aware of the rules and don't like being patronised by "older" people as i am only a "teenager". Please con you explain why miles is used. If you can provide a good reason other than the argument the road signs are so it must be then I will listen but at the moment the argument you are bringing is baseless. I am not being disruptive I am formalising the articles to bring the into line with other articles and just because I am ruffling your feathers doesn't mean you own the articles. please see policy regarding editing for this as it states do not edit if you do not want your edits to be edited mercilessly (or words to that effect). also see wiki ownership of articles.--Lucy-marie 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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))

In reply to a a question asked by Lucy-marie on my talk page User_talk:SouthernElectric, the reason I feel that Miles should take precedence over Km is because Miles are still the standard measurement of distance within UK transport, look at any road distance sign, look at any UK spec speedometer. (SouthernElectric 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

I have to disagree as that is the roads and this is rail, I say that if you take an ordinance survey map you will find 1km by 1m squares on 1:25000 scale which is the metric system. So when it regard road transport for the time being metric should be secondary by distances between towns off the road should be in metric primarily.--Lucy-marie 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Shockingly I'm with SouthernElectric and Canterberry here (as i understand their case). All UK railway (bar the CTRL and Channel Tunnel see the f***ing long debate on it there) were built in miles and chains. Of course Lucy-marie is right that we've taught the "youth" in the UK metric for donkeys years, and thus (hey even to the imperial generation) chains are archaic as a measurement - but FFS they built the railways with them and thats how everything is still measured. Its is general practise on all lines to use the miles/chines system on the routemaps, if you disagree put a case over on WP:TRAIL and see what the consensus is among the UK editors making the routemaps. Pickle 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we have some idea of the consensous please?

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))

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))

Thanks Pickle for reverting the map back to it's pre 09:57, 20 September 2007 state.

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)

Littlehampton Jnction

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

Map Template

How does one access the template for editing purposes please? (SouthernElectric 08:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

In the case of this article, the template is at Template:West Coastway Line. In most cases the name of a railway line's route template is the same as the article name, so adding Template: in front of the article title will bring you there. Another way to find the template name and so be able to view/edit it is to click "edit this page" on the main article. In this article the template is referenced at the top of the article's wikitext so the first thing you see is {{West Coastway Line}}. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 09:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anytime an editor has "moved" a routemap to a template, because (for technical reason i don't understand at all) we don't have that little "v-d-e" other templates have, the moving editor *should* (please) use;

{{BS template|West Coastway Line}}

which gives

with the second half bit being the template's name

Pickle 20:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Holland Rd. Halt

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))

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)

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)

;) Pickle 21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Splitting of this article

Being somewhat bold, I'm going to suggest that this article is split, for two reasons;
Firstly the 'West Coastway' Line was (historically) the route between Brighton and Portsmouth, the term only comparatively recently bening extended to mean the service between Brighton & Southampton, the cited references ([1][2][3]) can not possibly back the suggestion that the 'West Coastway Line' runs through to Southampton as at the time of those books publication the line wasn't even electrified between Farlington Jnc and St Denys, through running to or from Brighton were limited to one or two (diesel hauled) trains per day whilst most passengers traveling to or from the Brighton direction beyond Portsmouth had to change at either Fratton or Portsmouth. Simply, the West Coastway line/service was between Brighton and Portsmouth.
Secondly, the 'route' map has many error/omissions that could prove problematic to sort in any half sensible way if the map is to be anything more that a list of stations (from which it originally grew) rather than something that - within it's limitations - shows that the direction of junctions and the layout of interchange stations.
Might I suggest, if this split is made, that it's done at the Cosham Jnc, this being ruffly the split between the old LBSCR and the L&SWR, and the western limit to the original Southern Railway mainline electrification. This, IMO, should allow most if not all the errors (in the western part of the existing route map to be corrected.
Discuss, as they say! :) (SouthernElectric 13:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

Need to add {{split}} at top of article. What was the name of that line between Fareham and Gosport? Simply south 16:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure but it wasn't 'The West Coastway'(!), the L&SWR article suggest it's originally part of the (L&S, later L&SWR) Gosport Extension Railway. I would add that if this split was done the western map could easily contain the Farham to Eastleigh line as well as the Gosport branch. (SouthernElectric 17:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)).

OK, from some quick research, the Eastleigh - Farham - Gosport line seems to be referred to as the 'Portsmouth Railway' [page 41, An Historical Survey of Southern Sheds, by Chris Hawkins & George Reeve; OPC, 1979 ISBN 0 86093 020 3], being the first railway to reach the Portsmouth area, this would also explain the name of the other L&SWR line into Portsmouth, the "Portsmouth Direct" line via Guilford & Havant. (SouthernElectric 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

• Support - The line does end at Portsmouth. The evidence for this is that the mileages to Portsmouth are measured from Brighton. Beyond Farlington Jn the mileages towards Southampton are measured from Waterloo via Eastleigh (showing its LSWR roots). Similarly, there is a mileage change at Havant for the "Direct Line" via Petersfield and Haslemere for which the origin is also Waterloo (via Woking) - again a former LSWER route. Dividing the map at Farlington Jn will also allow us to draw a better map for the "South Hampshire Traingle" formed by Cosham/Fareham and Eastleigh/Southampton. So the proposed split is perfectly logical and sensible. Canterberry 07:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I can live with that ;) Pickle 11:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have affixed a {{ActiveDiscuss}} template to this article. (SouthernElectric 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

• Searching i have found some scope for the Southampton to Portsmouth Line, particulrly of hampshire's website but this may be informal. I don't know. Simply south 13:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Options for splitting

• 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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

Personally I'd live with a slight duplication at the ends to save people having to flick from article to article and trains appearing to terminate in the middle of nowhere. Amalgamating the two lines from the South West Main to Fareham has a certain logic to it, though. They were electrified at about the same time and in the old British Railways Great Britain timetable shared a table (No. 165 if I recall). I'll even draw up a diagram so you can see what it would look like. Britmax 18:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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))

"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)

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))

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)

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))

---

My version would look like this (open to revision)
Now found in below

I may wedge the Gosport line in later Britmax 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Gosport branch added as per. Britmax 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please also see my version on my sandbox.
Now found in below

(SouthernElectric 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)) OK, there are now TWO versions up on my sandbox, one without Eastleigh and one with (which also contains part of the SWML between Eastleigh and StDenys). 23:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

---

part two

I suppose i am going a bit off topic here but the Gosport branch wasn't originally a branch but the end of the line and first line to Portsmouth (except wrong side of the harbour) until the current line to Portsmouth was built. Simply south 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's why it's so important to all the lines, from memory (it's late and I'm not going to start looking at books etc.) the line was built to Gosport via Fareham and then extended from Fareham to Portsmouth - it was the LBSCR who built the first line into Portsmouth which the L&SWR first joined up to with the line from Fareham (via Cosham) and the the Portsmouth Direct via Havant. (SouthernElectric 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

The map also needs to indicate the closed line from Fareham to Alton. To be honest, I am losing the will to live over this article. What I would ask is that whatever gets decided, has a logic to it. The view that we should keep existing articles (because they already exist) doesn't carry any weight with me. We need to consider the history of the line, the current train operations, and how it fits in with other articles (seamless if possible). Canterberry 10:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, nothing should stay the way it is for the sake of it. However, these two lines are a fairly self -contained area "between" the West Coastway Line and the South Western main Line, so links to these at the ends could define the area. The disused Fareham to Alton line is there under its name locally, the Meon Valley Railway. Britmax 16:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't meed to endlessly prolong this debate but ....

While i appreciate the historical routes of the lines involved (ie the pompey direct was last!) i'ld rather leave the Eastleigh to Fareham Line as an isolated rural branch line article on its own (with a note about its history). I'm happy with simply cutting the current west coastway in half at the pompey, and if someone wants to write (or just leave for now) the closed Gosport branch. the diagrams that Britmax and SouthernElectric have drawn are both beautiful but ***IMHO*** are just as going over the top as the current west coastway is.

sorry Pickle 16:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well lets just forget the whole thing, leave things factually incorrect and carry on as we were, the fact that the Eastleigh to Fareham Line was actually the Eastleigh to Gosport Line doesn't see to matter so why worry about Wiki' unilaterally extending the history of the Coastway line by a few miles!... I don't think that we are getting any consensus here somehow. :( SouthernElectric 16:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just my opinion if you all outvote me that a democracy for you and i'll live with it ;) Pickle 17:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[reset indent] OK, how about this? Split the article, ending the Coastway line at Portsmouth; keep the Eastleigh to Fareham Line article but extend it (and it's route map) to include Gosport, this will obviously require a rename but will be historically correct; create a new article and map for the line from the Fairlington triangle to StDenys/Southampton. This should keep all three maps manageable in terms of readability and size whilst each will ' click through ' from it's neighbour. (SouthernElectric 11:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Okay, having seen the maps that cover all of the line, I think it is too large. Sorry for this U-turn, but maps need to be sensible. Out of the three, I think Britmax version was closest to how I think the map out to look. But "Thank you" to SouthernElectric for contributing also. The only thing that I would change to the Britmax map is to make the Eastleigh-Fareham-Cosham route the "Straight Line" in the diagram, but if you did this, then it would put other things out of kilter. I think that we should extend the Eastleigh to Fareham Line article from Fareham to Portsmouth, curtail the West Coastway article to the junctions at Farlington/Cosham etc. and to create a new article covering the Southampton to Fareham section (originally the Southampton & Netley railway). The line from Southampton to Fareham has mileages from Southampton, whereas the remainder is from Waterloo via Eastleigh (including the Gosport Branch). Canterberry 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the bottom map on my sandbox, this is for the Eastleigh to Fareham Line but extended to Gosport, as outlined above. The Eastleigh to Fareham Line line is nothing to do with Portsmouth - it's a service area and people can use NR web site, it's simply not encyclopedic to try and include it as the history does not fit the route. Sorry. (SouthernElectric 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, but I disagree. The line from Eastleigh to Cosham (via Fareham) was built by the LSWR. Okay, I take your point that the section into Portsmouth was a LB&SCR route. But do we really want an article "Eastleigh to Cosham Line" ?? I understand where you are coming from on this, but we do need to have articles that readers can relate to. The service pattern matches, even if the history doesn't. Canterberry 22:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have used to power of WP:BOLD to make the changes that I have described above, and based on an emerging view from this debate. Canterberry 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Go read up on the history of the line, try reading the Eastleigh to Fareham Line for starters as that already mentions Gosport, the LBSCR built into Portsmouth, the LSWR then built a line from Fareham to join up a Fairlington and also built a line from Fareham to StDenys - this is why I suggested (above) that the Eastleigh to Fareham Line article be extended to Gosport, which is historically correct. There is not problem in having an article that covers two lines (history), Fairlington triangle to Fareham line and the Fareham to StDenys line. Sorry but I'm starting to think that these article are just glorified 'want-to-be' travel guides rather than budding encyclopedic articles, if the are I have better things I can waste my time on. (SouthernElectric 22:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

I am fully aware of the history, and what I have done fits with the history. I can understand you having a problem with the article Eastleigh to Portsmouth Line, but the only solution I see is to rename it to "Eastleigh to Cosham Line", as this fits the history. I am not a "travel guide" writer either. The facts are that the West Coastway article went "too far" by going to Southampton. The Southampton to Fareham Line deserves a separate article as it was originally built by the "Southampton and Netley Railway", and the mileages along the line confirm this. So we are left with what to do with the Eastleigh to Fareham Line. Yes, it should cover the Gosport Branch, but it should also cover the line from Fareham to Farlington/Portcreek Jn. I am prepared to amend what I have done, but there has been so much debate, but little action, hence my decision to use WP:BOLD. Canterberry 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have amended the articles. We now have an Eastleigh to Gosport Line, a Southampton to Fareham Line and a West Coastway Line that has been cutback to Fareham. If there is any further strife coming my way, then I suggest people revert my actions of tonight, and then I shall go away and leave you alone. But I still assert my right to use WP:BOLD. Canterberry 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets not let the facts and history get ion the way of WP:BOLD then... SouthernElectric 23:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The tone and content of your last message needs to be kept under control, lest you want to infringe WP:CIVIL. The facts and history support my WP:BOLD actions. I am very much aware of the history of the lines concerned, so lets not get too emotional about this. Instead, lets try and work towards a solution. I was getting tired of all the debate, and wanted to get things done. Now, please can you give me you reasoned thoughts ... I am always open to them, do not let my apparently wayward actions deceive you. I assure you of my best intentions in respect of the articles.Canterberry 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you always have the right to undo any of my actions, and I would respect your rights to revert my edits. I think that when you have calmed down a bit, that you will see that what I have done is actually positive. However, I challenge you to come up with an argument against the Southampton to Fareham Line, the facts and history stand behind me 100% on this. I have renamed the Eastleigh to Fareham Line as the Eastleigh to Gosport Line and included your map!! As for the West Coastway Line, I have simply cut it back to Fareham. I cannot say that I am happy about this last change, as the Farlington/Portcreek to Fareham section was an LSWR route, not an LB&SCR route. Canterberry 23:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To save SouthernElectric the trouble, I have reverted my work. The only article that I failed to revert was the Eastleigh to Fareham Line, which remains as the Eastleigh to Gosport Line. I guess the power of WP:Procrastination is stronger than WP:BOLD. Canterberry 23:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, so are you claiming that the LBSCR built the line through Cosham to Fareham then?... The WP:FACTS show that the StDenys to Fareham and Fareham to Farlington Jnc are stable mates that could be combined into one shared article unlike as it is now. Personally I don't like your tone either, IMO all you have done is drive a steam roller through the articles whilst shouting WP:BOLD - and now you're shouting WP:CIVIL when someone says Ouch! SouthernElectric 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I hope you're also going to clean up the textual content now that it doesn't match the route map. SouthernElectric 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware that the line was built by the LSWR!! I have undone what I can, and I am going to leave you to sort out the rest. The St Denys to Fareham section is NOT stablemates with the Fareham to Farlington section. The St Denys to Fareham was built by the "Southampton and Netley railway" which was bought out by the LSWR. The only thing they have in common is ownership by the LSWR. Canterberry 23:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Picking up the mess...

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)

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)

This is a copy of what I said in reply to a comment left on my talk page, as it refers to this article's scope I'll place it here as well (sorry if there are any circular wiki links but this is a straight copy'n'paste);

I still stand by what I said during the last discussion on the West Coastway talk page. Whilst I can understand why some might wish to split a clearly open line from that of it's closed portion, as I think Pickle is suggesting here for the Eastleigh - Fareham - Gosport line (I can't see any other rational reason), I can't honestly see any reason why it needs to done that way, any textual content would almost be split anyway (Fareham being at the crossing of four lines in effect). Whist I accept Canterberry's point about the StDennys - Fareham line being built by the "Southampton and Netley railway" company many lines started out that way, were does one draw the line, it's bad enough having to deal with the pre grouping companies without having to deal with every small constituent company of the larger pre grouping companies - to do so would probably quadruple the number of 'stub' class railway articles and fragment all the others (even the GWR wouldn't be immune). On one hand we seem to be complaining that some articles / route maps are to large but then some seem to be proposing that we should increase the number of stubs, which are themselves as confusing to 'the average user' as overly large / complex ones.
There is a problem that I can't see an answer to, short of mass article duplication, and that is the need to encompass both the historical aspects of the British Railway network and that of the current operational / marketing aspect - hence Pickle is quite correct when he says (here) that the current article could remain as the line has just evolved, although I disagree, his comment is valid.

SouthernElectric 18:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I worked on the diagram, I could produce a sample article as well. If it's rejected well it's all experience. Bet I could make the diagram short enough to fit on one screen! (And I eat three Shredded Wheat...) Britmax 18:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Hello. I realise that I am joining the debate as it moves into its final stages, but I thought that I would give my opinion. Of the three maps below, I prefer Britmax's first version and would agree with Pickle when he says that The status quo isn't earth-shatteringly offensive to me, on one note one could argue its the modern evolution of the traditional line. I can't see that the benefits of having a separate Southampton to Fareham Line page are that great. For non-specialist readers, a West Coastway page with a broader scope, would be more helpful. Mertbiol 14:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Previous map suggestions can by accessed via this link. SouthernElectric 14:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Metric/Imperial system

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)

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)

I am not here to start another war I am here to try and standardise the units and in accordance with the way units are presented. Work out the best way to represent both the metric and the imperial as Wikipedia is for the whole of the world and not just england. The units used in england may be principly miles and chains. If so why aren't all uk articles on this issue in this system and why is there no metric equivelent in bracket afterwards.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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 {{convert}} template for some ways of doing this. Adambro (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

The discussion is being continued at WT:RAIL and please contirbute on the content and not the contributor.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fantastic, now we have the same discussion ongoing in two places... Adambro (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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)