Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:43, 19 October 2013

Shortcut

WT:UKGEO

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject UK geography page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41: 30 days

What's new

Articles for deletion

14 Jun 2024 – Carreg yr Halen (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Suntooooth (t · c); see discussion (6 participants; relisted)
15 Jun 2024 – Northern England supercity (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Eopsid (t · c) was closed as delete by Elli (t · c) on 22 Jun 2024; see discussion (3 participants)

Categories for discussion

26 May 2024 – Category:Richmondshire geography stubs (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
26 May 2024 – Category:Ryedale geography stubs (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
26 May 2024 – Category:Borough of Scarborough geography stubs (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
26 May 2024 – Category:Craven District geography stubs (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
26 May 2024 – Category:Hambleton District geography stubs (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
26 May 2024 – Category:Harrogate geography stubs (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

04 Jun 2024 – Wymington (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nfutvol (t · c); start discussion

Did you know? articles

Rosal, Sutherland (2024-05-25) • Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20) • Godalming (2023-09-20) • Reigate (2023-09-10) • Woking (2023-03-18)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 306

Featured pictures

A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration

In the News articles

Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City (2021-07-22) • 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods (2009-11-21) • February 2009 British Isles snowfall (2009-02-06)

Main page featured articles

Coventry ring road (2023-07-23) • Combe Hill, East Sussex (2023-01-11) • Brownhills (2022-03-03) • Abberton Reservoir (2021-09-05) • Shaw and Crompton (2021-08-15)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 71

Main page featured lists

List of scheduled monuments in South Somerset (2023-12-22) • List of castles in Greater Manchester (2023-04-07) • List of Shetland islands (2022-05-20) • List of freshwater islands in Scotland (2020-04-24) • List of scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane (2018-10-26)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 7

This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by JL-Bot (talk · contribs) (typically on Saturdays). There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject UK geography}}) or categorized correctly and wait for the next update. See WP:RECOG for configuration options.

Watch

Convert WikiProject Bradford into a taskforce of WP:Yorkshire

Hello, WikiProject UK geography. You have new messages at WT:WikiProject Bradford#Merge inactive WikiProject as a taskforce of WP:YORKSHIRE.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WT:WikiProject Bradford § Merge inactive WikiProject as a taskforce of WP:YORKSHIRE

Settlements and civil parishes

What is our practice for dealing with settlements and civil parishes? For example the parish of Colnbrook with Poyle now redirects to Colnbrook and we have a separate article for Poyle. Is redirecting the parish to largest settlement what we have agreed? This doesn't seem right to me. We then have an article trying to be two things. MRSC (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was touched on by RobinLeicester (talk · contribs) in the post of 17:47, 23 August 2013‎ above. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing was briefly touched on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 12#Small settlements in Bedfordshire missing articles. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on what we should do in these cases. My view is we should merge articles into the ones about the parish if they are about very small hamlets defined as nothing but a few farms and cottages with no shop, school or church). Eopsid (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't know of an agreed practice but there are a few examples local to me which might help. The civil parish of Wraxall and Failand includes the villages of Wraxall and Failand. The civil parish of Stowey-Sutton includes the small village of Stowey and the much larger village of Bishop Sutton.— Rod ^talk 17:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. I'm uneasy with the idea of redirecting a parish to the largest settlement. If there is to be a merge, it should be into the parish article. Merges should only really happen if the settlement in question is really tiny, like a row of houses at a crossroads with no sources available for an article. On the other hand, we shouldn't be merging settlements merely because nobody has written anything yet. MRSC (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that: Generally merge from settlement to parish seems better. That's because the key information points of a stub (population, area etc) are really about the parish - and you can always obtain those statistics at parish level. If a parish has multiple small, settlements, then redirect-to-section is better than nothing. This is a case where {{R with possibilities}} makes sense.

There's the issue where the largest settlement of a parish shares its name. Both may be worthy of their own article, but how to disambiguate? I'm not sure of how to manage that.--Nilf anion (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Horndon (parish) / West Horndon is an example of this. Two articles can exist where the parish consists of several distinct settlements. MRSC (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that works well for England. In Wales, the equivelant of the parish is the community. To pick on a randon Welsh example, Llandybie currently has a tiny stub serving the village and a much large community. If there were to be a Llandybie (community) page, would that terminology make sense? To be aspirational about things, the village article would then expect to restrict itself to the built-up area and immediate neighbourhood of the village, whereas the community/parish article would give an overview of the settlements, full details on hamlets, infrastructure and features of the whole area, and would be the place for local geology and geomorphology, nature reserves, scheduled monuments, archaeology, agriculture, etc as appropriate. That seems to be the gist of the Bedfordshire discussion. If the List of communities in Wales is to be believed, there is currently no Wales article using a '(community)' suffix - or any other distinction from settlements. So does the term 'community', which in every other context does NOT mean a parcel of land, work for the Welsh articles? RobinLeicester (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In England, local government is complicated, with several layers, the amount of which vary even within counties/UAs, since there are quite a few unparished areas, mainly in the cities and towns. Compared to England, the Welsh setup is simple. There are Principal Areas, and all are split into Communities. Two levels, no more, no less; everywhere in Wales is in one community or another, even central Cardiff. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, if there is a merger, it should be upwards to the parent level. However, I believe we should aim, eventually if not immediately, to have separate articles wherever possible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think we should state in our guidance that the presumption is we will have separate articles. MRSC (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a peer review/copy edit of Giffnock

Hi WPUK, I managed to bring Giffnock up to GA status recently and have been considering attempting to bring it up to FA. I requested a peer review through official channels (as content writing isn't my strongest aspect) but it went unanswered. I'd appreciate if anyone could take a look over it and point out anything which needs work. Much appreciated, Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents list.

Welwyn Garden City and Potters Bar both have these lists. What I am not sure is about policy, this is partially giving away the address of where someone lives in the area. Is this not breaking any policy on Wiki? Govvy (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of WP:BLP it states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Lists of notable residents are standard on many - if not most - largish settlements. The problem as I perceive it is with small settlements, when stating that someone is resident there makes it relatively easy to find them, which might be in contravention (in spirit if not in 'law') of WP:BLPPRIVACY, which advises not to print the addresses of living individuals. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel these lists, are poorly constructed and the majority is a breach of WP:BLPPRIVACY. If there is no citation it should be an instant deletion of the name. From what I have interpreted, they should all be removed. I don't know if there should be a consensus. Govvy (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a reliable source - like a local newspaper - confirming they live in the area, I think they should stay - but with a date, as people move around, so, eg: "In 2011, it was reported that X lived in the area." Otherwise, certainly if they are wholly unsourced, they should go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says postal addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses should not be published. Saying what city, town, or village someone lives in does not contravene the policy. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the lists are generally not sourced, which they should be. Actually, there is a lot of unsourced content on these pages about places, especially the minor and more obscure ones, and nobody much seems to bother enforcing the policy that requires sources. I am not sure why that is, except perhaps many of the serious editors are not especially interested in the subject matter, so the articles become a backwater where more or less anything goes in some cases. Dubmill (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Many 'notable residents' have their own articles, where there may be useable sources. Obviously if info is unsourced it should be removed, like any BLP info, but there are 2 questions here: first, can the info be souced/verified, and second (and more fundamental), should it be there even if sources exist? I think that for articles on smaller settlements, there's an argument for not including the info even if sources exist, particularly if those sources are only local ones. The issue is different with large settlements. Stating that a famous person lives in Manchester is different to stating they live in Barton in the Beans (or wherever...) - stating that someone is resident in a very small settlement is akin to stating their postal address, in my view. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources that say Mr Famousperson lives in Barton in the Beans, then that information is already public knowledge and I don't have a problem with repeating it in an article. If there aren't sources then the information should certainly be deleted. I'm not a big fan of notable people sections, considering them trivial and not the sort of thing I'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia. If a person has a particular cultural or historical connection to the place, they can be mentioned in the appropriate section. I'd be just as happy to see the whole 'notable residents' thing gone altogether. But perhaps that's another discussion.--Ykraps (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel pretty much the same way about notable people sections, and prefer not to include them in articles I edit. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the section is unsourced, it should be removed per WP:V and WP:BLP. Cutting and pasting the section to the talk page in lieu of further sources can be a useful middle step so the information is not lost altogether, with an explanation that it needs sources. When there are sources, whether to include the section becomes a matter of editorial judgement. Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - Clarifying Units of Measure

Note that the closing statement for this RFC, which was written by the same editor who opened this RFC, is disputed in the section below as not representing the consensus of this RFC. Kahastok talk 21:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC has now been withdrawn, not closed. Martinvl (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is withdrawn. The disproportionate discussion on transport matters which continued after I stated that I had not intended to include such matters has made meaningful discussion impossible. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There have recently been a number of debates in WP:MOSNUM that ended in an edit-war in the article United Kingdom regarding the primary units of measure UK Geographic articles.

A few years ago, all MOS-type pages relating to regional articles were moved to the WP:MOS tree so that regional recommendations were visible to all. Although units of measure style guide has been centralised at WP:UNITS, there has been little or no input from WP:UKGEO in respect of which units of measure should be the primary units in UK Geographical article. I propose a new mechanism to ensure that WP:UNITS reflects the views of all editors. The process will be that each section of WP:UNITS will be associated with one or another Wikiproject and that debates regarding that section will take place on the talk pages of the Wikiproject concerned. Those editors connected with WP:UNITS rather than the project will have a responsibility for coordinating various inputs and ensuring a consistent format of the WP:UNITS page.

I propose therefore that WP:UNITS be amended as follows:

The following section is inserted between the subsections "UK engineering-related articles" and "Other articles":

UK geographical-related articles

Although Geography is usually classed a science, at times it has been classed as a humanity. In order to cover both these aspects, geographic measurements that are specific to the United Kingdom should use SI units as the primary unit of measure (as per scientific articles) followed by, where appropriate, the equivalent alternative (imperial) unit in brackets (as per non-science articles).

All changes to this recommendation are to be debated at WP:UKGEO.

In the sub-section Other articles, the text

In non-science and non-engineering UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally ...

is replaced by

In other UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally ...

This is a general maintenance change.

14:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

*Support

This proposal will maintain the status quo in all UK articles that I have looked at (apart from United Kingdom where an edit war broke out when User:Wee Curry Monster changed the ordering of units of measure in that article). It also follows the normal usage of units of measure in scholastic, educational and public administration circles and is therefore appropriate for use in an encyclopaedia. Martinvl (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. Certain editors will interpret "geographical distance" as any substantial distance (greater than 1 km or so) measured on the earth, not withstanding any mambo-jumbo about whether geography is a science or a humanity. Thus road distances will be held to fall under this SI-first rule. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose until UK road signs normally show distances to settlements primarily in kilometres. NebY (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I declare my involvement at WT:MOSNUM, I note the biased introduction to this RFC which conflates multiple issues, and I note the forum shopping as this has been brought up in numerous locations now. I reject the principle that changes to WP:MOSNUM should be discussed anywhere other than WT:MOSNUM (though I have no problem with suitable notification of editors here and elsewhere).

I note that the proposal is not a "general maintenance change" as it would substantially change policy. As things stand, WP:UNITS prefers miles, and I believe that we would do well to make it clear by consensus here that that includes point-to-point distances (a point that Martin - I believe alone - disputes).

I note finally that the proposal is either to use kilometres for distances along roads, or to needlessly conjure up a split in usage between distances along roads on one hand and distances along footpaths or measured point-to-point on the other. The effect of this would be that MOSNUM would require us to say that you have to drive 400 miles to cover the 500 kilometres from London to Edinburgh. Kahastok talk 17:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as I fear that the proponent would wish to interpret "UK geographical-related articles" much more widely than the scope where kilometres are the current UK usage. The first example I tripped over was A1000 road, and I believe that to put metric first there and on the numerous other similar articles would be contrary to current common UK usage and contrary to the interests of the encyclopedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that while I was posting the above the proponent was saying that he would exclude some modes of transport, and (while I thank him for his invitation to reconsider) I remain opposed to his proposal.

He quotes United Kingdom as an example of an article which he would like to change. The first occurrence of "miles", and the first where he was edit-warring earlier this month, is where the article says: "It lies between the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea with the south-east coast coming within 22 miles (35 km) of the coast of northern France". I am sure that most people in Britain still think of the distance across the Channel in miles, and therefore it is reasonable to put miles first in the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Distances in the UK are measured in miles on the road. The London Underground and most of the light rail/tram systems are measured in kilometres, as is the High Speed 1 line and Heathrow Airport branch, but the vast majority of railways are measured in miles and chains; some railway lines, such as Paddington-Airport Junction, are dual-marked. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In the UK road distances are almost always displayed in miles (Driver location signs being an exception), most railways are imperial but some are metric, others are mixed (I believe that Northern Ireland railways use miles and metres). Whether a mountain is 1000m or 3200ft high depends on who you ask, as does whether a bridge is 200m or 200yds long. The UK is a hotchpotch of two systems and Wikipedia articles must be able to reflect that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Editors reading User:Martinvl's vote in the survey above may be interested in reading the relevant section on Talk:United Kingdom and compare with Martinvl's description of events. They may also wish to look through the sorts of articles that would be covered by this proposal (as per Jc3s5h's note) and note that it is not difficult to find some that are imperial-first. Kahastok talk 17:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this down here because of the request in this edit summary, noting as an aside that WP:RFC does not state or suggest that I am not allowed to put this comment where it was originally placed (directly after Martin's vote). I note that I have objected strongly to the edit in question on Martin's talk. Kahastok talk 19:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transport

It was not my intention to include transport in this RFC. I am quite happy for the wording "excluding transport" to be included in the text and also to initiate a similar discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport where I am happy to propose that imperial units shall be the primary unit of measure for all road, rail and canal routes, except where all signage on the specified route is in metric units. Bearing this in mind, I invite those editors who have concentrated only on transport matters to reconsider their views. Martinvl (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to restrict my opposition to transport matters. I oppose imposing a kilometres-first rule on distances between landmarks in general and settlements in particular while general practice in the UK is to express them in miles. It happens that roadsigns, being among the most common and familiar expressions of such distances and so making a valuable contribution to the geographical knowledge of the general population, are a convenient standard. NebY (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been ongoing for many years. See, for example, this discussion from 2007 where I described (among other relevant considerations including law on metrication):

"The world related to units in the UK is not standardised it is "messy" and therefore I feel it is reasonable for wikipedia to reflect that messiness. To give a few examples: This morning I

Bought a container with 1.44 litres of milk
Received a letter from the National Blood Service asking for a pint of my blood (as long as I'm healthy & weigh more than 7st 12lbs)
Was asked by my 18 yr old (normally at university doing a science degree) about the fuel consumption of a 2nd hand car in miles per gallon
Had to find trainers for my 8 yr old who has just got Shoe size 2 (UK sizes) but her new ones are labelled in EU & US sizes.

I could go on - but that quick snippet of daily life illustrates the reality (not necessarily old-speak) and I would argue against the imposition by those who may not have as much insight into the UK of a simple metric for everything rule. I don't have a problem with "For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article)." and have taken several articles to GA & FA using that guidance."

My views have not changed in the last six years!— Rod ^talk 18:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "pint" of blood they take is 470 mL, which is about 1 US pint, not 1 imperial pint. 7 st 12 lb is an imperial conversion of 50 kg. Given the bizarre anomaly that fuel is sold in litres and driving distances are measured in miles, mpg is no more or less natural or meaningful a measurement than L/100 km, and the latter is actually better for calculations of the relative economies of different kinds of car. Shoe sizes are barely a unit of measurement at all (the British shoe size system is some complicated nonsense relating to barleycorns (1/3") via a formula that makes no sense to anyone). Frankly I'd go with the ISO convention and just measure feet in mm, like they do for ski and snowboard boots. It's much more logical and meaningful, but good luck trying to persuade anyone of that. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question of measurement in the UK raises impossible questions. There is a patchwork of conflicting usage that could undermine any attempt to regularise it. As an example, the maximum speed limit on the Thames is 8 km/h while speed limits on roads are in miles per hour. The Long Distance Walkers Association says the Grand Union Canal Walk is 234 km /145 miles while the Grand Union Canal Race is described as 145 miles long. What explains this inconsistency is that British society is divided in its preferences. It is therefore impossible to be truly consistent. I think everyone should take a deep breath and realise that there is no perfect answer to the question, and that as long as both units are provided and the article is reasonably consistent, it probably doesn't matter as much as we think. Michael Glass (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can be more consistent than just saying use whatever units you like. The MOS is an example of that. But given your history of mass-converting topics, your position is unsurprising. Kahastok talk 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a refreshing position… RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's been my position for years. The idea that I'm a gung-ho metric fanatic is a hostile caricature of my position. Michael Glass (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If so, it's a perfectly understandable one, given that you are the editor who goes around mass-converting topics (including those covered by this WikiProject) into metric in direct violation of the MOS (for example [1]) Kahastok talk 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. Followed the UK government department instead of taking MOSNUM literally. Sorry that you're upset but the edits have stayed in place for more than 10 months. Michael Glass (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed this when it came up for discussion because I see no conflict or inconsistency in an article like United Kingdom in giving distances in miles but temperatures in Celsius, or similar mixing of systems. This approach prevents that. Kahastok talk 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in this form. This WikiProject should not attempt to prescribe where this issue will be discussed. MoS recommendations should be based, inter alia, on edcucational and scholarly usage and on official practice (which uses metric units for economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes, except for road signs and speed indications - as prescribed by law). --Boson (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing

Martin has closed this, with the above closing summary. I reverted the close because I do not believe the closing summary reflects the consensus. Martin has now rereverted.

Does anyone here believe that Martin's closing statement:

This RfC was rejected. It appears that all contributors concentrated on transport matters even after I had offered to explicitly removed transport from the scope of the RFC.

Is an accurate reflection of consensus in anything other than that the proposal was rejected? Kahastok talk 20:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose Martinvl's suggestion here. In regards to the closing of this RFC, it should have ideally have been left to an administrator to close, with Martinvl asking an admin to close it and to come up with a closing statement. Instead they have decided to (as is becoming quite a common thing it seems) to act as if they decide how things go on this site. Also who started an edit-war? Martinvl did by continually reverting (3 times no less) the WP:MOSNUM backed edit by WCM, who only made 1 edit. The only editor who edit-warred was Martinvl as they had nothing to back them up in terms of the policy set at WP:MOSNUM. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for everyone who commented, but my rationale was not solely related to transport matters and at least one other person explicitly disclaimed that their opinion was not solely based on transportation either. The statement that "all contributors concentrated on transport matters" is therefore demonstrably false. While it seems to me (as an involved administrator) that there is consensus against the proposal, the closing statement implies there was no consensus regarding subjects other than transport, which is not how I read the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I have asked Martin to reconsider the close at his talk. Kahastok talk 06:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 :::Actually, it's been my position for years. The idea that I'm a gung-ho metric fanatic is a hostile caricature of my position. [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 ::::If so, it's a perfectly understandable one, given that you are the editor who goes around mass-converting topics (including those covered by this WikiProject) into metric in direct violation of the MOS (for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Michael_Glass&offset=20121201000000&limit=150&target=Michael+Glass]) ''[[User:Kahastok|Kahastok]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Kahastok|talk]]''</small> 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
+::::::Woops. Followed the UK government department instead of taking MOSNUM literally. Sorry that you're upset but the edits have stayed in place for more than 10 months. [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 09:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 :I opposed this when it came up for discussion because I see no conflict or inconsistency in an article like [[United Kingdom]] in giving distances in miles but temperatures in Celsius, or similar mixing of systems.  This approach prevents that. ''[[User:Kahastok|Kahastok]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Kahastok|talk]]''</small> 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)