Talk:Eastleigh–Fareham line

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eastleigh to Fareham Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081112101428/http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/ to http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved to Eastleigh–Fareham line. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Eastleigh to Fareham Line → Eastleigh to Fareham line – Downcase per WP:NCCAPS; sources mostly do not cap it. Optionally, say if you prefer to use the symmetric dashed version (Eastleigh–Fareham line) rather than "to" between place names. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Please examine the searches, see if there is a common name, whether the dashed version is preferred, and whether caps are preferred. It is my impression that there is no proper name here and that the dashed form is more logical and more consistent with other such lines. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidence in sources
 * news
 * books


 * Support as nom per WP:NCCAPS and preferring dashed version Eastleigh–Fareham line. Also note that is was lowercase until this 2015 move, and dashed in the lead until this 2016 edit (both undiscussed), and still does use "Eastleigh–Fareham line" further down in the text, since this 2007 edit (except that it was a hyphen before being fixed to a dash). Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support—and yes, I do prefer the typographical version: it's much easier for readers to apprehend. Tony   (talk)  10:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Point of this article?
This article has no cited text at all, and its scope is better and more fully covered in Gosport and Cosham Lines of the LSWR and West Coastway line. It would be in accordance with wiki policies to delete it, but I think the best thing is to reduce it to a redirect. Afterbrunel (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Right now neither article is covered in glory. This one lacks references, the Gosport and Cosham one needs a thorough overhaul to bring it inline with WP:MOS and lacks focus; it doesn't have a first sentence or lead section that defines what the article about but wades straight into the history, most of which is (or should be) covered in the histories of the individual lines or the LSWR as a whole. I notice you've started to remove links to this article, changing them to links to the other - please don't do that. If you want to nominate this article for deletion, AFD is this way; but swapping links to one article that requires improvement to a different article on a different subject that is riddled with quality problems of its own is not helpful. WaggersTALK  14:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)