This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Hi. At the moment, towards the end of the article, we say "Today little remains to indicate the site of the former station." But if we compare the article's main photo with the one here from 1915 and referenced in the article then it's obvious that this isn't quite right. The old photo's station structure going round the corner is the new photo's station structure going round the corner. We can see the same columns - one big one going round the corner and one to either side of it; we can see the decorative bands and the quite pretty little arcades of four small windows above those bands. OK, it's been bricked up to H*ll and beyond but it's right there in front of you. Now, I'm trying not to be rude and stroppy here (new motto - care less) but to be honest "Today little remains to indicate the site of the former station" is less accurate than "Today little remains to indicate the site of the former station well unless you count all that stuff you can see which is basically, er, a huge chunk of the former station plus a bonkers-looking tower and nine million tons of brick but yep, er, nothing to see here, move on."So I am worried that we are shortchanging our readers by markedly understating what there is to see there - there is really quite a good bit of old station to admire. I have done so. Is looking at a new photo (or even, dammit, the building itself?!) and comparing it with an old photo a sinful act of WP:OR? Probably, and if so please do just shoot me or something. But, seriously, what to do? If someone who is not me wants to have a go then great. Failing that, all I can think of to do - with regret, because it's a bit feeble really - is to fact-tag that statement and then remove it if/when it cannot be substantiated. Comments, please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There really is only a small bit of the original station that remains. Most of what is visible in the second picture (the darker brick structure on the left with the railing on top) is actually a later addition. The crop of the photo is misleading: the tree seen on the right of this image is the same tree you see on the left of the first image. Try clicking on the link at the top of the article and selecting google maps, then drop the little orange man on the icon to activate street view - you will see just how little remains. If you want a reference, Connor says "A fragment survives at the base of the tower". --DavidCane (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply but I can't, with the greatest respect, agree with this. It's a lot more than a fragment; or, at best, there is a question over what is a fragment. I am, believe me, not misled by the photo cropping. I pass this site most days and know it very well; I have photographed it; I have walked round all the publicly accessible bits. I last looked at it yesterday morning. Now, I hate it when people say "did you not read what I wrote?" because it always sounds so horribly rude, and I am loth to do it here, as I don't want to be rude. How about if I ask you "what are your specific replies to the points I raise about the current and 1915 photos of the same corner?" I hope that's a bit less confrontational. I would like to know whether you agree that the two photos, now and 1915 of the same corner, show the same architectural features that I listed. If you agree that they do, then what should we do about the wording? If you don't agree that they do, then yes, there is a problem of our perceptions here. I'd be very interested to hear your response. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the basic issue is that the text should (and may well one have) run, "Today little remains to indicate the site as a former station." Clearly there is a substantial structure on the site, some of which was part of the original, but most people wouldn't know it was once a station. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point. Yes, there were at least two forms of words prior to the current (i.e. mostly 2008) version which I felt were more helpful on the question of the current remains, but, yes, they perhaps did make them sound a wee bit grander than they actually are. It might be possible to get a compromise wording which includes this idea and also makes it clear, as all have said, that it doesn't exactly scream "Tube Station!!" at you nowadays. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
