Talk:St Pancras railway station/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Southeastern on Thameslink

In the section on Southeastern, it says that from December there will be a service running from Sevenoaks to Bedford. Can this be sauced? Simply south (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, exactly the same info exists on the Southeastern page! Sunil060902 (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I think March '09 seems to be the real date that Southeastern begin providing Thameslink type services:

• Thameslink Programme FAQ

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Sunil[1]. Thank yous should be directed there! —Sladen (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing mentioned of the fact that it's Grade I listed in the article..

I'd make the addition myself but don't currently have the time, so if any other editor feels the inclination, I think it's an important thing to mention... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done High-up to help establish notability[2], although if anyone can see a better place, please do move it! —Sladen (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Subway not tube!

I was amused by this overzealous good-faith edit which corrected "subway" to "underground line" in the expectation that "subway" in this article was a (mis)use of the AmE term. However, it really really did, as I understand it, mean subway in the largely BrE sense of Subway (underpass). I've reinstated it, linked it to Subway (underpass), and thrown in the word "pedestrian" for good measure. Oh and I suppose I might add an HTML comment too ... I do love Wikipedia sometimes. It's actually too good on occasion! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Image

Why has the image been switched to the extension, which in my opinion is a horrible addition to the wonderful Victorian building and trainshed? I propose that we either switch it back, or replace it with an image of the station interior (the Barlow trainshed of course, no the concrete box that's been slapped on the end).

And other views? Btline (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the new image is better because the old one showed the chambers which was just a wall. Shouldn't the image be the main entrance? Also calling the extention horrible is just your opinion, not everyone think's it's horrible. Likelife (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not people think it is horrible, I feel that the main image should show the magnificent architecture. Either the Gothic exterior, or the Barlow trainshed. I do not think the current picture does the station justice. It could be any station. Btline (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A generic glass box, that could belong to any single building, when this is supposed to be the fronting image for what is discribed as the Cathedral of Railways, is no comparison to what has been used for many long months. I am strongly in favour of leaving the image as it is, of the unique and timeless architectural wonder that is the original adornment of St Pancras Station, rather than some glass fronting that could very well be there for the comparitive blink of an eye over the continuing course of history, it just doesn't embody what St Pancras is and why it is special, thus I see it as a downgrade rather than an improvement. Kyteto (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Good, it appears that some common sense has been applied, and the image has been reverted. Btline (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We've got a similar issue again at [3] and [4] seeking to replace the external picture of the chambers and clocktower with a view of the Barlow shed. Both of good historic value, but the clocktower and frontage has greater international recognition and value. (There are numerous pictures of the shed in-context further down). —Sladen (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Good Article - almost

With just a few citations required, this article is very nearly up to Good Article quality. I have marked where these are neeeded and I am leaving messages on the talk pages of the top five contributors to the article suggesting that the effort be made add these in preparation for a nomination. The main contributors are:

• User:Chris j wood
• User:Hammersfan
• User:Likelife
• User:Sladen
• User:Sunil060902

--DavidCane (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for lack of any action/response - I was away on holiday since the 22nd January. I will see what I can add. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Connection to Kings Cross

This sub-section of "Future Developments" should be deleted since it was opened along with the new LUL Northern Ticket Hall in November 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buz44 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of date?

Forgive me if I am being mixed up here. At the moment, near the bottom, we say "Major work is ongoing at King's Cross St Pancras tube station to link the various station entrances to two new ticket halls for London Underground and reduce overcrowding." IS it really still ongoing, or is it done? I know there's still something going on with Northern Line access, but isn't most of this project now finished and open to the public? I'm not changing anything, in case I am barking up the wrong tree, but do please comment. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See these in-depth article from a couple of days ago: "King's Cross and St Pancras International: Keeping up with the flow". Rail News. 2010-09-04. and Wordsworth, Nigel (2010-09-01). "King's Cross reveals face from the past". Rail News. —Sladen (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. Unfortunately you have made the basic error of treating me as an intelligent human being when a simple YES or NO would have done the trick (possibly reinforced with a sharp smack over the head), so I'm still stumbling on in a mild state of clueless uncertainty. Ermmm. The first ref seems to tell me that Phases 1 and 2 are complete and it doesn't mention a Phase 3 so I think it's evidence for YES it's finished. The second ref is about Kings Cross railway station (and is brilliant and very interesting btw, thanks!) but doesn't seem to mention the Tube station works much, which leaves me a little unsure what (if anything) to conclude from it. Sorry, I am sure it's me being thick, but I am still left asking, should we change "Major work is ongoing at King's Cross St Pancras tube station ..." or, er, not? Yours apologetically and in moderate confusion, DBaK (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Update - I had another careful look at this text and have not without trepidation been bold and taken it out. It was supported by two old references which refer only to work which is now open to the public. Of course the beauty of my being bold is that anyone else can of course be bold too and revert me ... but hey. good faith, and all that. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

DBaK, I support your edit. The work still going on is clearly for Kings Cross, not St Pancras. Alarics (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to update the article. I hope that the provided references were useful in performing that endeavor. …Incidentally, perhaps a simple "yes and no" was not known (and therefore could not be given). …Perhaps it needed somebody with time (thank you) to undertake some research and come to an informed decision. …Perhaps it was preferable to say something rather than nothing. …Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

Ha, thanks! I always hope the world will be a little simpler than it turns out to be ... DBaK (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering (rather than deletion) it might be better to change the tense of the paragraph in question, eg. "During 2008–2010 work was undertaken to relieve overcrowding by connecting St Pancras into an expanded KXSTP underground station {X,Y,Z}". Pure deletion might leave the next reader arriving here and looking for information as confused as you have been. It addition to the two references found above, it might also be possible to integrate information from Transport for London: [5][6]. With more recent references added a reader would then have the ability to follow-up on their own. —Sladen (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good point. Deconfusing future readers is obviously good. As a preliminary, how about if I put it back, but fix the tense. Then you, I or others may at some point sort out the refs a bit - although we shouldn't need many when the main article is just a click away. I will do, er, Phase 1 of that right now. Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Image changing.

Please do not change the image StPancrasInternational-PS02.JPG into another. The picture has been chosen for navigation and information purposes. On behalf on Network Rail; Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting note. You will need to do better than that if you want to argue for or against a specific image - or indeed anything else on wikipedia. Your claim to write "on behalf of" anyone , even if it were true wouldn't matter, as we don't accept instructions from Network Rail or anyone else on the content of wp articles! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so using a specific image on terms of advertising and navigational purposes is apparently "not accepted"? A more appropriate image used would surely be the benefit of the public and other people. Reverting some changes that have been suggested by Network Rail is fairly contradicting to one of your "favourite quotes" that "would be just fine...". My change is simply for the public as the previous images are not very clear and maybe confusing to some people (e.g. writing 'hotel' on the image caption of 'St Pancras Station' may be misunderstood by some tourists, thinking that it is a hotel, thus avoiding it). Although its clear to us, it could be an obstacle to people, domino-ing into the station, consequently, a ticket less for the rail company and Network Rail. Kindly do not change the images back. Thank You.

(P.S. I do have a Wikipedia Account, however, whenever I click 'home' after the sign up page, I get automatically logged out.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tourist guide, nor is it an advertising medium, nor is its purpose to maximise the sale of rail tickets. As to what Network Rail or anyone else may or may not think, that is completely irrelevant. The content of Wikipedia articles is to be decided by consensus between independent Wikipedia editors. Alarics (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

So we can post any random crap as long as 'Wikipedia editors' agree with it? I can put phallic pictures instead of Barrack Obama and if I have consensus editors on my side, it'll all make sense? I don't think so, the whole point of Wikipedia is to help and inform people, whether it be by images or text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus is that something meets WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS then content can be posted. In this case, the WP:LEAD and infobox image (with summary) have been carefully refined over several years, by dozens of editors. —Sladen (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember that the articles should be accessible to a global audience and are not necessarily intented for those catching trains (plenty of such guides exist and are linked from the article). The intention is to give a quick, high-level overview: this is what the first picture in the article does, and it accompanies the WP:LEAD text by introducing the station as a renowned piece of internationally-recognised architecture. The station frontage is what people are familiar with and are the station's instantly recognisable "trademark". —Sladen (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

An image that's named a hotel and even has hotel in its heading is incredibly misleading and quite outrageous! I suggest a much better picture and not one that some people who think they know it all approve of just to prove a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Many station frontages contain all manner of ancillary activities; King's Cross opposite contains a WH Smith, Pub, M&S supermarket. Railway companies historically built closely-related hotels at the destinations served, and this is what you see. Zoom into the middle of picture and you will see the metal gates with the words "St Pancras Station". —Sladen (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where the content is built up as people like you, me and all the other regular (or irregular) editors engage in discourse to reach a conclusion of what is most informative and helpful. A Wikipedia Editor is anyone who is prepared to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia and engage in discussion. You cannot just dictate terms to a community. Your new image no doubt has its plus points, and sometimes an article needs a new lead image. However, trying to lay down some arbitrary authority will not endear you to other editors. If you have what you feel are strong reasons for the image to be changed you need to state them, not simply attack others. The image as used presently has elements of the historic architecture as well as the new, but is hardly distinctive. A casual viewer may see little difference from (for example) Liverpool Street, where a similar layout is used on the concourse. I have yet to be convinced that it is better than the old - but it may be worth sticking with while the discussion continues, to prevent WP:Edit Warring.--Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 23:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have effected a compromise as follows:

(1)The top picture is still the building as viewed from the Euston Road, but I have revised the caption, which seems to be one of the main things 80.194.231.189 is concerned about. To the passer-by, this view is "St Pancras Station". The fact that it was, and may again become, an hotel is not especially important and need not be mentioned here (it is mentioned in the article text). The image title is a mere technicality and is not seen by the ordinary WP user, so that is completely irrelevant.

(2)I have replaced the Christmas 2007 view of the interior, a bit further down the page, with the interior view that 80.194.231.189 wanted as the lead picture, as I think it is clearer. Alarics (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alarics and am glad that we reached a fair decision, just hope that people actually get my reasons for change and may put a thought to it later. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that the a caption doesn't match, please experiment with changing the caption, rather than the image. Remember that excessive detail in the infobox image is generally not appropriate... this is the high-level introduction and should make equal sense to a reader, wherever they are in the world, and regardless of whether this is this first visit, or one of many. —Sladen (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I respect your comment Sladen, my main point for the actual image change was that this image is not the main entrance, surely it would be common sense to place the main entrance as the first pic. This image is an entrance but not one that people with wheelchairs can use, maybe causing nuisance and becoming a hazard? I dunno. I guess in Wikipedia you have to make sacrifices so now I really cannot be asked to justify myself even more, its only an article for God's sake! =P Anyway, see y'all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For 150 years wheeled vehicles have been able to reach the platform concourse from the (main) Euston Road entrance, and this remains the case. ...It probably doesn't have much influence over the choice of primary picture though, which is there to give the best overview possible. —Sladen (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Midland Grand Hotel / St. Pancras Renaissance London Hotel

Midland Grand Hotel redirects here. However, Midland Grand Hotel is a historic building with a history that deserves its own article. The hotel closed in 1935, and the building was used as offices for British Rail until it failed to obtain a fire safety certificate in the 1980s. Planning permission was granted in 2004 for the building to be redeveloped into a new hotel, which will open in March 2011 called St. Pancras Renaissance London Hotel.

I suggest we split this article into the railway station (current name and content) and one for the hotel (St. Pancras Renaissance London Hotel) and re-direct Midland Grand Hotel to the new hotel article with its own sub-section/history. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Bus station

According to the second paragraph of the lead:

The restored station houses fifteen platforms, a shopping centre and a bus station

This is the only reference to a bus station in the whole article. And I cannot recall seeing one on any of my visits. Where is it?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The coach station runs east-to-west between the toilets/shops and the car park. See the highlighted way on OpenStreetMap and the entrance on Google StreetView (signed "No vehicle except for loading and buses"). —Sladen (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for slight rewriting of opening sentence

I suggest we replace the first sentence "St Pancras railway station, also known as London St Pancras and since 2007[7] as St Pancras International,[8][9] is a central London railway terminus celebrated for its Victorian architecture." with this:

St Pancras railway station, also known as London St Pancras, and since 2007[7] officially named St Pancras International,[8][9] is a central London railway terminus celebrated for its Victorian architecture.

This is just to clarify that St Pancras International is the official name of the station, even if it is decided to retain the title of the WP article as just St Pancras. The official name is the one shown on the station platforms and in all timetables and literature of the various operating companies. -- Alarics (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Commment My memory is that the previous wording was "branded" instead of "also". Note that "all literature" is a very strong phrasing, and incredibly easy to disprove—so it might not be advisable to hang the whole of the suggested change off this. —Sladen (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

An earlier version read "the complex was renovated, expanded and rebranded as St Pancras International[6][7]". This rather gave the impression of a temporary marketing exercise merely. The present version says "also known as". This implies that the name is one of possibly several colloquial or informal or unofficial names. Neither of these makes clear that St Pancras International is the official name, which is indubitably now the case. -- Alarics (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is your point-of-view. As has been demonstrated above and in the past, it is possible to argue either way, which is why there is a purely factual wording that neither states that any wording is "official"/"unofficial" or "branded"/"unbranded". The wording in the first sentence states three sensible names, in a neutral fashion, with the shortest/WP:COMMONNAME first. Would you be able to suggest a phrasing that continues to do that effectively? —Sladen (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How can you say it is possible to argue either way? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) says: "If there is any doubt about what the official name is, the name given on the station platforms should be used." It is obvious that "St Pancras International" is now the official name and that this is not just "my point of view". I don't understand why you are being so obtuse about this in the face of all the evidence that has been presented. -- Alarics (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The wording in the naming conventions is a slightly arbitrary choice, as there are several sources that could give the official name (nameboards, name above the entrance, timetables, etc). Declaring one of them to be the one we use gives consistency across the wiki (the point of naming conventions) and avoids/settles disputes. From memory the name on the platform was chosen as it is easily and empirically verifiable, the same for all operators to the station, gives long-term stability and is (almost) never abbreviated for space reasons. However in this case, not only do the platform signs say "International" but every other source that could be considered a reliable source for the station name does too. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of playing devils advocate:

• The vinyl stickered signs on the platforms get plastered over each time an operator franchise comes up, and more frequently in-between (FWIW Eurostar International rebranded in the last week resulting in yet more vinyl stickers on top of vinyl stickers).
• The biggest sign, and the only one with any longevity (from actually being made of real metal) reads "St Pancras Station"
• I would normally regard published books such as Alastair Lansley's The Transformation of St Pancras Station (2010) or Simon Bradley's St Pancras Station (Wonders of the World) (2011) as reliable sources.

The point here is not to prove one or other, but to highlight that it is perhaps less black-and-white than some editors would view it. The wording therefore perhaps benefits from focusing on those elements that everyone can agree upon agreed upon. If it was black-and-white, there would not be a naming discussion split down the middle above. —Sladen (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Have a look at this picture -- clearly a permanent metal structure, not a "vinyl sticker". Your point about Eurostar's new sticker is disingenuous -- they have changed their own logo, they have not changed the name of the station. Have a look also at this picture of the Thameslink platforms. That looks to me like a permanent illuminated-from-within box sign, not a vinyl sticker. See also this page on the Network Rail website -- they operate the station. Not much ambiguity there. -- Alarics (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that anything can be as disingenuous or genuine as a reader chooses it to be when reading. The "this picture" does indeed appear to be vinyl stickers on stainless (as opposed to permanent screen-printed enamel or actual metal form). —Sladen (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I bet that metal sign has only been retained for "heritage" reasons. -- Alarics (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is my point regarding Arsenal/Gillespie Road. :) There's an enormous gurt big sign at Arsenal tube station saying "Gillespie Rd.", but nobody is proposing we rename that article on that basis. Tevildo (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)