This page is for the discussions over the naming of the article. It may also include discussions over service usage.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose - see abbreviation - [in British English] "it is more common in formal writing that abbreviations are written with full stops if the word has been cut at the point of abbreviation (e.g., "Street" – "St[reet]" – becomes "St."), but not otherwise (e.g., "Saint" – "S[ain]t" – becomes "St")". Warofdreamstalk21:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know that there’s really much more to say about it beyond what was already quoted from the Abbreviation article; it’s simply that while in the United States it’s common to put a full stop at the end of any abbreviation, in Britain it is done only if the end is the actual point of abbreviation. David Arthur16:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; "St." is the proper form. It is not Wikipedia's job to help something become "more common in formal writing". It is wrong to use. James F.(talk)17:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it Wikipedia’s job to homogenise grammatical conventions around the world. As was said before, ‘St.’ is neither usual nor correct in the country where St Pancras station is located. David Arthur19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my comment was about proper form in the UK, which is where I'm from. I don't particularly give a figgin as to what the correct form is outside thereof. :-) Your assertion that it "is neither usual nor correct" in the UK is, erm, well... let's just say that it conflicts with the publication rules of such organisations as St. James's Palace, the FCO, HMT, and various other people which I just imagine might know. James F.(talk)09:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arrg, let's not go there, please! I already find it odd to read names rendered as "Saint X" in Wikipedia; akin to reading a letter where every instance of "Mr.", "Mrs.", etc. is written in full. Chuckle, David Kernow22:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, "Mrs." is the full form - "Missus" or whatever is phonetic writing to demonstrate lower social class of the speaker when written. James F.(talk)09:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
In all the literature from the owners, the station is now referred to as "St Pancras International", and the photo of the sign submitted by Edvid (talk • contribs) confirms this.
As an aside, I don't see why it was necessary for them to include "International" in the name: in most countries, international railway stations are nothing unusual. But at least they didn't call it "Grand Central Station" or any of the other awful American-sounding alternatives they were considering. A section on the renaming would be a worthy addition to the article – I'll find some references. JRawle (Talk) 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to your question, I think the article name should stay as it is for now (at least until Eurostar arrive), but I don't know if it is necessary in the future. Unlike Waterloo International, which is essentially separate from Waterloo, St Pancras International is St Pancras, although that's my subjective view given the design of the station. Edvid 04:26, 31st October 2006 (UTC)
Leave as St. Pancras, any use of International is just LCR branding in the case of STP; similar to the use of HS1 as branding for the CTRL. For ticketing reasons, tickets are often from London International but that again is another issue in itself! Sladen22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought that the station for Capital Connect services to be opened in the Thameslink Box was to be called St Pancras Midland Road and not just Midland Road. As it is to be integrated with the main station, surely any detailed description should be in this article and not in a new article on Midland Road?
--Lang rabbie22:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of the contents of the article, St Pancras International, is already in this article. I don't see why the title, St Pancras International is necessary at this point as the Eurostar terminus has not opened yet.Tbo 15720:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, the "St Pancras International" is a poor knock off created without any discussion or consensus. If this article grows large with its different components (compare with Waterloo with its mainline, international, tube and east stations) then maybe start splitting it up but we aren't there yet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickle UK (talk • contribs)
It does seem pretty pointless - after all, it is all one railway station, and St Pancras will never be as massive as Waterloo is. Hammersfan 01/08/07, 01.05 BST
Everything on the web is copyrighted by default but its up to the site owners to decide the terms of that copyright or whether the site can be used commercially and that isn't specified on the website. But this doesn't really make a difference as the article has been removed now. Tbo 15711:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure, the "international" and "domestic"/"network rail" stations are the same but the tube and Thameslink stations are different. on other articles (eg Euston for example) the stations are separated. Pickle20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im not certain but as far as Im aware the thameslink station will be part of St Pancras International station. Therefore I won't support this merge until Im certain (I probably should have made this clearer in my last post). As for the domestic station that is the same station as the international station. It is part of the same building and the platform numbering system incorporates both the domestic and international services unlike Waterloo International which is separate from the domestic station. The tube station is completely separate.Tbo 157talk20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new platforms for the Thameslink lines are not actually directly beneath the Barlow trainshed - they are just to the west, largely under land to the north of the British Library. I would wait until there is clarity on whether there will be a single range of platform numbers, and how interconnection will be made from the international and domestic concourses of the above ground station.Lang rabbie 09:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed about the thameslink Station. Should someone remove the merge proposal. In the above ground station, the platform numbering scheme is the same for eurostar and domestic services and dwill be more like Paris Gare du Nord then Waterloo International. However it is probably best to keep everything as it is until there is certainty about the situation.Tbo 157talk09:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know whether the forthcoming Thameslink platforms at St. Pancras will be numbered A and B (as per the present Thameslink platforms at Kings Cross Midland City are numbered) or integrated into the numbering for the high level St. Pancras station? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.230.220 (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the future section, does this mean the whole station, ex-thameslink, is going to be renamed "St Pancras International"? Simply south16:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is all the same station and the platform numbering system will be the same for the domestic and international services. In fact the FCC website also states that the thameslink station will also be known as St Pancras International but Im not certain about this [2].Tbo 157talk17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this article should go and be renamed in the next month or so? Or do you think there should be a section on the Intenational part? Simply south22:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop Press: National Rail Enquiries now has the MML platforms listed as London St. Pancras Domestic (STP). It is still not known, of course, how it will list the FCC Thameslink platforms when the new box is opened. Chevin16:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Im aware from looking at various sources, there will be a domestic concourse and an internatonal concourse but both international and domestic platforms will be part of the same platform numbering system. However it is still probably a good idea to not make any changed regarding this until the station is opened to the public. Tbo 157(talk)(review)17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the naming scheme, the station is and will remain to be Saint Pancras Station... why not leave it at that? Let fotopic and the geek fora worry about the exact name and number of benches ;) 77.100.149.8820:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update, that according to an offical LCR blueprunt of the station, published in the November 2007 issue of Modern Railways, the entire station complex will be known as St Pancras International. Unlike the current Waterloo system, all the platforms will be part of the same building. Below the platforms, there will be various entrances to the main station concourses. Both eurostar departure and arrivals and domestic services are accessible from the main station concourse. This is similar to the system in most Eurostar stations other than Waterloo. However I still don't think we should decide on anything until after the opening of the station. Tbo 157(talk)20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the current name should be kept as it is now known that not the whole of the station will be "International", just those effectively above ground. Simply south19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its clear what the thameslink station will be called so we don't really know if the whole station will or won't be called "St Pancras international". Tbo 157(talk)19:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have just installed nameplates bearing the name 'St Pancras International' on the Thameslink platforms (which are also labelled A and B like the platforms at King's Cross Thameslink). I've also noticed that 'St Pancras International' and the platform numbers have been removed from the structures (except for the big metal boxes) on the Midland Main Line platforms.
To add to the confusion, if you do a search for a journey on the National Rail website (e.g. Luton to St Pancras), then your destination is labelled as 'London St Pancras (Domestic)', regardless of which TOC you choose (assuming you're travelling from 9 December 2007 onwards). Adding 'International' to the aforementioned query will get you 'London St Pancras (Intl)' (the suggested journeys include a walk from 'London St Pancras (Domestic)'), so National Rail isn't even internally consistent. Edvid17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think National rail, on their website, are trying to distinguish between international and domestic services. However the name of the entire station does seem to be St Pancras International. Refer to [3] and [4]. Tbo 157(talk)17:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although mentioned (sort of) in the article, I should have also mentioned that National Rail have assigned 3 codes to St Pancras under the heading 'Stations & Destinations' - STP (London St Pancras Domestic) [5], SPL (London St Pancras (Low Level)) [6], and SPX (St Pancras International) [7], hence my point about the internal inconsistency. I have noted that LCR are indeed advertising the whole complex as St Pancras International, but that doesn't explain what's been done along platforms 1-4 (see the second sentence in my previous post). Edvid18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the various stakeholders in the station havn't quite worked out the nomenclature yet. It would seem rash to jump to making any changes on WP until the station is fully open, and things have settled down a little. Lets give it a little while. -- Chris j wood18:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Lets wait. Even the LCR/Eurostar slogan is just "Meet me at St. Pancras", with no mention of "International" in the intended catchphrase... —Sladen10:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the title of the article is "St Pancras railway station", however the name of the station in the first paragraph is written as "St Pancras international railway station". Shouldn't they be the same? Tbo 157(talk)10:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've shifted the mention of 'International' down and added 'Low Level' as the various areas the full St. Pancras complex encompasses. —Sladen (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Thameslink services call at St Pancras International, according to platform signage AND public address (both on board and at the station). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Ive noticed that a user has bolded "St Pancras domestic" and "St Pancras (Low level)" as shown here. I did originally remove these boldings as these are not actually the names of the station but just how the platforms are distingushed between domestic and international services by National rail but the user has put the boldings back in. The entire station will be named "St Pancras international" as shown here and in various other sources including Modern railways magazine. Should the bolding be removed as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface? I don't want to cause any unnecessary conflicts so Ill leave it for now. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk)15:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems an overly enthusiastic Wikipedia contributor has (just) moved this article to include "International" in the title, without realising that the station has been around for 150 years... *sigh*. —Sladen (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that the station has been around for years but as the station is now branded with International why live in the past, it's the new name if the station is called St Pancras International why is not the page??? Likelife (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sladen: The TfL link you provide above has this to say re. the western Underground concourse: "This has led to increased capacity, better interchanges and improved accessibility to what is now a gateway to Europe, following the opening of the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras International in November 2007." best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sladen, Its Meet me at St Pancras International thats the right slogen it says that on their website. Also on the Tube map it hasKing's Cross St. Pancras (for St. Pancras International) Likelife (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The station is not called St Pancras International. Part of it is. There is still a domestic part of the station and tickets to that do not say "St Pancras International". This article is about the whole building, both domestic and international parts.Rachel Pearce (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used the EMT platforms yet, but the Thameslink (FCC) platforms are definitely signed as St Pancras International. Or from a slightly different angle, there seems to be no "on the ground" evidence for a station termed St Pancras Domestic.
My eyes could be deceiving me, but on that picture; "St Pancras" appears in large lettering and the "Internaional" suffix in quite small letters. This is quite unlike the situation for Harwich International, Birmingham International, Ashford International or the future Stratford International where the word International is part of the name and is required to accurately distinguish the station in question. (Ebbsfleet is not open for domestic service yet and Rhoose was reopened as the Rhoose Cardiff International Airport after the airport was similarly rebranded).
So why did they bother with the "International"? BTW, did you spot the far right-hand poster beneath the station sign in the photo? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well ask the St Pancras site, even that the branding of the site has International just beacuse its small don't mean its not part of the name.
Just Look on the EMT route map also on the outside of the station it reads ST PANCRAS INTERNATIONAL not St Pancras.Likelife (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←If you try to buy a ticket from (say) Sheffield to St Pancras International you can't. But you can buy a ticket to St Pancras Domestic. Or a ticket from Paris to St Pancras International. Rachel Pearce (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
→For those interested in the Meet me at... brand, the original consultants (brandstory) have some background on the slogan. (Incidently they refer entirely to St Pancras). —Sladen (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have a point but the branding is confusing at London Bridge or Wellingborough it has St Pancras Int. FCC and EMT on the route maps has St Pancras International. National rail do call it domestic for EMT & FCC services but they call it diffrent it seems like the whole station is call International, on the St Pancras Website, FCC, EMT, Even the Tube.Likelife (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The station announcements at Farringdon, one stop south on FCC, after some fluctuation, seem to have settled on: "Platform 4 for the 09:40 St. Albans service, calling at St. Pancras International, Kentish Town....". Believe me, as it says on my user page I use the station virtually everyday! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yh very ture at London Bridge it has FCC service to Bedford Calling at London Blackfairs, City Thameslink, Farringdon, St Pancras International... you can't say that Sunil060902 is wrong.I Think the station is LONDON ST PANCRAS INTERNATIONAL!!!!Likelife (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think such a line of enquiry might be bordering on circumventing Wikipedia:No original research. Perhaps we could see what the statute thinks the complex might be called;
I was not able to find any Acts of Parliament that contain "...Pancras International", although I did find a some Hansard recordings of verbal conversations. The were a greater quantity of Hansard records that use "St Pancras" alone in relation to the station complex. —Sladen (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St Pancras International is situated at the heart of central London just two stops away from Oxford Circus and Covent Garden and with more London underground connections than any other station....The underground station Kings Cross St Pancras leads directly into St Pancras International and is better connected than any other London station with 6 of the major tube lines running through it – Victoria, Hammersmith and City, Piccadilly, Circle Metropolitan line and Northern. Please refer to Transport for London for journey times....East Midland trains from St Pancras International and services from nearby King’ s Cross connect St Pancras to the North of England and Scotland, whilst First Capital Connect will help commuters to St Albans, Bedford, Luton and the South of England.
Also, "Meet me at St Pancras International" not only appears in exhibit D below, but also in the website above, top right!
I don't think there is any doubt about the use of branding in relation to St Pancras. The article states[8]:
"expanded and reopened—branded St Pancras International".
For this article, we are after the the accurate name for the historic station complex, encompassing all its compartmental areas, uses and users. —Sladen (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the name is now St Pancras International. Note that the panels on exhibit B and in exhibit I look as if they have been recently altered. Also you can clearly see in Exhibit D and Exhibit F that a UK domestic operator refer to their terminus as International. Here's an analogy: Should the Arsenal tube station article be renamed Gillespie Road? Because, after all, wasn't that the historic name? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The station is St. Pancras International you can't say the signage is wrong can you
The whole station is branded as "St Pancras international" and most media services and information do refer to it as such but in everyday conversation its referred to as "St Pancras" just like London Heathrow airport is simply referred to as "Heathrow". If users still can't determine what the article should be call then start a discussion or requested move to determine the consensus. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk)16:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have to use the current name? An encyclopedia isn't just about current things. Having said that the standard here does seem to be to use the most recent name for stations. Talltim (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that I visit St Pancras regularly but have done fairly often in the last year. My opinion based upon what has been presented so far and from experience of what it is like on the ground, my support is for St Pancras International as the formal name. Adambro (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St Pancras International what the site had to say...
The name of our Station is 'St Pancras International Station'
so now could somone now move the page to St Pancras International Likelife (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear - in the above discussion I have seen nothing that identifies that the article name is incorrect. The article covers the whole period of the operation - for most of that time it was branded as per the article. Changing the name because the branding has been change sets a very dangerous precedent. I say keep as is - the redirects are in place to capture the rebranding. This is all it is rebranding --Stewart(talk)05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clawed together from the first first few pages of [9]: A true change in the legal/technical status, verses an apparent perceptional/superficial change made for promotional/opportunistic reasons (often one core entity with multiple identities, each optimised for a different target market).
The geographical renaming article seems to cover the type of renaming involved here (or not)—some sort of legal mandate and that being subsequently recognised/adopted internationally/locally.
"A rose by any other name..." —Sladen (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC) (PS. As an amusing aside, when various cities in Russia are renamed/unrenamed (glorification of Stalin et al), the railway stations have continued to carry the previous names; I discovered this when trying to get to Nizhniy Novgorod; the railway station I needed was Gorky!).[reply]
He he, I was joking, but with respect I think you're the one insisting on "historic" names :)! Oh and let's not forget to rebrand Arsenal tube station back to the original "Gillespie Road" while we're at it! (joke!) best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying that the signs, EMT, FCC, the Tube Map & the outside of the station dose not identifie that the article name is wrong. If your sure. Likelife (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst very little structural change was undertaken; the plc name was actually changed in the case of Consignia ...which is perhaps more extreme than what appears to have been done around STP (rolls of sticky-back vinyl lettering). —Sladen (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FCC also reckon its International on their train arrival PA messages, and the scrolling destination lists on their "repeater" boards, and on their in-train maps. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Wikipedia Policy on this particluar circumstance?
This discussion is as pointless as the one that was held about Glasgow Central railway station which resulted in the word railway being removed from the title. In added no value to the article. If you walk down Euston Road as ask were St Pancras is - the signposts will tell you, the locals will know. London cabbies know it as St Pancras. Why not go the whole way and retitle the article exactly as Likelife suggests - ST PANCRAS INTERNATIONAL - all capitals, no other words.
I hope Likelife is prepared to undertake the maintenance that setting this precedent sets every time a TOC or Network Rail rename a station.
In my mind this has been a pointless discussion that does not and will not add any value to the article. THere are far more important thing needing to be done to the article (early 20th history for example) than quibling over the title. --Stewart(talk)13:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just wondered: How often do stations change name upon re-franchising or reconstruction? This case is pretty unique for a London terminal, I would guess. I remind you to please see exhibits A to I above, thanks. The name International now appears on FCC and EMT timetables (and they are domestic operators after all). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in capitals to stand out & thats like saying words that up put in bold should always be spelt in bold. If a station is renamed then the page should be renamed. It's not as Piontless as the Glasgow Central Station talk. So your saying is the Whittlesford station in Essex the page should not have been renamed to Whittlesford Parkway, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia ot a book an encyclopedia should be right not wrong.Likelife (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current title in not wrong, the proposed title is not wrong. Likelife has decided, based on current photographic and audio evidence that a title is incorrect. It is incorrect for the majority of the existence of the building described in the article. There may even be a argument for the creation a new article to be for the new station. The title was established when the article was created on 3 September 2003. To me an Encyclopediais a comprehensive written compendium that contains information. The comprehensive nature of this article identifies the appelation given to the station for the majority of its existence, and the current appelation following the recent rebranding. The article is not wrong; it is however comprehensive. --Stewart(talk)20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, surely, an encyclopaedia should at least be up to date for it to be accurate, right? This is not a case of a closed or superfluous station. The current station was re-opened after a considerable amount of expansion and reconstruction. I remind you politely that EMT and FCC, two Domestic operators at the the station refer to their services as calling at St Pancras International. As for current or recent re-naming, the example of Whittlesford/Whittlesford Parkway springs to mind (as mentioned above by User:Likelife). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be worth re-evaluating this the day that those domestic operators start issuing their tickets to St Pancras International. —Sladen (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that change will happen soon. But in any case, the hard on the ground evidence suggests the station appears as International in their timetables, public address and signage. The changeover has already happened in that respect. Exhibit F: East Midlands Trains timetable cover, clearly showing St Pancras International best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the ticketing issue is a complete red herring, as one can presently buy tickets to such exotic destinations as "London Terminals", "Birmingham Stations" and "Travelcard Zones 1 to 6". best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CIV tickets (i.e. tickets on national rail for Eurostar travellers, covered by special rules for international rail travel) have the destination as London International! JRawle (Talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to be clear, London International is a virtual station, it's Waterloo/Liverpool Street/St Pancras/Euston/others [or even two], depending on the international rail/railsail journey being undertaken. It's used to allow the ticket to be issued under CIV terms and to avoid peak-hour restrictions on the connecting trains into/out of London). —Sladen (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic now, but I don't understand why it's necessary to have "London International". The special "High Saver" CIV tickets include tube travel, so the destination is always London St Pancras (International). Or do you mean there are other journeys that offer international "rail travel" by virtue of a ferry connection? JRawle (Talk) 16:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes StP's called International in official places, sometimes it's not. For 150 years before it was plain St Pancras. And most people will call it that, as it's too long a name with International on the end - Wikipedia page titles (as opposed to the opening line) are supposed to reflect common usage. My vote's therefore for St Pancras railway station. JRawle (Talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see exhibits A to I above, thanks. The station has been rebuilt and re-opened. You say it was plain St. Pancras, but evidently it no longer is. Just like Whittlesford is now Whittlesford Parkway. And the latter wasn't even revamped!! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is to be about the modern station, then it seems "International" is part of the name. Maybe we need a separate article about the station before it reopened, as much of the interesting information refers to that station. I do hope UK railways can get over their "international" fetish. On the continent, trains cross the border all the time. Calling stations "international" just highlights how behind we are. (Scrapping passport controls and check-in at the station would also be a move in the right direction.) JRawle (Talk) 11:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your right scrapping passport controls and check-in at the station would move not just the station but the UK in the right direction. Whats the point of having a rail service and you need your passport, but I think thats why its called International for that reson we cant get to France or Belgium or just the Eurostar platforms legally with out an passport. Otherwise the station may have not been called International. Also yes the station is called mostly St Pancras but its not about mostly its about whats it should be called right?Likelife (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one golden rule for article titles, from which all other conventions are supposed to be derived, as found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, is, "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" – in other words, use the title that people would mostly use in everyday life. JRawle (Talk) 17:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are now I understand to get a train to/from this station you have to present your passport, must remember next I travel in from Derby. --Stewart(talk)14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yh when Im going Wellingborough I need my Passport-I meant to the Eurostar Terminal Platform if you read it thats what I put.Likelife (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it actually matters much what the current name of the station is. WP guidelines say article names (which is all we are discussing here) should be based on the most common usage, and it is at least as arguable that this is St Pancras as it is that it is St Pancras International. And where there are two arguable usages like this, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest and therefore shortest should be adopted. There is no question of the article being out of date, as it carries the the International variant in bold right at the top, and makes it quite clear that this is the current branding. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most common usage today is "International" (please see exhibits A to I above). Whittlesford is now Whittlesford Parkway and appears as such in timetables - PDF available here: [15]. St Pancras is now St Pancras International, and appears as such in timetables (see EMT example above). Also PDF available online: [16]. So there is a recent precedent. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to hearing your success in getting "The Knowledge" amended and re-training all the cabbies only to recognise St Pancras International. Trips off the tongue doesn't it. --Stewart(talk)19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When we end up discussing what London taxi drivers might understand as the name then I think we're getting a bit desperate. It means nothing. There must be hundreds of places in London which can be referred to by many different names. I'm sure I could get in a cab and ask to go to many locations which we wouldn't name Wikipedia articles after. Adambro (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cabbies are great for getting to the point. Ask them for 85 Albert Embankment and they'll probably look confused, but ask for the MI6 Building and they'll know just the place! —Sladen (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St Pancras International I'm sure is recognised by many cabbies! Strawmen aside, here's the FCC timetable in PDF: [17]. Also direct link to the EMT timetable in PDF [18]. Happy to help, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people would understand St Pancras International, why would a cabbie not understand the International bit after St Pancras its not hard.Likelife (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of St Pancras, I suspect a cabbie would ignore International, just like everyone else does; based on it being superfluious branding. The passenger already told the cabbie where they wish to go in the previous two words. ...In the case of St Pancras. —Sladen (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's what the station is presently called - International. I'm sure many minicab drivers in Cambridge still refer to Whittlesford Parkway railway station as Whittlesford. You CANNOT escape the FACT that both of the DOMESTIC operators' timetables list the station as International (see PDFs linked to above). Please stop ingoring this. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still can't get a ticket to St Pancras International from Chesterfield on nationalrail.co.uk - it's still called London St Pancras (Domestic). FWIW I think the page should remain St Pancras railway station, and the first line of the lead should start with the full (semi-)official current name, followed by an explanation of its original name etc. Rachel Pearce (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a sign which has St Pancras Domestic the official name is St Pancras International proof from the St Pancras Site ask them yourself.Likelife (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree that the name should be changed I would note that what an organisation wants us to call an article is not necessarily what we should call an article. Adambro (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but if they run the St Pancras site why not. The person who repiled even said our station is called St Pancras International hence the our stationLikelife (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't outside organisations which determine Wikipedia articles, it is the Wikipedia community with reference to our policies and guidelines. Adambro (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind everyone that the suffix is in everyday usage on the Domestic operators' timetables (be it on platforms, booklets and online PDF), public address, in everyday use by retailers at the station such as M & S, and everyday usage by London Underground on their maps and direction signs. I admit, it's not the end of the world if the article is not moved, but after all, Whittlesford is now Whittlesford Parkway, and the latter article has been modified* to reflect that. (*I must stress, not by me LOL!) best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So are you arguing it's high time the article be renamed then? Like I said, in everyday usage the station is now International. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is St Pancras station has been renamed to St Pancras International, like Whittlesford was renamed to with Parkway, Fambridge to North Fambridge & Woodham Ferries to South Woodham Ferries and the pages were moved I wonder why???Likelife (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that the First Tranpennine Express logo has Express in small lettering so Sladen may think that its just called First Transpennine.Likelife (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More occurrences of "International" in everyday usage at the station:
Exhibit J - Boots branch opening times. This shop is next door but one to M & S at "The Circle", the northern-most part of the station concourse (see exhibit G above).
Exhibit K - Platform monitors on the First Capital Connect platforms with a nice welcome message.
Incidentally the "St. Pancras Station" gate lettering on Pancras Road is probably an equivalent of the "historic tiling" on some tube stations platforms, left for decorative purposes? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look what I found here and here. International only gives international services. When I search the National Rail - yes National Rail - supported by ATOC for services from St Pancras International, I do not find any domestic service trains. --Stewart(talk)17:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Stewart, this is what the station website tells us:
St Pancras International is situated at the heart of central London just two stops away from Oxford Circus and Covent Garden and with more London underground connections than any other station....The underground station Kings Cross St Pancras leads directly into St Pancras International and is better connected than any other London station with 6 of the major tube lines running through it – Victoria, Hammersmith and City, Piccadilly, Circle Metropolitan line and Northern. Please refer to Transport for London for journey times....East Midland trains from St Pancras International and services from nearby King’ s Cross connect St Pancras to the North of England and Scotland, whilst First Capital Connect will help commuters to St Albans, Bedford, Luton and the South of England.
Glad to hear it - Maybe you should present your evidence to ATOC to update the National Rail web site. I could always use Trainline which calls it London St Pancras Intl. Another case for you to continue your campaign to change the name. Have you changed the name of Waterloo back yet? --Stewart(talk)11:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This issue does now seem past its sell by date. We should try to find a resolution now rather than just going back and forth with apparent "evidence" that supports one position or the other. This can't be just let to run forever, we need to find a solution. Adambro (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before this becomes a formal referral to WP:RM, it might be an idea to see which way King's Cross goes first, so that we don't have to have another debate on whether or not to add "London" to the name. On the current issue, I would support the addition of "International" - in addition to the examples quoted above, it's Didcot Parkway (not Didcot), Bicester Town and Bicester North (not Bicester London Road and Bicester), and I'm sure there are others; precedent seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of having UK station articles at the current rather than the historical name of the station. 78.105.161.182 (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the Kings Cross page has been moved to London Kings Cross to match London Victoria and Waterloo pages St Pancrashas been moved to St Pancras International. If there is a problem with that don't move the page talk about it first!!!Likelife (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if editors are unaware of such basic conventions for consistency, then they should (perhaps) not be doing moves in the first place. I have restored "...railway station" at the end. —Sladen (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to decide on [London] St Pancras [International] [railway] station - eight different combinations! It'll probably require an admin to move the article itself as many of the titles exist already with talk pages and histories. JRawle (Talk) 16:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"People were discussing the name St Pancras International railway station"; agreed; something that clearly does not match the Move which was performed; so to deal with the inconsistency it should be either SPIrs. or SPrs. The latter (SPrs) was the status quo before the mess was created and the topic was (is) still under discussion, so I would lean in the direction of that on purely procedural grounds. (Until any discussion is finalised and that includes LSPIrs/LSPrs discussion). —Sladen (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be so much easier if we simply went with the name which National Rail use for all stations, since this is clearly defined and is what it is referred to for passenger services and so is likely to be the most common name used. We can then append "railway station" or "station" as per the naming conventions. In this case the article would therefore be "St Pancras International [railway station]". Adambro (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of date website? How about all the pictorial, audio evidence presented above? I would suggest St. Pancras International railway station. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are posting the above as part of the "International" debate, rather than the "London" debate. The fact that it has "London King's Cross" and "London Blackfriars" but doesn't include "London" for any others just goes to show that railway companies' literature is inconsistent. Do you really think train operating company employees all sit around and discuss at length the exact names of stations as we are doing? Of course not.
I think it's time to accept that many variations on the name of the station are all valid. We, as Wikipedians, need to determine our own naming policy, never mind what any of the railway companies do. I think it's time to stop posting "evidence" and continuing fruitless discussions, and have a simple vote on the name. If the "London" part of the prefix is to be part of this, any vote probably needs to be advertised elsewhere too. JRawle (Talk) 01:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exhibit N:Signage on the high-level concourse of the station
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I think it's time to kick this off officially. I've summarised the various options below, with sources for each option; I'm sure that it would help to add any additional sources that anyone has to hand.
Various station signage, see above image galleries (exhibits A to N) (Encompassing, retailers at the station, Domestic operator timetables, Domestic operator maps, London Underground Maps, London Underground concourse signage, Kings Cross station concourse signage, Bus stops outside the station—Sunil060902 (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)(edited to avoid swamping with duplicated information)[reply]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support XYZ'''or*'''Oppose XYZ''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
SupporteitherSt PancrasorSt Pancras Internationalwithout the "London" prefix. Both names are used in different circumstances. London is usually only added when referring to the station from outside London. The name should have "railway station" appended, but we don't appear to be voting on that here. JRawle (Talk) 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support St Pancras. Succinct (shortest accurate name). (In addition: most commonly used, most legally accurate, most historically accurate, and is current status quo without demonstrated gain from renaming). —Sladen (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Open one week, no further comments for five days. Straw poll of; six for St Pancras railway station, five for St Pancras International railway station (one indifferent comment) with lack of interest expressed for London.* prefixes. —Sladen (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ISTM that almost all references to "St Pancras" exist in cyberspace or the bureaucracy, whereas on the ground, virtually all references at or around the station say "St Pancras International". As for history, stations get renamed or their names modified. See Whittlesford Parkway railway station for a recent pertinent example. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I have no problem with "railway station" either. For History buffs, remember that all the major station articles have a "History" section. That is where it should be pointed out that the station was originally opened as St Pancras. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many people still clinging onto the old name have actually been to the new station since re-opening at the end of last year. "St. Pancras" is not in common usage on the ground. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed my point. The whole station only got rebranded with parts which were refurbished reopening, the remainder of the station, whilst other parts have remained open throughout. Simply south (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have travelled out by Eurostar to Paris in June 2008 and my ticket was from London St Pancras. My in-laws live in Hertfordshire (close to Luton Airport) on the Thameslink line I have been through the Thameslink platforms quite a few times. A straw poll of my in-laws neighbours and wife's friend's drew a total blank regarding the suffix International with respect to the TL trains. Simply south lives in the area and it would be interesting if he gets a similar result. --Stewart(talk)21:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing theres a large sign outside of the station stating St Pancras International then I think you should go by it. First Capital Connect and East Midlands Trains go by International and there domestic operators!! So just that is two resons. Likelife (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the dissenters, here are four new shots, with three of them suggesting unambiguously that the domestic station, managed by Network Rail, is also International.
Why not just to end the whole thing we have with the intro St Pancras railway station is a major railway station..... In 2007 it was rebranded as St Pancras International? Simply south (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The present name is St Pancras International, according to owners and managers Network Rail (see exhibits P to R above). Let's go with them, eh?
Here are a couple of analogies:
West Hampstead (Midland) -----> West Hampstead Thameslink (new name 1988)
Simply South: okay, I've tried to tweak[20] the wording back closer to your suggestion; although if you can work out a wording that still flows, you may be able to bump the International mention up a bit closer to the second sentence.—Sladen (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat POV in my opinion. Let's go with what the owners and managers of the station now call their station (see above), shall we, bearing in mind that in Intro or History we make it clear the 1868 station opened as plain "St Pancras". I keep on reminding you re. "Whittlesford"! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three more images in favour of International as the accepted variant:
I looked at this page for a purpose completely unrelated to this discussion, one which I have now forgotten. Having started to read this, I've felt compelled to read through to the end. My impression is that a lot of people have spent a lot of time and effort gathering evidence for 'their side' - completely wasted time if you ask me, as it is clear that due to a mix of current common and official usage, both St Pancras railway station and St Pancras International railway station are correct. This is now reflected in the two bolded phrases in the lead and several redirects. Maybe a few years down the line, nobody will be calling it plain old "St Pancras", but for now all that can be actually achieved by this is to swap the first and second paragraphs. Because the discussion is going nowhere, the page has already been moved several times and the fact that this is really boring me, this is clearly Lame. --Peeky44 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The remarkable re-birth of this great and gleaming station means that people across the whole of Britain, not just the south-east, are suddenly quite a bit closer to Europe. From now on, Sheffield is closer to Paris, Nottingham closer to Brussels. And as we look forward to the London Olympics in 2012, it is good to know that a journey from here to the new High Speed 1 station at Stratford will take spectators a mere seven minutes. All these things will bring real differences to people's lives.
My warmest congratulations go to everyone involved in this project, which is a wonderful illustration of what can be achieved through working in partnership, and it says a good deal about how we can take a twenty-first century approach whilst at the same time having due consideration of our heritage. Looking around me I am filled with hope that people of all backgrounds and ages, some of whom are not yet born, and most of whom we will never meet, will greatly benefit from the quality and the attention to detail which is at the heart of this significant undertaking; and will come to regard St. Pancras not just as a station but as a destination.
It gives me great pleasure to officially launch High Speed 1, Britain's first High Speed Railway and to re-open this magnificent station, St. Pancras International.[21]
My point is that you, or perhaps someone else, quoted the Queen's speech a good while ago when the name was being discussed previously. What is the reason for quoting such a long passage? Adambro (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's too long for the article itself, but I inserted it here for some context to the above discussion. If you care to read the above discussion certain editor(s) are convinced that suggesting there was a name change is "original research" and/or the recent photos provided are there to "generate facts from". best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is still going on we know the Queen has officially open and called it St Pancras International but as other users still think its should be St Pancras well just give up now.Likelife (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely the naming discussions are likely to continue though, that is why i suggest they occur in the Naming section, so if no objections i will reinstate the note. Simply south (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The disadvantage with sub-pages is that they are hard to find. Whilst WP:SB doesn't actually prevent the use of Talk: sub-pages for discussion, it's not encouraged. Largely on the basis of subpages being hard to find. I think it would be unfortunate if it was felt that a consensus had been reached on a subpage, only to find out that this understanding may have been because the discussion had not been found by editors ...who may have wished to contribute their views.
Whilst encouraging discussion to continue outside of the normal Talk: space might reduce the noise reassuringly; it would also lose the benefit of having a "watching glance" held over topics. Sweeping something under the carpet may turn out to be annoying later. Either the naming episode will die down (it seems to be), or as you note, if it's going to stick around—then it's probably useful to ensure it's easy to review and keep tabs on.
I think the secret in the future is to be more responsive with archiving, and/or to delegate to one of the archive bots to automatically do once a week after each topic has died down. —Sladen (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's primarily (though not entirely) because of you that this article has a different name from the station's official name! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if they don't concur, since it appears as such on the Tube Map and the signage on the concourse linking KXSP with the mainline station. And we all know what HM the Queen called the station in her concluding remarks almost a year ago. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia generally prefers common names to official ones, and you can't always change common usage just by putting a new name on a sign, or even by getting the Queen to use it in a speech. David Arthur (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the evidence of "common" usage is? Whittlesford ----> Whittlesford Parkway is your other example of name-change from 2007. Keeping the old name (St. P) means that our article is just about the only UK train station WP article that doesn't match the station's present name. You might also find Argumentum ad populum worth a peek. Sunil060902 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."
Which proves my point entirely. A fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it. Try reading the FOI requests linked to above, for a change, if you have the time. Once again I politely remind you that our article is just about the only UK rail station WP article not to match the station's present name. Ashford station is now Ashford International (which also happens to be served by a mix of Eurostar and local UK services), for example. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the presumption of the article name being incorrect that is wrong.
Of the FOIs; the first FOI states "does not fall under our remit"; the second states "known by various other permutations"; the third states "after a discussion with our Planning Department" but then contradicts the Camden planning department's own usage.
I hope these responses are useful. If you continue to have doubts, I'm sure that myself and others will continue to try and respond to them. —Sladen (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's my final contribution to this discussion. Yes I do accept that the original non-suffixed name is in common use and is an appropriate name for the article. I also should have mentioned (but chose not to) that some or all of the TV monitors opposite the National Rail/Thameslink ticket offices clearly say (to this day) Welcome to St Pancras Station, in addition to all the many occurrences of "St Pancras International" in and around the station. I also wish to apologise for any ill-feeling our discussion may have caused, though this was not in any way my intention! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.
I have deleted the contents of this entire section. FYI: this consisted of the content of this page (for which the link provided was out of date by now). --Peeky44 (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Can I suggest that this article is split. 1 article for the old station (St Pancras railway station) and 1 for the rebuilt new station (St Pancras International railway station). They are completely different. It would simplify the article for readers as at the moment it is long and hard to follow and it might also solve the naming debate. Clover345 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clover: I'm not sure what a split would "solve"; the naming debate was closed a few months ago with agreement that the current name is fine (including by the original proposer IIRC). Perhaps you could outline how you feel that it is "completely different". Heathrow airport was recently extended with a huge capacity increase, but I haven't seen suggestions that it is now a "totally different airport". Rugby railway station recently had a massive physical reorganisation, but like St Pancras it's still there, as is Birmingham New Street railway station and Waterloo railway station. If you were considering a split for the historical coverage it would be along the lines of St Pancras railway station and History of St Pancras railway station, but I can't immediately see a gain from doing that—perhaps you could outline your thoughts further. —Sladen (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has but it has not always been an international railway station. Readers will find it easier to follow if the history was on a separate article. Clover345 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kensington Olympia has never been a permanent Eurostar station and it was never designed or meant to be one. They wouldn't rename the station for the sake of a temporary/emergency terminus change. Therefore Kensington Olympia is not a Eurostar station. And anyway, that has nothing to do with St Pancras Station which clearly is and has been designed as a Eurostar station. Clover345 (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly no one knows the name of the station. Theres no proof for anything. Any proof given is just disproved so it will always be an endless cycle. It seems to me that for internal purposes, they designate the interational platforms and domestic platforms separate codes as one is maintained by Network Rail and the other by Eurostar. However for branding purposes, they've made it easier for passengers by just calling the whole station "St Pancras International". They always do that. For example, Heathrow Central Station is referred to officially as Central Terminal Area (CTA) Station. This whole argument is just about being pedantic. Clover345 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
St Pancras station doesn't have multiple possible names. There is only one official name - St Pancras International. Low level, Domestic, Midland Road etc are only used by Network Rail for office use just as Heathrow Central station is referred to as CTA by BAA. Clover345 (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I at least put back the , officially known as St Pancras International, please because so many other articles do that. Clover345 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "... International" is already in the second paragraph, along with an explanation. To add text (in this example) claiming that it is the official name would be factually incorrect (reasoning already covered on /Naming which would be preferable to avoid rehashing it here). —Sladen (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be incorrect? I agree with you that there are many permutations of the name but I don't see why it is incorrect to say that it is the official name. You didn't provide any evidence related to this in your arguments. Clover345 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the information you are after is contained within the /Naming discussion page, in comments dated between 1 July 2006–27 May 2009. There is alot of it (50+ carefully cited replies from my account, during that timeframe) and it would be preferable to avoid copying-and-pasting the whole lot back here as it has already been archived off. —Sladen (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one has actually worked out what the official name is on that page. Different users have just cited different sources in an attempt to determine the official name. So I think I will conclude that no one on wikipedia has worked out the official name. Clover345 (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, The first nameing argument was never agreed even if we supplied proof like the HM Queen nameing the station International in 2007, but thats not the piont. Waterloo has got two pages, one of domestic and one for international but I think the station should stay together in this case. Also I can't see the problem in nameing the station International as Stratford new station is along with Ebbesfleet and Ashford all have International at the end but I dont whant to start the dabate again. Likelife (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have no opinion on the naming issue, but I have been there many times over the years, and it is definitely the same station in the same location. It has a continuous history which should be refelcted in a single article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd much rather see a split than a renaming, the station is not, never has been and if things stay the way they are, never will be International station. The International relates to the platforms or rather possible services that go to Brussels and France. The station itself, the building, the rooftop and the whole lot is St Pancras station. If the International bods feel international is being left out, let them have an International article or an increased presence by expanding the paragraph for international services. If there is nothing more to say that isn't redundant, not factual or notable then the question is answers: leave it.
I've read the archived discussion and don't want to reopen it all if there is still a lot of opposition, but I was wondering if the opponents to using the stations formal name have now gotten used to several years of it being "St. Pancras International" and are prepared to rename the article as such? Reading the discussion there seems to be heaps and heaps of evidence backing the change of name and rather empty arguments from those who seem to have something against the word international. It all seems a bit silly to be honest but am not here to revisit those arguments. I know how irritating it is when someone comes and reopens a drawn out argument such as this; I just want to see if the opponents have change their position at all.- J.Logan`t: 13:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was thinking due to the time passing, WP:COMMONNAME is more ambiguous considering St Pancras International is just as common as St Pancras.- J.Logan`t: 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a shorter, established name has a 150-year head start it takes alot to change habits or the body of reference work (WP:UNDUE). Jumping from threesyllables to eight (when three will do) is not something that your every day verbal converser is taken to doing... —Sladen (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you haave had this debate why have you failed to reach the correct conclusion? Why are there people who live in the past? Isn't it time to remove those rose tinted specks and advance into the current century? Is it even worth debating with people who can't see the facts before their very eyes? shouldent these people just be ignored and overrulled by those who know better?81.178.168.126 (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Don't know. Maybe you should start the debate again and try to help it reach the "correct" conclusion. (2) Don't know, why don't you ask them? (3) See 2. (4) Yes, obviously: to achieve consensus you will need to convince them that your view of the "facts" is the correct one. (5) No. That is not how the encyclopaedia works. I hope these replies help. Here's an extra bit of information on the way in which the page has been treated: you do not, in any case, do page moves like that. Please see Mattbuck's comment above. So whether or not you can agree the change of name is one issue, but how to actually do it is another, and this can only be done with a proper page move, not a copy and paste. You do need to understand this - it's important. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked through the earlier debate. Most of it was well over two years ago at a point when some people felt that calling the station "St Pancras International" might just be a passing fad. Also, it is not the case that a majority of editors were against the change, but rather that there was no consensus for changing it at that time. The main obstacle to change at that time was just one rather vociferous editor.
It now seems clear to me that the new name is not controversial any more: it has become the permanent name, and not only for Eurostar services. I have the current Thameslink timetable leaflets in front of me and they all refer at every mention of the station to "St Pancras International". The same is true of the national rail enquiries website. I think the article should clearly be renamed with, obviously, a redirect to it from the old name. -- Alarics (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That (Alarics) may well be correct, and I would be happy to see the debate reopened or perhaps taken straight to page move requests for a discussion. The point I'd like to get over though is that there is a right and wrong way of doing it - both of discussing it and of actually performing the move - and these do need to be observed. In effect this thread now has two topics, which is never great ... :( Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the main topic of this thread is the name of the article, and that is what I am talking about. If you would like to take it to page move requests, I shall support it. -- Alarics (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Called my bluff, dammit. No, I'm pretty unconcerned about the title of the page. If someone takes it to RFPMR£%^$& or whateverthehell it is called, I shall probably toddle along and vote, but I don't have strong enough feelings about the title to kick this all off myself. I am worried by people doing inadvisable C&P page moves, and I would like any move to be done after consensus was reached - which, if you're right (and remember all the photo evidence etc from last time round?!?) may be easier now. I was more bothered by the hostile tone of the IP's contribution and by the repeated C&P move than I am by what name we call this thing. No-one will die if we get it wrong. Or right. :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
St Pancras railway station → St Pancras International railway station —
The station's official name changed some time ago to St Pancras International. This article should have its title changed accordingly. The last time this was discussed, over two years ago, consensus was not reached, largely because some felt it was not then clear that the new name would be permanent. It is now clear that it is. The new name is used in all timetables and literature by all the operators at the station. -- Alarics (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Q: the box blurb says "Remember to base arguments on article title policy" which is fair enough. But is there also a railway-station-specific article title policy, and if so where, and if they are in conflict - which I suppose is possible - which trumps which? It might be helpful authoritatively to establish this before we get too much further, but I don't know station stuff well enough to be sure if it's a real, defined policy or what. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've always been for the move since it first came up. Since then, International is used even more and i've seen more evidence for moving the article to St Pancras International. Likelife (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It should not be acceptable that "just one rather vociferous editor" can overrule everyone else that is not what should be ment by concensus 81.178.173.204 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Here we combine into one article three separate topics. There are the international services from the main train shed; the domestic services from the new bit to the north; and the Thameslink services down below. The Department for Transport have regarded them as three distinct stations: see DfT doc Better Rail Stations, Part D: Annexes, where on p. 98 (Acrobat Reader p. 10 of 25) we see both "London St Pancras International" and "London St Pancras Midland Mainline"; and on p. 100 (12 of 25) we see "London St Pancras T'link". Best to drop the three disambiguation suffixes and go with either "London St Pancras railway station" or our present title "St Pancras railway station". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The DfT might regard them as three separate stations, but none of the operators does: East Midland Trains, FCC Thameslink and Southeastern high speed all consistently call it "St Pancras International" in their timetables, websites and literature. So does Network Rail. The DfT is as usual being inept and, as you yourself observe, inconsistent. -- Alarics (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What WP:COMMONNAME actually says is "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred". If the timetables and literature of all the companies actually using the station are not reliable sources, I don't know what is. -- Alarics (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) says: "The official name of the station should normally be used (....) If there is any doubt about what the official name is, the name given on the station platforms should be used." In this case, the name given on the station platforms, and not only the international platforms, is "St Pancras International". I don't know what could be clearer than that. -- Alarics (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. I'm inviting you to see the Newcastle discussion and throw in a comment or two, either way. My point there, as here, is: what do the signs and documents actually say? Last time I was at St. Pancras, the word "International" was not particularly noticeable, except in the area used by Eurostar services. Whether "London" was shown or not, I simply don't remember. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at some of my photos: the signage seems to say in large letters St Pancras, with International in smaller letters under the "Pancras", and seems to be fairly standard throughout SE/ES/FCC platforms, I don't have any useful photos of the EM platforms. Make of that what you will. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its the same on the EMT platforms, but remember First TransPennine Express's old logo had Express in small letters just like how International is shown here, but it was still accepted as First TransPennine Express.Likelife (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we go by common name then Edinburgh Waverly railway station should be moved to just Waverly railway station and 'Parkway' should be dropped from Whittlesford Pkwy. More and more I see 'International' being used by BBC News, Network Rail (who according to their website run the station), EMT, TfL, FCC and so on. Now on National Rail Enquiries, the page for this station is now called London St Pancras International (STP)[23]. So is International not becoming the common name? Likelife (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the official name is clearly "St Pancras International" as this is used on the station, in timetables and in other publicity. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You clearly haven't bothered to read any of the discussion that has gone before. "St Pancras International" is the signage on *all* the platforms, domestic as well as international, and is the name used by all the domestic operators in their timetables, websites and literature. -- Alarics (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had you troubled to do so, you would have seen that, whatever the situation was then, it is *now* clear that "International" does not in fact refer only to the Eurostar platforms, as you erroneously stated. All the domestic platforms are now, and have been for some time, signed "St Pancras International" and the domestic operators, as well as Eurostar, consistently use this name in all their timetables, literature and websites. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" (J. M. Keynes). -- Alarics (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not again!!! Whatever people may want to call it, it is St Pancras. International is an affectation that is added to the name that the station has had for over hundred years. --Stewart(talk | edits)20:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two or three years ago, in the middle of the razzmatazz of the rebranding of the station, that might have been a tenable position. Now, with all operators of the station (and Network Rail, its owner) consistently calling it "St Pancras International" in their timetables, literature and websites, as well as the signage on all the platforms of the station, I really don't think you can still call it a mere affectation. -- Alarics (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yet using St rather than the actual word Saint. To throw one out, the naming of stations (that's stations, not railway stations) has been discussed for many years on WP. Saint Pancras is an interchange, one which has King's Cross Saint Pancras underground and Thameslink station, taxi rank and bus stops. 1 it does not need International and 2 it should not have the word railway. I'm however quite happy with the current name as anyone can contribute without branding as it has for more than a hundred years. WP:Naming needs us to agree, it doesn't tell us which one is best. Captain Scarletand the Mysterons21:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should have railway, because while the overall King's Cross/St Pancras complex may be an interchange for different forms of transport, St Pancras itself is not, it's just a railway station. That happens to be next to a tube station. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is going off the point. The present discussion is not about whether to include "railway", still less is it about whether to put "St" or "Saint", it's about whether to include "International". -- Alarics (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. "International" is in the current trading name of the station, but the article deals with its whole history. WP:COMMONNAME applies. No-one ever gets into a taxi and asks for "St Pancras International railway station". --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about what people say when they get into a taxi, it is about the official name of the station as shown on the station platforms and in timetables and other literature. -- Alarics (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong. The guideline is [[WP:COMMONNAME]: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.--FormerIP (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you reconcile that with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), which says: "The official name of the station should normally be used (....) If there is any doubt about what the official name is, the name given on the station platforms should be used." If we are now saying that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) is not the correct rule, it needs changing. But in any case, if you want reliable sources, what could be a more reliable source for current usage than the timetables of all the operating companies using the station? -- Alarics (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not one of those shooting you down! In fact, having glanced at the Newcastle dispute it looks to me as if you are in the right on that. So I don't understand why you are opposing me in this (St Pancras) case. -- Alarics (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Leave as St Pancras railway station. WP:COMMONNAME; shortest unambiguous name as default; the other names are mentioned in the WP:LEDE. Done to death before. And FWIW, IIRC, on a large amount of the modern station signage International is written as a small subscript and others don't even have it at all—most of it is there in ridiculous detail on and I wonder if perhaps people could take the time to read Talk:St Pancras railway station/Naming in entirety first. —Sladen (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least several people here have commented that they have read the previous discussion, but explicitly point out that the situation on the ground has changed/become clearer since that last discussion. Others have stated that the signage, timetables, press-releases, publicity, etc all consistently include "International", and have evidence to back up their assertions. Do you? Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the past it was described as Ashford (Kent) in the timetable index to differentiate it from what was then known as Ashford (Middlesex). Why do you regard "Ashford International" as a "perfectly good" name, but not "St Pancras International"? What's the difference? -- Alarics (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnecessarily pedantic. What people look for when finding the article is "St. Pancras station". If we were to use the correct name for the station code STP it should be London St Pancras International. Wouldn't it better for people to spend their time time in researching content? Chevin (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The International writing may be small on the signs, but arguably this is a Logo[24] in most of the station. Also the word international is used by all domestic operators, not just at this station, but also at King's Cross and it is the same size lettering as the rest of the name when used by them. Furthermore some users say it shouldn't be called International because the article includes history. Yet Network's Rail's history page[25] on this station has 'About St Pancras International' as it's title! I know we don't have to follow other websites, but surely it makes sense following the owner's, manager's and operator's given name. Correct me if i'm wrong, but this has become not an debate for what it is officially, but what you want it to be and if we done that for all stations Whittlesford Parkway, South Woodham Ferrers, Whittlesea and a few more would have ongoing debates.Likelife (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is evident from this discussion that some editors are determined to defy the clear WP rules on this. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) says: "The official name of the station should normally be used (....) If there is any doubt about what the official name is, the name given on the station platforms should be used." In this case, the name given on all the station platforms, not only the international ones, is "St Pancras International". Timetables and literature, too -- of all the companies involved, whether domestic or international -- make it very clear that that is "the official name of the station". If people don't agree with this, then clearly we should change the rules. -- Alarics (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support given that the station is signed as such, decribed as such on platform and train PA announcements, and appears as such in the Baker (GB) and Brown (London) rail atlases. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 1) The 'international' is a small subscript addition to the station name. 2) Also as the majority of services using the station are domestic, and ony a portion of the station is used for internation trains, the name is potentially misleading in an article about the whole station. 3) We are dealing with an article about a station which has has a history extending for 150 or so years with one common name, but the current 'rebranding' has existed for only a few. For the sake of stabillity, avoiding pedantry and being inkeeping with the common name convention it should IMHO probably be kept where it is. G-13114 (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether services are domestic or international is irrelevant, as is 150 years of history. We don't name articles by what they were once known, we name them by how they ARE known, and the station is known as (London) St Pancras International. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the station name essentially hasn't changed it has merely had a small suffix added for marketing purposes. 150 years of history 'are' relevant as this article exists to cover the station for the entire time period it has existed. Not just for recently concocted marketing gimmicks. G-13114 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As already noted above, it might have been possible to argue in 2007 that the name "St Pancras International" was a "recently concocted marketing gimmick", but that is clearly not the case now, with every operator at the station consistently using that name in timetables and other literature. -- Alarics (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In truth all the names are in common usage. The article clearly states all the names. There are redirects for all the names. It is unlikely that any reader of Wikipedia is going to be confused by the article, or fail to find it. All else is just hot air, and it really doesn't matter that we are clearly going to fail to achieve consensus again. There are loads of articles out there needing lots of attention; this is not one of them. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Chris and G-13114. There's not going to be any confusion over the name and the station has been around for a very long time. As I suggested above last year, this article could easily be improved to GA status if the users with the right reference books added a few missing sources - wouldn't that be a better use of our time.--DavidCane (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Without wanting to paraphrase the whole discussion above, note that word normally. Now it doesn't say normally but not always but I think that is the meaning. If that's not clear (but I think it is), then the guideline needs tweaking. Most railway stations are unknown to most people; This is an unusually prominent one. The official name is clearly of some relevance but if we were to rank all the railway stations of the world as to how relevant the official name is in deciding the article title, this one would be within a few entries of the least-relevance end of the spectrum. Hence the term marginal. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to go by exterior station signage, at some entrances it reads "St Pancras International" and others it just reads as "St Pancras Station". Simply south......trying to improve for 5 years23:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I won't repeat what's already been argued, but the common name is St Pancras, which has been its common name for a long, long time. The "International" tag is merely branding/descriptive, in a similar manner to adding "London" to a station's name. When someone buys a ticket to St Pancras, be they in Nottingham or in Paris, they are not going to say "St Pancras International"... it's not like there's another St Pancras station about! I'll stop rambling there. David (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't expressed a view either way but I will attempt to answer your question: no, and it is a bad example. No-one in their right mind would support a move to Gillespie Road but then that's fine, because no-one, other than a few tube nerds, knows it as that. The current renaming debate is rather more subtle, in that you'd find it hard to find anyone who didn't understand what was meant by either of the names under debate. So, sorry, but the example does not really work. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A slightly less egregious example, not from the railway world - should we move BBC One back to BBC1, or BBC Radio 4 Extra back to BBC Radio 7? The old name is undoubtedly more familiar than the official name in both cases. Another point - apart from St Pancras, is there any other UK railway station which _isn't_ at its official name? Tevildo (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commenty comment with messed-up indent thanks very much - very much more comprehensible and usable example! Much appreciated. DBaK (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very long list - there are two entries on it that definitely aren't at their official names, viz "IBM" (rather than "IBM Halt") [incidentally, this has flagged up a mistake in the Coombe Junction article, but I digress], and "Penrith" (rather than "Penrith (North Lakes)"), one entry where the railway station (Hull) is part of a larger entity that bears the old name of the station (Hull Paragon Interchange), and one entry where the difference is one of punctuation rather than wording, namely "Ashurst (New Forest)" rather than "Ashurst New Forest". I'm sure there _aren't_ dozens of exceptions to the guideline, based on this sort of evidence. Tevildo (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick research has indicated that the brackets in "Ashurst (New Forest)" are supported by the platform signs, and therefore constitute a legitimate resolution of an ambiguity per the guideline. There's no such ambiguity as regards St Pancras International. Tevildo (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... It's probably going to be kept here as "no consensus", so we'll have to send it round again in another couple of years. Unless the closing admin wants to be heroic and follow the guideline rather than the discussion. Tevildo (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd concur that it's a fairly even split (8.5 oppose/6 support + proposer). If another editor or the proposer are happy to do the closure, I'm happy to help with the archiving. —Sladen (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The rules on WP:NCUKSTATIONS state that a stations official name (the name listed on station platforms) should be used and therefore this station should be named 'St Pancras International railway station' ? --Arkeys (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first.
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The official and proper name of this station is St Pancras International, and therefore it should be referred to as such from the start. A compromise would be to call it 'St Pancras International Railway Station' incorporating the current name and its 'International' name. The first line can then read:
"St Pancras International railway station (/seɪnt ˈpæŋkrəs/ or /sənt ˈpæŋkrəs/), also known as London St Pancras,[7][8][9] is a central London railway terminus located on Euston Road in the London Borough of Camden."
Whilst the article does currently say 'since 2007 known as St Pancras International', shouldn't the primary name be its current name? It would be similar to someone getting married and the article reading 'Jane Doe, and since 2007 known as Jane Smith' which is not the way Wikipedia articles are usually written.
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: no consensus that defaults to the page staying at its stable title. Editors cannot come to a consensus as to whether the official name that is commonly used amongst railways should be used or whether the common name that is used among lay sources should be used. A full discussion has taken place so there is no need to relist at this time. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh my goodness, cannot believe this has been discussed so much in the past! Reading the debates it seems that perhaps a compromise could be reached - the title of the page remains 'St Pancras railway station' as perhaps that is its 'common name' but why does the article not start with calling the station it's official and proper name 'St Pancras International railway station'. This is how, for example, celebrity pages work where the title is, say, 'Bono' but the article reads 'Paul David Hewson (born 10 May 1960), known by his stage name Bono'. Therefore, why doesn't this page say 'St Pancras International, commonly referred to as simply St Pancras Station, is a central London railway terminus...' I also must point out that this argument is likely to continually pop up every few years, would it not be much simpler just to change the name to St Pancras International as I can't imagine people debating over whether the station should not be referred to by its proper name? Again, can't believe this has been argued over for so many years! Arkeys (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Flip it around. Let's assume that the article is named "St Pancras International railway station". Then we can assume that the same argument is likely to continually pop up every few years, in which case would it not be much simpler just to change the name to "St Pancras railway station", without the International? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you were given a link to those old discussions - at the top of this page, the last box beginning "This page was previously nominated to be moved." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for bringing up this discussion again, as a new user I hope you can understand that the way the back of Wikipedia works is rather extensive and intimidating. However, saying this I only requested a new move based on what you told me to do above. Instead of sending me the link to the request a move page you could have informed me about the previous discussions. In terms of your 'flip it around' argument, I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue with a train station being referred to by its proper and official name. The problem at the moment, and in the past, is that people have questioned why it is not being referred to with its official name (and the name that appears on all maps, tickets, signs, platforms, leaflets, posters etc etc). Why would anyone question why something is being called by its proper name?! Arkeys (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the suggestion to forget about moving the page, and for it to be referred to as St Pancras International at the start? Seems as this is its official name, should it not be referred to as such at the start, like how celebrity pages work? Arkeys (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes just like this, why can't the St Pancras International page be similar to this? Forget moving it, just refer to it by its proper name at the start!? Arkeys (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I was originally going to support until I saw the links above - In short if this gets moved someone in a few years will only get it moved back and as it's already had alot of rms in the past so It's probably best we just keep it at this name, Ofcourse consensus can and does change however in this case I don't believe the change will be of any help as as I said someone in a few years will set up another RM and it'll no doubt be moved back, In short to save the flaffing around and constant page moves it's best to keep it where it is. –Davey2010Talk12:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010 do you really think people would complain about the station being referred to by its official (and trademarked) name? The problem at the moment is that people question why it is not being called its proper name, why would people question something being called its official name? I don't think the "its been argued so much before, lets not change anything" is a good point to oppose the change, especially as these arguments were ages ago and many people seemed to believe the name would not stick. However here we are 10 years later and it's still called St Pancras International - everywhere! Arkeys (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"do you really think people would complain about the station being referred to by its official (and trademarked) name?" - Honestly ? ... yes absolutely! - Editors these days prefer to make mountains out of molehills, I agree with the name change and would love to support it however you're always going to get one that's going to say "no no it should St Pancras railway station because X" and then the article will be moved back....., So instead of going back & fourth will the article it's simply best to leave it where it is. –Davey2010Talk16:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The station website [26], the Eurostar station information page [27], the official station name on the network code website [28], the High Speed 1 station information website (part owners I believe of the station) [29], the Network Rail station web page (the owners of the station) [30], the national rail official page [31], the Southeastern station information page [32], the Thameslink station information site [33], and the East Midlands Trains station information [34], which although the page title refers to "London St Pancras Train Station", the page has a picture saying "St Pancras International" and the Station Name section on the page states "London St Pancras International". I would prefer that the page be renamed "London St Pancras International railway station", but "St Pancras International railway station" is fine. Based on the sources of all relevant operators and owners of the station, it is "St Pancras International". Nathan A RF (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slight support, but not really bothered - the station seems to be officially known as 'St Pancras International' by all official railway bodies (such as Network Rail) as per Nathan above. That being said, it could be argued that the common name for the station is St Pancras, and if all the effort that's gone into arguing on both sides had been invested into improving the article, it'd be a featured article by now! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, not much point in moving it I can see, as it's really just a slight variation of the original name. However Arkeys proposal of it being refereed to as SPI at the start sounds like a fair compromise. G-13114 (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Exhibit B: Tube station western councourse signage
Exhibit C: Entrance to St Pancras International from the tube station western councourse
Exhibit D: Mentioned on this electronic timetable console on the station concourse
Exhibit E: Column on the concourse containing the above timetable console
Exhibit F: East Midlands Trains timetable cover, showing St Pancras International
Exhibit G: Sign in the Marks & Spencer main store at northern end of the station ("The Circle")
Exhibit H: Signage on the northern station entrance, nearer the domestic platforms
Exhibit I: Signage at King's Cross station main concourse
Exhibit J - Boots branch opening times. This shop is next door but one to M & S at "The Circle", the northern-most part of the station concourse (see exhibit G above).
Exhibit K - Platform monitors on the First Capital Connect platforms with a nice welcome message.
Exhibit L - Bus stop in Euston Road, opposite the station
Exhibit Q: Underground directions at the Thameslink station
Exhibit R: Platform monitors at the Thameslink station
Exhibit U: Signage on the Eurostar platforms, viewed from the high-level concourse
