Talk:London King's Cross railway station/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

(Page move)

This page should be at Kings Cross railway station in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject London - see especially the recent discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London but I can't get it to move. Timrollpickering 7:52, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this should be at King's Cross railway station (the lack of apostrophe in the station's signs are apparently typographic rather than concious choices), but I'll wait for someone else to give me the nod, given that others seem to disagree...
James F. (talk) 18:24, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, now that (apparently) the official web page, the official signage, the London Underground, and indeed Transport for London generally, perhaps we can make a decision on this?
James F. (talk) 01:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Convinces me. I've requested the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Stevage 20:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
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.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (archived)

Stevage has proposed the following move at Requested moves:

Kings Cross railway station -> King's Cross railway station. Looks like the company website [1] has finally made up its mind. Stevage 20:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting and discussion

  • Support. If you look into the history of the name I believe you'll find the reference is to one particular king, hence the possessive "King's". Regards, David Kernow 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Proteus (Talk) 09:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Suppoer. Given the clear policy change I would have just moved it... Justinc 14:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, in cases like these, forget about WP:RM and just ask an admin to move the page. No need to wait for five days when it's as obvious as in this case. —Nightstallion (?) 10:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

Image:London King's Cross sign.jpg

May I ask, not intending to sound rude etc. where this picture has gone, as we appear to have began with 2 (as mentioned in page history) which admittedly is too many, but now the picture is non-existant in the article, I think that although didn't show much, it looked better than the current pic in the infobox (just my two cents), or at least somewhere in the article. Also may I take this oppurtunity to apologise for unintentionally altering the article (by the first addition of the infobox), sorry again for the tone if anyone finds it rude DannyM 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest change to intro

London King(')s Cross (officially),King's Cross or Kings Cross station is just too messy. I've placed it here and reverted it until a better, agreed intro. is established. leaky_caldron 20:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent nearby fire

I know it's caused disruption in the last couple of days, but is a nearby fire (which wasn't even in the station if my understanding is correct) really worth mentioning in the article?--Tivedshambo (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Shouldn't King's Cross station redirect straight here rather to a disambig page? This is by far the largest and best known station of the name. 86.0.203.120 01:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hogwarts Express

I have removed the "Hogwarts Express" from the succession box: this was utterly ridiculous. If anyone objects, please discuss it here before putting it back. --RFBailey 10:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Locomotives..

..stabled there used to be marked " KINGS + "

These quibbles about the apostrophe are childish. An encyclopedia should be easy to use. In all such cases the various spellings should be redirected or be on a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.230 (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif

Image:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif

Image:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Photos

I'll be in Kings Cross on 21st April, any requests for images? Britishrailclass91 (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

The result of the debate was No consensus for the move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For consistency with other London railway stations, should not have "London" at the start of the name, for example St Pancras railway station. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Naming conventions. The page was moved from King's Cross railway station to add "London" by a user in March 2007 without discussing it first. (The apostrophe has previously been discussed.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRawle (talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 August 2008

Seconded. Adambro (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I'm reconsidering this issue as part of the discussions of the wider naming convention for London stations. In this particular instance London isn't a disambiguating term which we've added, it is part of the name similar to Manchester Piccadilly and as such I'm no longer convinced that removing "London" from the page name is such a good idea. Adambro (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thirded. This is a well known station. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
There's also a Kings Cross railway station in Sydney. The current name makes the distinction clear. (To be honest, I think it would be better if all the major mainline termini in London had 'London' in the article name.) DrFrench (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That one is, and always has been, located at Kings Cross railway station, Sydney. There's no doubt that the primary topic is the station in London. JRawle (Talk) 23:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite. But that doesn't invalidate what I said. DrFrench (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. _If_ it were necessary for disambiguation against the Australian station (which I don't believe it is), the article title should be King's Cross railway station, London. But - with all due deference - the London station is the primary reference, IMO. Tevildo (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that the Australian station is only ever known as Kings Cross, never Sydney Kings Cross. Whilst the London station is known as London King's Cross (on station signs), as well as just King's Cross. We don't have Piccadilly station or Piccadilly station, Manchester - we have Manchester Piccadilly station - for the same resason, this should be London King's Cross. DrFrench (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to add, that the original poster was not correct; we have London Waterloo station and London Victoria station - so changing this article will not deliver the desired consistency... DrFrench (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The sensible (although probably not policy-compliant) thing to do would be to add "London" where it's necessary for disambiguation. So, London King's Cross (distinguish from Sydney), London Victoria (distinguish from Manchester, Sheffield, etc), London Charing Cross (distinguish from Glasgow), London Waterloo (distinguish from Waterloo in Merseyside), but all the rest (Fenchurch St, Liverpool St, Paddington, Marylebone, etc) without the "London". 78.105.161.182 (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Having read the debate, and (more particularly) the debate at St Pancras, I'm now convinced that the article name for any station should be the official name of the station. So - the question is, how do we determine what that official name is? The Network Rail site calls it "King's Cross" (no London) [2]. The platform signs call it "London King's Cross". NRE call it "London Kings Cross" (no apostrophe) [3]. My gut feeling (supported by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)) is to go with the platform signs, hence my opposition to this specific move. However, without having seen the platform signs (or photos of them) at any of the other terminii recently, I wouldn't want to offer an opinion on any other station. Tevildo (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - Looks like 3:2 against the move; is that consensus? Tevildo (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I think if it was a choice between having King's Cross, London or King's Cross railway station (London), then it would be preferable to prepend instead: to London King's Cross [railway] station. By no means do I think prepending "[London]" should be automatic; London Kensington Olympia and London Finsbury Park are somewhat nonsensical and the boundary for what is in London is going to cause problems (London Tottenham Hale, London West Croydon?). —Sladen (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree on that point - automatic appending gives us "London London Bridge". I feel, however, the case has been made out for "London King's Cross" specifically, without London Paddington or even London Victoria entering the equation. Tevildo (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rationale behind this move cites a completely spurious 'for consistency' argument. Actually there is no consistency, with some London stations having the London prefix in the title (eg. London King's Cross railway station, London Victoria station, London Waterloo station) and others not (eg. Paddington station). I suspect the reason is to do with ambiguity, but even if it isn't, changing one name will not achieve consistency, and the proposal therefore fails by its own rationale. -- Starbois (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment to avoid confusion; an "Oppose" opinion means you're in favour of "London King's Cross", a "Support" means you're in favour of "King's Cross". I wouldn't want your !vote to be counted on the wrong side. :) Tevildo (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the move, and as there are disambiguation problems, I don't see that there is an overriding procedural reasons for the move. (see WP:NC sections "Use the most easily recognized name" and "Be precise when necessary"). However as the only technical impediment blocking such a move was an edit history at the target page, I have removed the edit history so that in the future if there is consensus on this talk page the move can be made. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New poll

London railway stations should all be named consistently. Should they be prefixed with London or not? Or doesn't it matter if they are not consistent?

  • Rename articles for consistency, but am neutral about whether they are prefixed by London (should add extra interest to the [London] St Pancras [International] debate!) JRawle (Talk) 12:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If consistency is our goal, we have to accept the possibility of London London Bridge station - which says to me that we shouldn't have an _automatic_ "London" prefix, if nothing else. 78.105.161.182 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not appreciate being "canvassed" to vote in this "new poll" which is just a red herring. Just move the station back to "King's Cross railway station" and be done with it. Everything on Wikipedia has to be done on a case by case basis. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Whats the point, no other station has London at the beging of the name but of couse London Bridge station. At St Pancras station theres at talk about weather adding 'International' is a good idea thats more senseable than adding London to King's Cross. Likelife (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Google gives 1,260 hits for "London King's Cross railway station" and 13,900 for "King's Cross railway station". Can you guess which is the preferred name? Hint: (13,900-1,260)/1,260 = 10.03. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate this issue as it covers other pages and it was not advertised as a general debate at WP:RM or on the relevant project pages. It should probably be debated at a project level, and WP:NC needs to be followed including consideration of the sections "Use the most easily recognized name" and "Be precise when necessary" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and community links

Hi,

I'm concerned that links I've added to community groups in King's Cross are being deleted. There are controversial elements of the current station redevelopment and surely Wikipedia should refer to these? If not, then Wikipedia is guilty of taking a one-sided view of a two-sided debate. I totally agree it is not the place to promote one or the other, but I do feel strongly it should refer fairly and openly to both.

Specific additions I think should be made are: (Under restoration) The redevelopment is controversial and has resulted in a local campaign being set up to press for improved access in the new design.

(Under Links)

Apologies for not getting the Wikipedia procedure right, hopefully this posting is the right way to do it...

Help!

PurpleNaartjie (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Sophie T

KCS contact info

where should it go in the article? Contact Tel: 02089294080 Address: Station Manager Network Rail Room 104, West Side Offices King's Cross station London N1 9AP Opening hours: 24 hours Monday - Sunday thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.91.63 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article already includes a link to the KGX details page at the National Rail site which appears to contain most of the information that you are proposing. Generally Wikipedia does not duplicate lists of facts that can be more effectively maintained by simply linking to them. Once again, thank you for the suggested it though! —Sladen (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:London Paddington station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 12:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Adams Fiction

To avoid a revert war I would like the pinion of other editors on this matter. The following was added to the other fiction section of the article:

This edit originally made by another editor was reverted. I reversed this reversion but it has since been removed again by on the rationale that it is only of interest to fans. IMO this is not the case. I would argue that this piece of information is equally relevant if not more so than a number of others in this section (especially the reference to the station appearing in the background of a movie scene). If this information is only of interest to fans then surely this is the case for a number of the other references in the section? Also I am not a fan of the Douglas Adams' books but I did find this reference interesting. Would other editors please give their opinion on whether this should be re-instated to the section. If it should not be included can I suggest a clean-up of the other fiction section for consistency? Grizzlyqi (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed this - twice. I would estimate that 1/3rd of the article is dedicated to fictional or celebrity related events connected with the station. The latest addition is yet more wp:fancruft drivel which has already turned the article into a laughable encyclopaedic source. There is nothing in the slightest notable about the latest fictional link and it, together with much of the stuff already in there, should be dumped once and for all. WP does not need and is not required to list every detail of minutia connected with its articles. Leaky Caldron 13:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Platform Y

I was walking around Kings Cross looking at all the rebuilding / restoration work, and came across this immage

Platform Y Photo

It clearly showes a "Platform Y" reference, what is that?

Could it be the new "Platform 0" they are building?

--Casper (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been variously described as Platform Y or Platform 0. Recently, First Capital Connect have stated on their site that it will be called Platform 0 and will open in May.

Buz44 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Updated, with ref. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter reverted

A good-faith edit was reverted 12 mins later; the reversion was valid, because it wasn't a regular service. However, a special train did run over that route, just once, on 8-11 July 2000 - I've added a section to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

York Road

I'm not sure that the location of the York Road station is correct. The 1874 6" OS map shows it a station to the south east of the main station, between two tunnels. Curiously enough, it is still shown on the Current 1:50,000 OS map. Mjroots (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That said, a map dated 1899 names that station as King's Cross (Metropolitan), and shows a station north of KX labelled "York Road". Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Am now satisfied as to the position of York Road. I think the Metropolitan station is deserving of a section in this article, and maybe the Great Northern Cemetery station too. This was on the east side to the line, just before Gasworks Copenhagen Tunnel portal. This forum thread discusses the station, and there is a book source that covers the station in detail - Dawes, Rev. Martin C. (2003). The end of the line : the story of the railway service to the Great Northern London Cemetery". Barnet: Barnet & District Local History Society.. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Further info on the Cemetery station can be found in Dawes, Martin C. "The Great Northern London Cemetery And Its Railway Service". London Railway Record (October 1999). Connor & Butler: pp254-60. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help) and Lucas, R G. "Kings Cross Cemetery Station". Railway Magazine (October 1954). The Tothill Press: pp713-15. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help). Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
We have hardly any info on the Maiden Lane temporary terminus. Does anything cover that? Simply south...... unintentionally misspelling fr 5 years 20:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I did add a bit to the article on the station earlier today. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
A good place to look for old maps is... old-maps.co.uk - it's indirectly linked from the GeoHack page: in a WP article, click on some coordinates to get to the GeoHack page, then under "Great Britain", find the "Old OS maps" row, and click on "Map". Then, at upper right you should find "View at old-maps.co.uk(~1900)"; despite the name, this site often has many maps for various dates between the 1850s and the 1970s. For a shortcut to York Road, go to this link, and in the scroll box on the right, find "1954 Post-WWII - ESSEX 1:2,500" and click the green "Enlarge Map" button. Once it's loaded, you can zoom in - particularly if you go for the orange "Enhanced Zoom" button. It's marked as "York Road Station", and is in the centre of that view, i.e. to the west of York Way. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the Cemetery station needs to be a separate article, it was before Copenhagen Tunnel, not Gasworks, and thus away from KX proper. Mjroots (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead picture

I disagree with this edit, which removed a picture of the fantastic new departures concourse and replaced with with a poor picture of the front of the station. I can say it is poor because I took both photos and the picture is mostly in shadow (I do intend to return at a better time to get another). The front of Kings Cross is an ugly temporary structure, now only used for folk leaving the station. The new entrance is round the corner and is a dome shaped structure, the inside of which is spectacular but the outside of which is fairly grey and boring. The rationale for the edit was "for consistency" which is a fairly low-priority reason for choosing any image and not actually true: see Glasgow Central station, London Paddington station, Edinburgh Waverley railway station, Leeds railway station, Liverpool Street station, London Bridge station, Birmingham New Street railway station.

I've restored the concourse image further down (it is currently an FP candidate so its removal would be disruptive). However, I strongly believe the article should lead with the best image. Currently, the new concourse is the best feature. In a couple of years time, the front of Kings Cross will be redeveloped to get rid of the ugly 1970s "temporary" structure, and it might then make a good picture. Colin°Talk 20:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The new picture should be in the infobox. Leaky Caldron 21:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. The front of the station has been the well known iconic image of King's Cross for 150+ years. The new concourse has only just opened a few months ago. G-13114 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The King's Cross frontpage is distinctive and meaningful to a reader, in the same way that St Pancras chambers/clock tower are. While you may believe the photograph is terrible, it is one of the few I have seen where the inner "tunnel effect" of the train sheds are visible through the new glasswork. The new retail concourse is designed to be artistic and artsy, …and illuminated in purple I'm sure looks lovely; but so does the London Eye when illuminated at New Year—you could mistake the two pictures at a distance. Thusly, I'm inclined to suggest that the Infobox stay as the familiar historical KX frontage, and that the new "side entrance" pictures stay somewhere within the article, supporting whatever text has been written about the expansion. —Sladen (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Scottish border

Thanks, Sladen, for sorting out that cn. But then when I look at it, it makes me think - (1) if the border is worth marking on a fictional map then why is it not on the non-fictional ECML map? Conversely (2) if it's not worth marking on the real map then why on earth put it in fiction, where everyone should, surely, give even less of a monkey's, and (3) do we have some generally-agreed practice on borders in rail maps, or borders in UK rail maps, or - er - something?? Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

File:King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 2, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-08-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

London King's Cross railway station
The western departures concourse of London King's Cross railway station as seen through a fisheye lens. This semi-circular concourse, designed by John McAslan, built by Vinci, and completed in March 2012, is designed to cater to much-increased passenger flows, and provide greater integration between the intercity, suburban and Underground sections of the station.Photo: Colin
Archive – More featured pictures...

Overlong infobox of triva and data points

I've trimmed the entry/exit stats from the info box per Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?. It caused the page formatting to get screwed with body text squeezed between images and the box. It is borderline trivia and certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Someone, who can interpret the rather lengthy source used, could summarise this years's stats in prose. Previous years figures, or trends, are only worth including if they are notable. This isn't a raw data repository; it's an encyclopaedia. Colin°Talk 11:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss at WT:UKRAIL; it is normal practice to have the last five years stats in the infobox. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
It might well be "normal practice" but that doesn't make it good practice and UKRAIL have no power above policy and guideline. The lengthy infobox of trivia does our readers harm by sandwiching text between the image and the box, which MOS:IMAGELOCATION guideline says should be avoided. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes says infoboxes should contain key facts, not trivia. The last five years entry/exit stats is pure data and not information, let alone key information. The same guideline says "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." (my bold) There is no justification for showing this information in the lead, to the detriment of the article layout and general clutter. I strongly suggest the UKRAIL come up with another template for any trivia they want in rail articles, which can appear at the bottom of the article. But in preference to that would be some prose indicating how busy Kings Cross is, comparing it with other stations, and noting any general trends. Such prose is encyclopaedic whereas what we currently show in the info box is are just data points. Colin°Talk 17:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
We can't simply decide on this article without the same thing being applied on all of the other 2,500+ UK rail station articles. I disagree that the station usage figures are 'trivia' that's quite an absurd claim frankly! And that signpost article has no official status and has no weight in the discussion. G-13114 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with G-13114. So far from being trivia, station usage figures seem to me to be one of the most important pieces of information about a railway station. It is probably the most objective way of distinguishing between important stations and relatively unimportant ones. -- Alarics (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion in one place, which seems to have moved to the project talk page. 5 years of raw data is trivia. The current year's figures you have a case for. Colin°Talk 07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You keep repeating that it is trivia. That is just your opinion. As must surely be clear to you by now, many of us disagree with you. -- Alarics (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence and variant "spellings"

The lead sentence of this article is being wrecked by an IP who has twice here and here added "variant spellings". This makes the sentence nearly impossible to read and is misleading. The lead sentence should contain the King's Cross railway station form only. Abbreviating this to just "King's cross" is not a variant spelling but a shortening that occurs in imprecise speech: Kings Cross is an area of London. Just someone going to Stevenage railway station might say they are getting off at Stevenage, it doesn't mean that "Stevenage" is a variant spelling of that station. The variant without the apostrophe is so minor it does not need to be covered in the lead sentence. The spelling variations are noted in a section near the end, and imo aren't even notable enough for the lead section never mind the lead sentence. But even if some feel the need to point out this piece of trivia it can go somewhere else in the lead section -- it doesn't need to clutter up our lead sentence. Please can someone else revert this IP's edit. Thanks. Colin°Talk 07:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Alarics (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Schematic

Can anyone make or obtain a map or schematic diagram of the station from above? It would be most helpful. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

KX is well-mapped on OpenStreetMap, so a good starting point: see 1569863. —Sladen (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't clear; I meant a more architectural depiction, showing the various sections of the building and when they were added. As far as a showing commuters to how to find a platform, it seems to me that WP:NOTGUIDE prevents that. Abductive (reasoning) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo

I am glad someone has replaced the old photo at the beginning of the article. I was going to tell someone to change it before I noticed it!

109.148.84.107 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

21 June 2014 event

This event [4] is described thus:

Who will author the future of King’s Cross? You are invited to join us for an in-person and on-location collaborative update to Wikipedia’s entry for King’s Cross Central. We will consider the contents of the existing article and identify what is missing and why. Throughout the afternoon, we will update the Wikipedia entry to more fully reflect the history and contemporary dynamics of King’s Cross from a variety of perspectives. This event is part of the Contested Spaces forum at Central Saint Martins and will be immediately followed by a panel discussion on the theme of Gentrification and Regeneration.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is a layout disaster

The layout of this article is dire. Text is frequently sandwiched between random photographs and/or the stupidly huge infobox. It is a classic example of the negative side to Wikiprojects which if left to themselves will collect and fill articles with unimportant data values, images, tables and bloated infoboxes. Never mind the reader. Sometimes less is more and the job of an editor is actually to select and arrange information, not just to pile it into every available space on the page. Oh, and I'm unwatching so don't bother trying to justify this mess. -- Colin°Talk 09:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, wiki articles do tend to accumulate clutter if no-one is looking after them properly. I've cut a couple of superfluous photos out, I hope that improves it a bit. I'm not sure we need the 1888 map of the station tbh. I'm not sure that adds enough to the article to justify the space it takes up. G-13114 (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

luggage trolley

Since when exactly there is the luggage trolley at platform 9 3/4? -- 134.99.30.20 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The actual location of platform 9 3/4 has changed over the years, with the current position only since March 2012. However, there has always been a trolly partway into the wall for Harry Potter fans to push. Colin°Talk 12:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Being a magical platform 9¾ it moves around quite a bit. Before ~2002 the sign was not visible to mere muggles like you and I.[5] The luggage trolley additionally took even longer for muggles to spot, and wasn't recorded on film until a few years later, even then it was a habit of shapeshifting, and sometimes fading out of view completely (leaving no trace, except some boltholes and sprinkles of brick-dust). I suspect I might have first noticed the trolley during 2003/2004. —Sladen (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to the party but Sladen's right - despite Colin's interesting use of "always", it was not visible to most of us at least until the books were published, and perhaps - I'm guessing - not until the films came out. It would be interesting to try to find a RS for some detail on this. DBaK (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been commuting every day from Platform 9 since at least '99. The sign used to be inside the main station in the connecting passage between platforms 8 and 9. You wouldn't see it back then unless you went down to the bottom of Platform 8. When the movies came out it go so crowded they had to move it to the corner of the old main entryway to platforms 9-11 where there was a bricked up exit. That was around 2002, probably why Sladen didn't notice it before then. When they built the new concourse roof the metal cladding partially obscured the old entryway, so they had to relocate the trolley and sign to the new spot under the footbridge to the new mezzanine. If you go to the bottom of the steps up to The Parcel Yard you can see the old spot on your left. HTH 2.26.176.59 (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(Spelling next door)

St Pancras or St Pancrass ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericd (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 September 2002

only one 's'. -- Tarquin —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 19 September 2002
Thanks ! --Ericd (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 September 2002 (UTC)

(Harry Potter films)

Kings Cross IS used in the Harry Potter films. You can tell by the GNER trains there. Apparently JK Rowling was confusing Euston with Kings Cross when she was thinking of platform nine and three-quarters. In real life platforms 9, 10 and 11 are in another train shed. --Sheringham (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 April 2004 (UTC)

(To apostrophe or not to apostrophe)

Please note that there is no apostrophe in Kings Cross. Reference: http://eur-op.eu.int/code/en/en-4100213en.htm --The Anome —Preceding undated comment added 08:40, 29 November 2002

Here's the whole story (to date):

  • Kings Cross is the name for the surrounding area, as supported by both style guides and general usage.
  • Google searches also say that Kings Cross station is more common that King's Cross station
  • King's Cross is the "official" signage for the stations
  • but Kings Cross is the "official" usage in the timetable database, as well as being used on other official documents: joyously, the official station page at [6] uses both usages

The Anome 09:38, 29 November 2002 (UTC)

(Potter apostrophe)

Don't forget Harry Potter! (lol) Nevilley —Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 29 November 2002

The first Harry Potter book uses King's Cross -- but hey, it's fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.40.254 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2002

Oh very quick. And next will we be starting on St Pancras, which is incorrectly given as St. Pancras all over the place???? And come to think of it, it really needs a proper entry, it's a sort of poor relation of K'in'gs 'Cros's 'sta't'i'on at the moment. I guess I probably mean St. Pancras station and its correct version St Pancras station here, rather than the place (where is it anyway?!) and the churches! I would insert a smiley at this point but don't know how. Nevilley 10:20, 29 November 2002 (UTC)

(Bold warning)

From the article:

Although considerable regenration effort (and money) has gone into the area over recent years, there is still a significant presence of drug dealers and prostitutes. Visitors are advised to remain within stations and/or on main thoroughfares during working hours and to exercise extreme caution in all locations at all other times.

This warning was added in bold text today. This seems at variance with my experience of Kings Cross, where my major worry is generally whether the trains are running and the length of the queue for mocha-cappuchino. Can the contributor of the warning give cites for the danger level suggested in the warning, please? The Anome 07:52, 27 March 2003 (UTC)

Mentioning that the area is a traditional stamping ground for prostitutes is ok content for the 'pedia, I guess, but I don't think issuing advice about personal safety is encyclopedic, even in its now toned down form. (Maybe such advice would be ok in an article about personal safety but this article is about a particular geographical location). I propose its removal. Pcb21 10:44, 27 March 2003 (UTC)

The same contributor has added a similar warning to Soho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.106.57 (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2003

I'm going to edit that. Pcb21 10:52, 27 March 2003 (UTC)
The original contribution has had an overall positive effect. Following my edit, a couple of recent changes watchers dived in and improved the article. Pcb21 12:07, 27 March 2003 (UTC)

I like the work that has now been done on this. I do not agree that a personal safety warning must always be inappropriate for the wiki - after all it is just another piece of info, and if someone finds it useful one day then great, info has been provided! But I do agree that the tone of the initial one was a bit strong, and I think the way it works now is fine. Smiles all round! :) Nevilley 17:32, 27 March 2003 (UTC)

PS Watch out for aggressive mocha vendors trying to hustle you! :)

I agree that if 'authorities' (whoever they may be in a particular location) advise people to exercise appropiate caution then that we should report that useful info. E.g. it is official New York Subway policy to advice passengers to stand in the lit yellow areas of the platform when late at night. That should form part of the New York Subway article. However I am not sure Wikipedia and its contributors should issue advice by itself... who's to say Kings Cross is any more dangerous than a dozen other places in London (and elsewhere!) where advice is not issued. The current paragraph is a bit ambiguous in this respect. Having written all that, I guess it doesn't matter too much on the large scale! Pcb21 17:46, 27 March 2003 (UTC)

Platform image

Platform 6 after the refurbishment
Platforms 5 to 8 of the western side of the two refurbished railway sheds in 2015

I've restored [7] the previous platform image for the moment: the proposed replacement lacked context (can't see any trains in the thumbnail); was taken at night meaning that the glass-roof can't be seen; and has been taken with a wide-angle/fisheye lens leading to distortion. —Sladen (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's not a "railway shed" but a "train shed". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, so it's a train shed. Easy enough to adjust the caption. I'm not a railway enthusiast per-se, I'm primarily a photographer who enjoys photographing architecture so excuse my ignorance of the terminology! ;-) I just wanted to mention that the image exists in the refurbishment section of the article, so the image in that section should primarily be about the building and how it looks today. As such, I don't think that it has less context than the image taken from within a single platform, and I don't think the train being visible is particularly necessary - obviously there are trains at a railway station! My image shows a very wide angle view from the entrance of the main sheds, with a focus on the building architecture far better than the existing image, and has far more detail visible (if you look beyond the thumbnail). You do make a good point about the glass roof not being as visible, although you can see reflections in it which suggests that it is glass. I took the image at night as I wanted to get a nice architectural photo without people crawling all over the platforms. I could try taking it during the day if you think that's important, but I honestly believe a wide angle view taken from the entrance just in front of the barriers is a far more useful photo to show the architecture of the shed than a photo taken on a single platform which shows the arched roof but provides no context about where you are within the station itself. As it stands, there is only a single image of the interior of the sheds. Perhaps there is room for both images as they serve different purposes. I'm happy to still have a go (at some point) at taking a better photo in daylight that shows the glass roof better. I'll add the image back in (and keep the existing image) and we can continue the discussion on what the article needs if you prefer. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Archive time?

Doesn't this talk page need an archive arrangement setting up? It's got stuff at least 13 years old. I'd try it myself but last time I did this it was a mess! Would someone do it, please? Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! :) DBaK (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Rickman

Do we really need to record, as done here and here, that Alan Rickman's death caused a temporary shrine to occur? My feeling is no, but I'm not planning to spend a lot of energy on it. Basically it seems to me that it's a very small, incidental and short-term item for the station, but perhaps of more relevance at the actor's own article, where his death, commemorations etc seem much more relevant. By extension, if we were to record every temporary shrine-like manifestation at each place, rather than with the people or event commemorated, wouldn't our place articles get a bit crowded quite quickly? I'd be very interested to hear what others think, though. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: In fact, it is already in the Rickman article, here: Alan Rickman#Death. Is that enough, or should we cover it here too? DBaK (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
No, one article is enough. WP:NOTMEMORIAL --Redrose64 (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree. The Harry Potter section of this article is already much too long IMHO. -- Alarics (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, both. DBaK (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on London King's Cross railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked, but archive copy not working so replaced. DBaK (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Platform 0 still

Is Platform 0 still 0? This editor thinks not but hasn't explained why; the plan here and the rather posher PDF here both still show the 0-11 numbering. Has it actually now been updated to 1-12? If so, a source would be nice. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? I will bring crisps. DBaK (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I follow the railway press quite closely and I am sure a wholesale renumbering of platforms at such a major station would have been reported. I haven't seen any such report yet. Until such a report appears, I suggest we leave the article as it is. -- Alarics (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. DBaK (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Run-down buildings and questionable businesses

A recent edit has added "King's Cross had a notorious reputation for housing a number of run-down buildings and questionable businesses including prostitution services in front of the main entrance. A major clean-up scheme took place during the 1990s". Now, I'm pretty sure that the mixture of buildings in front of the station was cleared away as part of the electrification improvements - which took place in the 1970s. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There was a big clear up in the 1990s too - mostly down the sides, as I recall. It was a filming location for a great many gangster and "London sleaze" film through the '80s and '90s. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64:, @Andy Dingley: I've done a bit of a clean up on this area this evening, dropping in mentions of numerous Pet Shop Boys projects and the film Mona Lisa, which made much of use of the seedy and depressed area around the station, and there are certainly other films that should be mentioned too (as soon as I get the appropriate sources). While I am not a reliable source obviously, personal memory of the station from the late 80s / early 90s is it was a good place to avoid like the plague; really grim mix of semi-abandoned buildings with cheap facades and adverts for prostitutes all over the place. Most people came in and went out via the tube entrance. I remember getting a train for the Edinburgh Fringe around 1998 and noticing things had been cleaned up a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Cultural references

The exchange below took place at Talk:Waterloo railway station and changes have accordingly been made to this article too.

The article is about the physical building and therefore only cultural items in which the station plays a significant part as a railway hub are relevant. Chance references in passing are not and, in any case, the creation of unreferenced lists of irrelevancies are unencyclopaedic. The stylistic rule is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I would say that mentioning its use in films or TV shows should only be done if this station is crucial to the plot - that is, if (say) Victoria had been used, would it have made any difference to the story? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The only one I would argue about (and have restored) is Mona Lisa, which was cross-referenced by late 80s / early 90s tabloid newspapers in particular to refer to the state of King's Cross, which was a bit of a dive (see above thread). The Pet Shop Boys' use of Kings Cross should stay for more or less the same reason. If you tried removing Harry Potter you'd probably be accused of vandalism by somebody. Not bothered about anything else. Also : "The article is about the physical building" - well that's not strictly true, it's also about the services, otherwise we wouldn't bother mentioning the Flying Scotsman or Mallard as they'd be off-topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:London King's Cross railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 22:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


General

  • Check captions for fragments, e.g. the infobox image caption needs no full stop.
Should be all fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Not quite, infobox caption needs no full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Location of King's Cross in Central London" there appears to be different uses of either "Central" or "central" in the term "C/central London". I'd pick one and stick with it.
Since our article is called Central London, and uses caps throughout I'll go with that. I think this is just residual paranoia from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why "King's Cross St. Pancras tube station" has a full stop in the title whereas all other references to St Pancras have no full stops?
Our articles seem to use a mix. However, I think the definitive source would be Transport for London] which uses the full stop. So I'm going with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead

  • "the Flying Scotsman and" shouldn't that be "the Flying Scotsman and"?
  • Query: you have "as Mallard", why wouldn't it be "as the Mallard"?
    Mallard is the name of a specific locomotive; unlike ships, these conventionally do not take the definite article unless it actually appears on the locomotive's nameplate (such as LNER class A1 no. 2559 The Tetrarch). Named services are sometimes given the definite article, sometimes not - it primarily depends upon the whims of the railway's publicity department, cf. Flying Scotsman and The Coronation). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Or, in the more prosaic case, our articles on Flying Scotsman (train) and LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard have "the" and no "the" respectively. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ok, then I think that's done slightly differently on the Marylebone article. Better keep an eye out on that one. Or at least the italics are... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " Services are currently" last thing I recall about this kind of stuff is we stick with {{as of}}...
Done, also I think the word "services" is mentioned too often in the lead, so I've reworded that while I'm there Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " work occurred in" I loathe Wikipedia's fixation with things "occurring", far too passive for me.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "is King's Cross St. Pancras on the London Underground, " I get this, but it's potentially confusing, perhaps it's something like emphasising that "King's Cross St. Pancras" is a tube station on the LU?
I've changed it to "King's Cross St. Pancras tube station"; the general convention is to use {{lus}} which leaves the "tube station" bit out, but that's more for articles about tube lines that link to stations all over the place. I don't think that's correct in this context. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "London & North Eastern Railway" in the infobox should be "London and North Eastern Railway".
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Underground fire is pertinent to the Underground station, less-so the railway station, did improvements take place there as a direct result?
Not directly, but the mainline station entrance was a key picture in the news (eg: File:KingsXfire.jpg), and I think people particularly outside London might associate King's Cross with the fire above all else. Still, I could be wrong. After discussion below, I've removed this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Location and name

  • "or at the side" -> "or to the side".
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "on the tube map " we typically capitalise Tube, don't we?
A quick look at TfL says, we do Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "was used on them only very rarely before then" reads ugly. Any chance of an elegant re-phrase?
Yikes, must have forgotten to copyedit this bit (I don't believe I wrote it) - fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "other National Rail railway pages," what pages? Web pages?
  • Thetrainline.com is a redirect now, and as it's a private company, why are we specifically talking about it?
Since these last two aren't actually cited to a reliable source, I've removed them. I can only guess the original reason they were put in is to back up the punctuation differences, but I think we can get the message from the sources we have. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

History

  • "the British Iceni" British is a piped redirect, a pet hat, so please pipe it to Celtic Britons instead.
Fixed (my excuse is you can't easily tell when looking at the parsed page) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Boudica is overlinked.
Fixed (blame section merges) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "terminus of the East Coast main line.[12] " Main Line.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "name from the area of London, named after" name, named... repetitive.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Could be worth linking fever and smallpox, perhaps not all our readers get the real meaning of fever here, nor may have been troubled by smallpox.
I don't have the source used here, but a quick search for others suggests that the hospital was mainly known for smallpox, plus "fever" is a generic term (what sort of fever?) We have a Smallpox Hospital article, but it's a specific one that's irrelevant here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Not to worry, leave as-is. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "which today includes platforms" see previous "as of" comment.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Midland Railway services ran from King's Cross on 1 February 1858.[22]" to where? And I suppose you mean " Midland Railway services commenced from King's Cross..." because it wasn't just on one day, right?
    The source doesn't say where. This is important to get right because MR services diverted to St Pancras about ten years later, and their "heyday" to the northwest dates from that period. From context I think Birmingham New Street is correct; Redrose64, can you check this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Birmingham New Street is unlikely (remember that although the MR did serve Birmingham New Street from 1854, its route to Birmingham was from Derby via Tamworth, which creates a circuitous route from London). MR services from Kings Cross ran over the GNR to Hitchin, where they picked up the Midland's own route thence to Bedford, although the services on this line probably didn't terminate at Bedford until after the route opened between Bedford and St Pancras via Luton and St Albans. As for where the northern terminus actually was... there are several possibilities. It's easier to decide which cities were served directly from Kings Cross via Bedford in those days: Leicester is a 100% certainty, Derby and Nottingham 99% certain, Sheffield and Leeds are highly probable too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, let's go with "Leicester via Hitchin and Bedford", which is what sources tend to agree on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "which is platforms 9-11 today " are, 9–11, and "today" again.
Done, though platforms 9-11 have been numbered as such for 45 years, and thanks to Harry Potter are probably not going to change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "during World War I" archaic Brit speaking, would prefer "during the First World War"
I've had this argument before; I personally have got more comfortable with World War I over the years. Indeed, BBC Schools are calling it "World War One". I think it's just the English language changing and old gits bemoaning how things just aren't the same anymore (usually by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells on pen to the Daily Mail). See related discussion in Talk:Bow Street/GA1. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "1922–4" per new daterange MOS, that would be "1922–1924".
    I can't see the text "1922-4" anywhere in the article :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    It's gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    I fixed it earlier. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Got the Flying Scotsman and Mallard issues I noted in the lead here again.
See earlier reply Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "during World War II" see above, I don't really see the world wars as original/sequel movies.
As above, this increasingly seems to be the common name on both sides of the atlantic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " occurred at another day and time" could be more specific, I guess it was on a slow moment.
Reworded to "during a busy period", the emphasis here is that not many people were around to be killed by the blast, which was fortunate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "British Rail (1948–96)" again, MOS now says "British Rail (1948–1996)".
Fixed, though I'm sure I have seen somebody edit warring over this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "through the Gas Works Tunnels" prior to this, three times it was just "Gas Works tunnel".
    Originally there was just one tunnel, but a second parallel tunnel was brought into use in 1878 (and then a third in 1892) - the name is shared, so chronologically later mentions are in the plural. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Also I meant you capitalised the Tunnels, but I've de-capped it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Why link Royston only?
Wasn't sure which station to go for for Hertford (though reading the articles it must be North) and I probably linked Welwyn, previewed, found it was a redlink (as it should be Welwyn Garden City railway station) and left it out to come back to later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "late 1970s Labour government." bet there's a link for this.
indeed so Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "was seen as an opportunity to modernise the station"[by whom?]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " Grade I-listed[40] façade of the original station" that ref can go at the end of the end of the sentence, plus facade is anglicised enough now that we don't need the cedilla.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "75,000 sq ft " you've converted everything else to metric so far, this can go to.
  • "at 12.24," do you mean "at 12.24 p.m.,"?
Yes, I probably assumes it was obvious from context but best to mention it anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "King's Cross was a major terminus for the InterCity 125 high speed services. By 1982, almost all long-distances trains leaving the station were 125s." do we know when they started?
The source doesn't say; the best I can find at the moment is this source that says "between 1976 and 1981". That sounds about right, but I can't pinpoint a specific date for when they were introduced to King's Cross. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "The King's Cross fire of 1987 started in... " fine, but I'm not seeing the "improvements to the network" piece that was mentioned in the lead.
While I can easily find sources for changes on the underground network, including a complete smoking ban and phasing out of wooden escalators, I can't actually find any reliable sources that specifically pinpoint changes to the main station concourse around this time, so I'll take it out of the lead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "four for Thameslink trains" link Thameslink.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Privitisation of British Rail in " typo and no need for capital P.
fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "with the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh " the is part of the first wikilink but not the second...
fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "questionable businesses i" this could be considered POV.
I've trimmed this down to just "prostitution services", I can't remember anything else that stood out like a sore thumb from this time Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " the ORR approved" who?
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " The service would begin" you will "is scheduled to begin"?
Rewritten Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Accidents and incidents" section, most of these are trivial. Could they not be summarised into prose?
I tried that, but then (IMHO) the prose looks as exciting as watching grass grow, so in this case I think a list is more suitable. Alternatively, we could move the major incidents in 1881, 1945 (those with fatalities) into the prose and nuke the rest. How's that for a plan? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would be much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright, done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Other stations

  • "to Farringdon, Barbican and Moorgate" Barbican here is the Tube station, is that intentional?
I think so in this context, because Barbican was historically an overground station as well as underground, but has not served a conventional "overground" service since the Thameslink shuttle to Moorgate closed in 2009. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "main line" or "mainline" or "main-line"? Even the hat note at the top of the article should be made consistent.
    All the prose I wrote used "mainline", so let's go with that for consistency. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Over the last year or two we have been going the other way, towards "main line" (adjective, noun) in many articles. This is because "mainline" is not just a verb (meaning "to inject", esp. with heroin); but is also slang. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Services

  • "inter city routes" would have thought that was "inter-city routes".
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Virgin Trains East Coast operates"... no bold links please.
I didn't notice they were bold ... fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Half hourly" hyphenated?
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "1 train per hour departing at xx:05 " is this stuff stable enough? Do we really need this level of detail? Train routes, stations served etc I can buy, but regularity and departure times seems a little too much.
    I think having the main King's Cross - Waverley service on the hour is significant (though I can't quite pinpoint why), for the rest - meh. However, if I take it out, an IP or a user with a redlinked userpage will put the whole lot back in without an edit summary. (example) For some people, casual editors really like all this detail being in here and occasionally turn up to fiddle with the route tables. I've left it like it is for the sake of keeping the peace, and it is all verifiable to the timetables (though last time I tried actually verifying the information in that manner, I decided watching grass grow was a more pleasurable activity). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ok, it's not harmful to have this, although I would consider it a little WP:UNDUE. For the sake of harmony, let's leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    I agree, but the next question is - what you would you trim out? There's nothing obvious; you could cut out detail in the Edinburgh and Leeds services, but those are easily the most important ones in the station, so that would make the section even more undue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    At the very least I'd trim out the times past the hour. I seem to recall that the Marylebone article just has number per hour rather than that minutiae. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Okay, I've got my shears out and had another go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    We don't need specific times, see WP:NOTTIMETABLE; except where a particular service has left at the same time of day for decades. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Hull Trains Route" route.
    Huh? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Capital R in Route is unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    That's the name on a template, and requires a move. Should we do that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Such capitalisation changes (Route/route; Line/line) have recently (that is, over the last five or six months) caused much debate on pages like WT:UKRAIL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    That's a "no" then ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a substantial crossover in the Services and Routes sections.
See above Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Tube Routes" not sure this is necessary in this article, but if it is, then it should be "Tube routes".
No, I think this should come out as it's technically wrong - you can't get a tube from "King's Cross" itself, you need to go via "King's Cross St. Pancras" tube station first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Cultural references

  • "Margaret Schlegel" who?
I've copyedited this to make it a little clearer Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "E.M. Forster" should have a space after the first .
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "platform 9-11" en-dash.
Are you sure? My old standby of User:GregU/dashes.js doesn't touch this when I run it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The script is flakey, at best, but sometimes it's clever enough to look at the preceding word, which in this case is singular. Perhaps it should be platforms 9–11. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Should be sorted now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "a mile to the north of the station." could use a ref.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Pet Shop Boys released " The isn't part of the name of the band.
Well I never .... it appears I've been getting it wrong for over 30 years :-/ .... fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually doesn't need dismabiguation.
So it doesn't. That's me being over-cautious and thinking "actually's a word, of course it's not going to have the album as its primary topic!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Refs

  • "pp. 76–7." vs "pp. 78–79." consistency please.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 42, 47 and 49 are all "BBC News" but are all formatted differently.
Fixed (my preference is cite news|title=[title]|work=BBC News|date=[date]|accessdate=[today]) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 59 & 60 are bare URLs.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gourvish, Terry; Anson, Mike (2004). British Rail 1974 – 1997 :" unspaced en-dash here.
I think I've fixed this, though dashes make my head hurt :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall

Nothing major, a minor heap of small issues, so it's on hold. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Right, I've addressed all the issues, though some need further and clarification and work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking good. I still see consistency issues with Tube and tube, although that appears to be a Wikipedia issue more than anything. I think there are only one or two points outstanding above now, let me know when you think you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Okay, everything has been addressed; I've come up with a solution for Midland Railway services, the "Services" section has had another trim, and I think all the other stuff is uncontroversial. If I've missed anything, shout! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Well we both missed the fact that Monopoly should have been in italics, which is somewhat ironic given the project you're trying to complete, but I've fixed that, and I'm happy to pass now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Just the "mainline" / "main line" thing mentioned above, but I can't see that being a showstopper for GA; somebody can just do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Just done it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

I note that the accidents and incidents section was nuked per the GAR. The problem with doing this, is it leaves the article lacking in coverage in an important area. If if is felt that the section was dominating the article, would it not be better to split it off to a separate list article? Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think consensus was that it was a indiscriminate collection of information; sure all of it was cited to reliable sources, so I wasn't going to remove it without a solid consensus, but it just seemed a little off topic I guess. I won't complain if somebody creates a separate list article, of course. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion between one reviewer and one nominator does not consensus make. For the minute, I'm going to reinstate the section for the reasons stated above. We can discuss a split here. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
No, reinstate the section here and we can discuss it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Too late. The other issue is that this list contains trivial incidents yet nothing for decades, it's certainly incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the section is incomplete. There are another thirteen accidents to add, according the the Railways Archive. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Given that there are so many, I'm minded to create a new list, which I will do tomorrow morning. The section in this article can briefly cover the two most serious and the most recent accident, with a link to the newly created list using {{Main}}. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

What does anyone else think? I remember we had the same discussion (in reverse) about Marshlink line, though that was sorted out before it went to a GA review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

ECML

Surely the ecml is a 20th century concept as is the term hub. The GNR built the station as its southern terminus. 92.40.50.19 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The text is cited to The London Encyclopedia 3rd edition; let me go and route out my paper copy and see exactly what it says. When did the name ECML appear, exactly? Certainly the route is the same one as completed by the GNR when the station opened. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Between Kings Cross and Shaftholme Junction (just north of Doncaster) it's the same; but between that point and Chaloner's Whin Junction (just south of York) the route has changed at least twice, most recently in 1983. There have also been variations further north, for instance between Ferryhill and Castle Junction (Newcastle upon Tyne). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's more accurate to say the GNR built the station as its southern terminus because the ECML is comprised of the lines of more than one company. Is the London Encyclopedia the best source for a railway article? I don't know. 92.40.69.185 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC) As nobody seems to know I think I'll change it to what is certain. 92.40.64.115 (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The text in the London Encyclopedia is, verbatim, "The station, designed by Lewis Cubitt, was built 1851-2 as the London terminus for the Great Northern Railway and when it opened was the biggest station in England". As far as a source goes, it is one of the best for anything London-related in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London King's Cross railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_King%27s_Cross_railway_station/Archive_1&oldid=1136963202"