Talk:St Pancras railway station/Archive 3

Image tidy

There were too many images in some sections resulting in stack ups.

One image that was removed demonstrated an interesting point about the rebuilding an maybe should be put next to the other related image in a gallery, along with other important images such as the Bejtamen statue etc .

Two Class 45s at St Pancras in 1984. This photograph, compared with the earlier photograph of the upper level of The Arcade taken from a similar position, shows the scale of change at the station.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjblud (talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 April 2012

Infobox image

Generally, but not exclusively a large scale exterior image is used as the first image in the infobox eg see the links in

However there are good reasons to have a quality image of both inside the train shed, as well as the arched roof of the original shed, and the new extension.

These should be the primary images in the article, after which others should be added. It's my opinion that the article is already well illustrated, and there are at least 3 interior images. However if particular images are preferred, and prominance is suggested please discuss here. Oranjblud (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The only point I would make is that File:LondonMidlandHotel-PS01.JPG (previously used) has a better view of the front, but appears a little hazy - I think it is a better choice as it shows more. An aerial phot would be good too.Oranjblud (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that an image of the new building and actual station should be used. A photo of the exterior (File:St Pancras station Pancras Rd entrance.jpg) or interior (St Pancras Station, London - geograph.org.uk - 1165198.jpg), both shots are of good quality in comparison to the one currently used. Also, these photos are those of the station itself, not the Midland Hotel, which already has an article. Either image would compliment the article's new exention program and the signs on the exterior photo make the location obvious. Another reason why I'm trying to get a better, clearer, sharper image to be the primary image for this article is also for accessibility, I accept Wikipedia not being an advertising site, but for this article, many people view it to find the area itself as a few of my friends have done. Showing the station itself allows one to view the station properly. The internal photo, however, shows the iconic train shed and Eurostar trains. This is the real icon of the station itself as the clock tower is for the hotel. These two photos also show much more of the station and are aesthetically pleasing. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.183.12 (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I take the point about the Hotel, nevertheless for many people the polychrome hotel is as much St. Pancras as the arched shed - it does also form the entrance. We already have this image in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_Pancras_international_entrance.jpg which I think is preferable to the one you suggest if only because it lacks the fencing and ford transit..

I think I already said that my personal preference would be for a low-level aerial image showing old shed, new shed, and hotel preferably from the hotel side.. eg something like this http://www.fullflow.com/images/casestudies/AerialBarlow%20-%20St%20Pancras%20%20-%20web.jpg (from http://www.fullflow.com/casestudies/item/27/), or http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/v/greater_london/camden/StPancrasStation_fa25192.jpg.html

One option would be to move the current headline image to the first reading image position, and make a combined image of exterior and interior shots (preferably from wide not tall images) and put that in the infobox. I can see the advantages of having both .Oranjblud (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible solution ?

As the infobox only takes one image maybe something like this would be a good solution (I just created it as an example). Other images could be used.Oranjblud (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with that option, move the current image down and place the image produced by you as the title image - perfect solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.12.150 (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

History

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Pancras_railway_station&diff=507747716&oldid=507530953 I managed to reference some stuff, but other stuff was copied from another place, I re-wrote some, excluding the stuff about the Midland Hotel - does anyone have an available good source for the history of the Hotels construction.?Oranjblud (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Note - the main page for the hotel - is St. Pancras Renaissance London Hotel - it might be better to add the content to that page, and add a "see also" link from here.Oranjblud (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the copied text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Pancras_railway_station&diff=509075685&oldid=509059049 and left a summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjblud (talk • contribs) 12:17, 25 August 2012‎

Steam water tower

I found this http://www.ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/74/stpancras/stpancras.html also see http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1113023

The water tower was removed during the CTRL modifications - as a listed building it may be worth mentioning.Oranjblud (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Signs in French

Wallsend Metro station says this station has signs in French. If true, and I don't doubt it, there should be mention of it, and better yet, pictures of the signs.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

File:LondonUndergroundFrench.JPG and File:StPancras International stn Eurostar platform signage.JPG show uses of bilingual signage, I'll add them to the article properly soon. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state) @ 22:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done [1] Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talkin' to me?) @ 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The picture added shows only a sign in the Underground part of the station. We really need the Eurostar platform illustration too. Also, I've rewriten the para about multilingual station signs because it's clear we do not know in total how many stations in England have these. The source cited (disused-stations.org.uk) is clearly wrong, or at least out of date. See discussion at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Multilingual signs. -- Alarics (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to add both pictures but there isn't space and the second one is poor quality at thumbnail size. I've never even actually been there, so we need a London wikipedian to go take a picture of a multilingual sign within the station itself. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 15:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

I've reverted this edit which replaced the lead picture with a dull, small and poor quality view of the side of the station. There's a common misconception by those with a little knowledge but not enough, that the front of the station is just a hotel and not the station. This is incorrect. The front is very much the station, as anyone who walks in through the front entrance will discover. To the very far left is an entrance to the hotel, and some of the upper floors are luxury apartments, but the whole building was built as a railway station that has a hotel in part of it. St Pancras is famous for its Victorian frontage by George Gilbert Scott. Colin°^Talk 07:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This may be true, however, to those who know and use St Pancras know that the 'hotel entrance' to the station is not used as frequently as the new modern entrances that lead straight onto the street. Lead images should not only provide a sense of beauty, but also be informative and helpful. For this reason, an image which depicts both the Victorian era building as well as the main entrance would be a better choice than an image which vaguely shows an old building without a single depiction of the fact that it is a station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.125.0 (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The caption reads "St Pancras Station from Euston Road" (this depicts it as being the railway station at the focus of the article). Is there some way that the caption could be improved? —Sladen (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Many travellers come up from the underground rather than street level. Of the several side entrances, and the one closest to Kings Cross designated the new "main entrance" is illustrated at the start of the article. But that entrance could be anywhere in the world, is utterly forgettable and too far from the Victorian front for an image to reasonably illustrate both.

The lead image should identify the subject and be engaging enough that the reader wants to learn more. The current image is absolutely the iconic view of St Pancras, an iconic view of London, and captures the reader's attention with the striking architecture. It also includes an entrance to Kings Cross St Pancras underground station.

The caption is fine. "One of the most recognisable features of St Pancras International today, the red brick Grade 1 listed Gothic front façade was created as part of a competition in 1865" This is St Pancras station -- an amazing railway station with a hotel as part of its front. It isn't a hotel that happens to have a railway station stuck to its back, and to claim so is misguided pedantry. Colin°^Talk 11:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There are at least two entrances to the station visible in File:St Pancras Railway Station 2012-06-23.jpg. Find Costa Coffee: to the right of that is a set of stone steps, above which is the wrought-iron sign "St Pancras Station" and to the right of that is the entrance to the Underground station, through which you can also reach the main station. The Hotel entrance is hidden behind that orange Sainsbury's lorry. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A solution?

Entrance clear as crystal, clock tower included, clear and iconic

To stop the complaints of the current image not depicting the entrance so clearly, but also to maintain the engaging aspect and depict the iconic clock tower (which IS St. Pancras station), perhaps a closer image of the 'main entrance' on Euston Road would be a better choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.248.156 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The one on the right seems to be mainly a picture of traffic lights! The one on the left is better but I still prefer the present lead image. I don't think we need to obsess about showing an entrance. There was always more than one entrance anyway. -- Alarics (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the present one. It's the well known iconic image of the station, that's exactly what the lead image should be, we can mention the other entrances etc further down in the article. G-13114 (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed

In the design and construction section, there is a sentence "The St Pancras branch ran below the station's bottom level, in an east to west direction." When the St Pancras" branch was referred to earlier I had thought it meant the line from Bedford, but this is clearly not the case. What IS it? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's the Widened Lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I just worked that out now. I shall edit the article to make it clear. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See Barlow, p. 79 "The St. Pancras branch, on the other hand, for effecting a junction with the Metropolitan railway ..." and p. 82 "there are three tiers or levels of rails, the lowest being the St. Pancras branch, which crosses on a curve ..." --Redrose64 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://railway-technology.com/projects/stpancrasinternation

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Dead links and opinion removals

There are an increasing amount of dead links on the page - a quick sample revealled several, of which I was only able to find archives of a few.

I also removed single source opinions ("one swallow does not make a summer"):

The redeveloped terminus has been described by the travel writer Simon Calder as "the world's most wonderful railway station".

The sculpture received a poor critical reception, being cited by Antony Gormley as "a very good example of the crap out there", referring to poor public art in the UK.

The opinion of a single writer is not encyclopedic content (unless noted by other persons), which may extend to examples where the writer is a well known critic.Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Prof.Haddock, (1) I'm uncomfortable with the widescale characterisation of accessdate= as "spam"; I've reverted the first batch removal of these, and I now see that some more were made subsequently. Please try to resist removing valuable citation components such as accessdate=. Websites and articles change over time, and the accessdate= shows when an article was viewed in that state; it also gives the reader and other editors a contextual frame of reference for when area of the article was contributed or revised. (2) Please try to clearly differentiate in your mind between "dead links" (which we don't generally remove if they are fully formed (see note (1)); verses "single sources". It may be that you have a case for removing single sources, but please do that in a separate edit to large scale broken link removal: lumping unrelated activities together makes the diffs extremely hard to follow for other editors. It maybe that (some) of the edits positively contribute to the article, but the way they have been made here makes that extremely hard to see. My current temptation would be to revert the full set of the changes and ask yourself or another editor to consider remaking them in a clear methodical way with separate relevant summary lines. This would enable having a discussion. —Sladen (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Re "accessdate" see Template:Citation only useful for content that does not have an identifiable and cited publication date

All the examples I removed are when the accessdate was added unnecessarily, as per the above. That's why I characterised it as "spam". Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

I haven't removed any dead links, only tagged them.

The only content removals are given above.

I understand that I should have made the content removals a separated edit - my apologies for that. Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've re-added and removed the content as requested - so that the change can be seen more clearly diff Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The addition of "only useful for content that does not have an identifiable and cited publication date" appears to have been made relatively recently, without discussion, and by an anonymous IP[2] which only ever made three edits in total (Special:Contributions/109.176.236.43). I have now reverted and removed this addition [3]. —Sladen (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It should now be possible to review the actual changes made [4]. —Sladen (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Please look and the timestamps between those repairs and reflect carefully on the amount of time this costs other editors to clean up after.

Do not start modifying docs to "win an argument" the advice is stable and long lasting - eg https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation/doc&oldid=499756594 in the version from 2012 clearly states Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date , as it does today.Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, your diff above shows that you are looking at the doc for {{citation}} - which this article does not use. It uses {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, possibly others; and their documentation is not the same as that for {{citation}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Other editors have started discussion at Template talk:Citation#Access date. Again, to which I have now contributed. I would invite others to do the same, regardless of viewpoint, in order to build a consensus. —Sladen (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on St Pancras 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071019082643/http://www.eurostar.com/pdf/timetables/timetables_english.pdf to http://www.eurostar.com/pdf/timetables/timetables_english.pdf

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)