Talk:London King's Cross railway station

Lead revisited

@Pol098: Is "King's Cross railway station, often prefixed with the city name like all major terminuses as London King's Cross in railway route information" really more digestible to the layman reader than "King's Cross railway station, also known as London King's Cross"? I think User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing puts it better than I ever could. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The point is that the station is referred to by everybody in London as "King's Cross"; the rail industry prefixes stations with their city name. So "London King's Cross" is a bit of a jargony rail usage generally to be avoided, and "King's Cross" is the normal name. (It's the same with Manchester Piccadilly and other terminuses (termini if you wish).) Some mention of this helps people to use the right name. On a contrary note, someone once went through the King's Cross, London article replacing "King's Cross" by "London King' Cross" everywhere (including in quotes that said no such thing), perhaps influenced by this article's original vague "one or the other, whatever" start.

By the way, I totally agree with avoiding verbiage, and a lot of my edits are removal of lots of words with zero effect on meaning, unlike here where the two names are not equivalent. Pol098 (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well can you at least put all of that in a footnote? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense, done. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't need any of this explanation, in a note or otherwise. The station is named "London Kings Cross", as evidenced by the National Rail website, the station's running-in boards and the normal signage. It's the same with Bristol Temple Meads and Manchester Piccadilly. You can't say 'referred to by everybody in London as "King's Cross"' (above) or 'The station is referred to as "King's Cross Station" in London, with further explanation if necessary to distinguish it from other King's Crosses, e.g. in Sydney.' (in your note) without firm evidence; we should not be describing unsourced local colloquialisms. Putting 'In railway route usage the names of terminal stations in major cities are usually prefixed by the city name, so "London King's Cross" may be used when buying a ticket, as are, for example, "Bristol Temple Meads", "Liverpool Lime Street"' as well is entirely redundant: we do not give travel advice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

As there's been no further feedback, I'm reverting back to a version compatible with Redrose64's thoughts above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170313082004/http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/central-london-bus-map.pdf to http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/central-london-bus-map.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205041223/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/For%20Passengers/Station%20Maps/4504_King's%20Cross%20Station%20Map.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/For%20Passengers/Station%20Maps/4504_King%27s%20Cross%20Station%20Map.pdf

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) 10:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this POV? Sly dig?

Why is the political party in government at the time relevant in this paragraph: "Electric services began running from King's Cross to Hertford, Welwyn Garden City and Royston; one of the few service improvements made in the area under the late 1970s Labour government." According to who's yardstick? Compared to improvements made by which other government, or which other ill-defined 'area', when?! Surely, that entire sentence just needs removing? I've left it as is for now, in the hope that I may find some specific relevance later on the page, or that someone can otherwise justify the inclusion of this opinion dressed up as fact. I won't hold my breath. Codeye (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s what the source (Gourvish / Anson 2004) says. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of removing it myself, unless we are going to detail which party was in government at the time every change to the station or the services was made, I don't see why this should stay. We could just as accurately say that the electrification of the ECML in the late 80s was one of the few service improvements made under the Thatcher Conservative government. G-13114 (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, it’s simple; a reliable source beats your unverifiable personal opinion. I am off to march against Brexit today, so if you can just wait until I get back to check my book sources.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Gorvish / Anson says "Very limited progress was made with such ambitions. Only one major scheme ... was completed, the Great Northern suburban lines from King's Cross to Hertford / Welwyn (November 1976) and Royson (October 1977). ... When Labour gave way to the Conservatives in May 1979, the joint Department/BRB review had yet to provide report." All of you, please read WP:V immediately and stop changing the articles so that citations are false and the GA criteria is violated. It is unacceptable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't really support what is written in the article though does it? Strictly speaking it's incorrect and misleading anyway, as the Great Northern electrification program was approved in 1971 when the Conservatives were in power. G-13114 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The article and the source makes no mention of 1971. What is it with Labour supporters recently, you criticise just one facet of them and the Corbynistas come down on you like a ton of bricks, accusing you of being further right-wing than Farage. I despair. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This document from 1973 does [1] in the Foreword; "In August 1971. the Government approved British Rail's proposals to electrify Eastern Region's Great Northern Suburban services, linking the London stations of King's Cross and Moorgate (Northern Cty) with Royston. vla Welwyn Garden City and via Hertford North" G-13114 (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The reference to the Labour government should be removed in my opinion as it is incorrect as outlined in the above post. Lancashire2789 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s in the book source I quoted above. The Railways Archive link is not used in the article. We deal with verifiability, not truth, if you think something is incorrect, produce a source saying it is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what I just did. G-13114 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the other source talked about the implementation in 1976. The plans could have been cancelled like John Prescott did to the (Tory-backed) A27 Polegate Bypass in 1997, for example. This sounds like the excuse the government used on the Windrush scandal, where Jacob Rees Mogg jumped up and down saying it was implemented by Alan Johnson / Jacqui Smith under Brown's watch as PM. Ritchie333 [[User talk:Ritchie333|^(talk)] ^(cont) 15:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You haven't explained why it matters which govt was in power at the time. I'm pretty sure I could find a source saying that the electrification of the ECML in the late-80s was one of the few major investments in the railway system carried out by the Thatcher government. But I wouldn't think to include it because it's frankly not terribly relevant to the history of the station. If you insist that this is necessary, then perhaps the Great Northern Route article would be the relevant place to put it. It needs better sourcing for the history section anyway. G-13114 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

And yet nobody complained when it passed GA, became part of a good topic or linked to a featured list, or for some time later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 No-one is "complaining" even now. Neither your reductive, belittling comments nor the innate political bias of the inclusion of the statement in question, have any place in any civilised discussion, let alone an encyclopaedia. I find both unnecessary and both offensive. I was raising a legitimate issue about relevance, not launching personal or politically motivated attacks. Even when properly sourced and correctly referenced, irrelevant material is still irrelevant. I was attempting to ensure that political impartiality and therefore the integrity of all of Wikipedia was retained. If you "despair" at that central tenet of basic standards being upheld, I would suggest that editing an encyclopaedia is perhaps not the best suitable use of your talents. I admire your passion and dedication, but seriously, you need to learn to chill out a little! Try not to take potentially constructive comments as an attack aimed at you personally. It's very rare that such comments are intentionally written to be provocative or overly picky about the contributions of any one person. Courtesy and patience are not optional; any interactions with other contributors who are also giving their time, skills and knowledge for free need to be conducted in a professional, respectful manner. If such a small difference of opinion about such an innocuous topic as a railway station enrages you so much, may I recommend a visit to a golf driving range or suchlike, to let out some stress, in the interests of your health?

Incidentally, I began this thread before'd even finished reading the page. If I'd read the statement in question earlier, I'd no doubt have registered my objection sooner. I apologise for my inability to simultaneously edit and maintain every page on Wikipedia to an acceptably impartial standard. I accept that many others may have been happy to approve the page previously. No page is likely to get close to a definitive version, or indeed to completion, without us working to improve the quality and modifying any areas not quite up to scratch. I do intend to get around to as many as possible,but am somewhat limited for time ;-) Edit: The reversion you made, undoing my deletion of the sentence is also incorrect and improper. I removed it because the exact same sentence, give or take a word, appears again in the very next paragraph. Whether referenced or not, the information does not need to appear twice in consecutive paragraphs. The fact you can prove someone said something does not embue it with immunity against deletion. This is especially relevant if the information appears twice, in consecutive paragraphs. I have not, and will not undo your reversion, even though it equates to effective vandalism of the page. I'm an adult and I will not indulge in such mindless, petty games in case I inadvertently also become closed-minded,angry,ill-informed, opinionated, ignorant or intolerant enough to make a regular habit out of constantly reverting edits out of spite, anger, bitterness, or simply to score points. Your misguided sense of righteous indignation is not sufficient reason for you to think it acceptable to impose your will on misguided or arbitrary grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codeye (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hyperboloid

I've heard it said that the roof of the 2012 extension is a Hyperboloid structure. Does anyone have a source for that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Kings Cross, London § Requested move 17 September 2022

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kings Cross, London § Requested move 17 September 2022. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)