This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Transport in London. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If one is splitting major/minor, I don't think St Pancras should be in minor at present, and St Pancras International surely should not be considered a minor station. This indicates possibly that operator is not a good way to make this split. Morwen - Talk12:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I would suggest that a station is either "major enough" to be in this list, or is not included. MRSC • Talk17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Disused
copied from User talk:MRSC: While I accept that Holborn Viaduct can legitimately be included on the London railway station list, I think it's taking it a bit far to include Bishopsgate and Minories, since they were replaced by existing stations, not to mention the fact that there is no living memory of either of them. Taking that view, I think then that there is a case for including both Holborn Viaduct and Broad Street on the template {{Railway stations of London}}. Hammersfan 08/11/06, 12.35 GMT
I am personally of the view that this template should just show current stations. My reasoning is that adding more makes the template too cluttered with information. An alternative might be to create a template associated with List of closed railway stations in London (and some improvement of that article). What do others think? MRSC • Talk16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Clapham Junction
Although it's not a Central London terminal, there are grounds to suggest that Clapham Junction should be included on this template. What do other people think? --RFBailey15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Given its status as a major hub for several different services (and operators), I would concur with that view. Hammersfan, 15/05/07, 13.32 BST
Thameslink stations
Is there some reason why City Thameslink and Farringdon have not been included in this box?
They are both very central London and see a heck of a lot of trains per day.. I can see less of an argument for Barbican being included as that only sees a few Thameslink trains, and those only in the morning rush.--Peeky44 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to including these two stations, although I'll wait a couple of days to see what others think. --RFBailey (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's said any more, so I take that as consensus. Come back and correct me if not, but for now I'll add them. --Peeky44 (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Stratford
I added stratford as stratford had 38millon people from tube, dlr & rail to this station last year making it having more people than Clapham Junction I think it erned the right to be there.Likelife (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
St Pancras
I've moved St Pancras back to the "managed by operator" as the majority of it is Eurostar or LCR (owners of Eurostar). Only St Pancras Low-level is managed by Network Rail. Having the third box adds additional bloat to the template and further detail is available within the relevant St Pancras railway station article. —Sladen (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed 'International', again. Can we please keep this template short-and-sweet (which in turn, allows a little more space for other station, without crowding). Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Clutter, since when? Top line (Network Rail) same length as bottom line (TOC), at least in Firefox! If we're going by Eurostar management (which I think we both agree on), then it surely deserves the "International" tag by that criterion alone. Also "International" not much longer than (for argument's sake) "Thameslink" in City Thameslink. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
After 100kB plus of discussion on Talk:St Pancras railway station there was no concenus over the official name (notable, you have your view and I have mine). In the interests of avoiding Flogging a very, very, dead horse the subject of official has not been brought up here. This template is a navigation aid and having the most common name (and shortest name) are both appropriate. —Sladen (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
We have grouped the station in the TOC category, agreed? The TOC being Eurostar, yes? Eurostar's other UK stations have "International" in the title. And please take up the formal renaming thing with Her Majesty if you disagree with her! I once again remind you that Whittlesford was also renamed in 2007 but nobody bats an eyelid over that. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Whittlesford has nothing to do with this page. Virgin operate international trains from Euston (to Holyhead, not Glasgow...); and NXEA from Liverpool Street. Eurostar are a train operator; together with their parent (LCR) they manage most of the station facilities. In the UK, laws are all signed before the monach before becoming law; to the best of my knowledge the monarch has not signed any laws that refer to STP with International (could I place the onerous on you locate one if you believe otherwise—and to place it on User:St Pancras railway station). St Pancras is shorter without any suffixes. I intend to shorten it again; please could I remind you of the WP:3RR before you rush in to change it and can I ask that you (attempt) to argue that all of the above facts are untrue before doing so. Once again, my appreciations for your editing concerns and unending enthusiasm to get involved with Wikipedia, —Sladen (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course Whittlesford has nothing to do with London stations. But Whittlesford is an analogous case, a station renamed in 2007. You seem to argue "common" usage (which is not the case by all those operating/managing/retailing at the station) on one hand and attempt back it up with the faceless bureaucracy (not "common"?) on the other hand! Care to explain the Cornerstone near the entrance to the Tube station, Sladen? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The picture of the cornerstone is Wikipedia:Original Research (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Please do not drag the endless (and ultimately useless) "exhibits" here. Wikipedia is a project to build a "something"; where that "something" is kept in check by guidelines and policies that let everyone productively walk in the same direct. Please contribute within the bounds of the guidelines. —Sladen (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Having just removed the expanded name again I wrote the wrong statement in the edit summary. I wrote[1]"Please cite a piece of law, delete it, or leave it" in the edit summary. This was a mistake on my part and cross-over from another article I had been editing. A better edit summary would have been "suffixing International is not common-usage and unnecessarily expands the template". —Sladen (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Evidently a contributor to this template cannot or will not accept the station was offically renamed in November [2], and that the new name is in common usage on signs, on maps, on PA announcements on trains and at stations, by the Eurostar management and Network Rail, by retailers, by LU and London Buses. best. Sunil060902 (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sunil, thank you for taking the time to respond.
A (very) long discussion took place on the St Pancras article, culminating in Talk:St Pancras railway station#Formal RM reference—a process that you were heavily involved with, even if the outcome may not have been what you would have wished.
During the proceeding discussion you were (repeatedly) reminded about the use of Wikipedia:Original Research and its inappropriateness as a basis for making conflicting edits to Wikipedia. I personally spent a time covering such an issue at Talk:St Pancras railway station#Lead section and infobox accuracy. Again, you responded and apologised during the course of this thread, indicating an understanding.
Following the outcome of Rename/Move discussion (linked above) you asked what WP:COMMONNAME was. Can I make it clear that WP:COMMONNAME is not an excuse to work around guidelines and introduce Original Research under a veiled disguise.
Please, join the Wikipedia community and do not use WP:OR as a basis, or reason for edits. It is unhelp, it is unconstructive, and it has exhausted a large amount of time on the part of other Wikipedia contributors. You are welcomed, but only when you are willing to work within-the bounds and guidelines of Wikipedia.
(un-indent) Can I remind both parties here that they are in danger of hitting WP:3RR over the inclusion (or otherwise) of a single word, which is making it look like a sure-fire candidate for WP:LAME. Personally, I don't care either way (as both names are well-understood), I just want this silly edit war to stop. This is meant to be a navigational template, not a definitive article on station names. --RFBailey (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd echo the comments by RFBailey, I don't think it matters much either way and I'd quite happily see it remain as it is currently. I'm not convinced that Sunil060902's reference to photographs in the course of this discussion, or that on the station talk page, can really be said to violate WP:NOR though. We can find references to cite for the name with and without "international", these images might be useful in determining which way to go. Whilst I may be incorrect, my understanding is that NOR dictates what we can use to cite information in articles, not what we can use to help us determine what should be in articles which can quite easily be supported by other references. If I am incorrect then I would ask Sladen to point out why and where exactly NOR rules out this kind of usage of images. Adambro (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
While it may not violate WP:NOR, I'm not keen on encouraging the use of such photographs to support one side or another in discussions like this. I've seen it done before and quite often it is not at all helpful. --RFBailey (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There has been some discussion about clarifying WP:OI, most recently(?) in April (Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 35#Original images); the issue being to make it absolutely clear about the difference between using an image to illustrate a element of the article text (allowed), and using a image to as the basis of article text (not allowed). The last three comments of the above archived discussion have a variety of suggestions for wording WP:OI, to try and stamp out the current abuse of the exception:
""An editor-produced photograph or drawing is not original research if (1) it has been was published in a reliable source [..] "
"Images (including photographs) are primary sources, and as such should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, [..]"
"i.e. the editors are not using images to demonstrate what text already says, but basing text on images."
In theory is not necessary to state this any more tightly than it already is—the exception is there to allow (and encourage) the upload of photographs for the purpose of illustrating previously verified facts within the article text. (Not to generate facts from). —Sladen (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the important thing here though is that these images are not being used "to generate facts from", it is plainly a fact that the station is widely referred to as St Pancras International, rather they are being used to determine whether we should use these references or not. The problem here is not that there isn't a reliable source which supports "international" but that there are also reliable sources which don't include the term "international". I therefore remain unconvinced that using images in this way violates NOR. Adambro (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Photographic evidence is acceptable in a court of law, I think? Suppose there were online secondary sources to back up the overwhelming primary photographic evidence? What I'm trying to impress on Mr. Sladen is that it would seem from the photographic evidence (and an audio recording of an FCC announcement, data not shown) that a name change has occurred since November 2007. So the obvious question next is, is there any secondary sources to back this up (eg. transcript of HM Queen's speech: [3]; reference by the DfT that the station is their "Jewel in the Crown" [4])? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
"I make it 2RR so far from my end LOL! Tomorrow is another day!"
The above comment by Sunil060902 might seem to imply that he thinks that simply by not exceeding three reverts in one day that he is not a risk of violating the 3RR rule. I would warn both him and anyone else involved in the edit warring that users can be blocked regardless of whether three reverts per day is exceeded as explained at WP:3RR, "the rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day". Adambro (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
From looking at the page history I get the impression that you fail to appreciate the disruptive nature of edit warring so intended as a humours comment or not, I'd ask that you take the time to read and understand WP:3RR. Adambro (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Look, I don't care exactly how many reverts there have been in the last 24 hours. The fact is that there is an edit war going on here, for which both sides are culpable, and (as I mentioned before) an incredibly silly one at that. If it doesn't stop, I'll have to request protection. Also, both parties should bear in mind that they could still be blocked for disruptive editing, even if 3RR technically isn't violated. --RFBailey (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
While RFBailey was typing, I also wrote this:
I (once again) refer everyone to the original Talk:St Pancras railway station and what happened there. It was eventually marked as WP:Lame. Stop the edit warring over the same subject or this will be similarly marked. There is evidence either way, and quite frankly, I'm fed up with having to read people's opinions on this. I don't want to have to request that this template is locked, but if this continues it might have to be done.
I think all editors involved in this war should sit back and consider why they so badly do or do not want the word "International" to be used. Will it really improve Wikipedia? Is the project really damaged by having the status quo (whatever that is at the moment)? Is there a more important matter you could be spending your time on (like these)? Would it be a good idea to take a WP:wikibreak if you cannot agree with either WP:consensus or another editor in particular? --Peeky44 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Protection from what? Protection of the version you like or protection from you being tempted to revert (again) if "international" is added back? Protection is currently unnecessary and since there appear to only really be two editors involved, the disruption they cause by continuing to edit war can be dealt with more appropriately by use of blocks. Adambro (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
As stated in the request[6], the request was made with the desire to force discussion/acknowledgment back onto this talk page (and out of the edit-summaries). —Sladen (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Suppose there were online secondary sources to back up the overwhelming primary photographic evidence? What I'm trying to impress on Mr. Sladen is that it would seem from the photographic evidence (and an audio recording of an FCC announcement, data not shown) that a name change has occurred since November 2007. So the obvious question next is, is there any secondary sources to back this up (eg. transcript of HM Queen's speech: [7]; reference by the DfT that the station is their "Jewel in the Crown" [8])? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Moorgate
Moorgate is operated by the tube meaning that Moorgate is not operated by National Rail and should have an other section for this.Likelife (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
What we've actually got is "Primarily managed by Network Rail" and "Not primarily managed by Network Rail", but for (again) the want of briefity, I (personally) think the table headings "Network Rail" and "Train Operator" cover it with enough accuracy and without involving details. As has been noted above; this is just a navigational aid and not a formal or fully encompassing list. —Sladen (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Moorgate is managed by London Underground. London Underground is a train operator, i.e. an organisation that operates trains. Yes, I know it's not a TOC (in the National Rail sense), but for the purposes of keeping the table simple, listing Moorgate under "managed by train operator" is perfectly adequate. --RFBailey (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Should a section titled "Main" separating the above stations sections ("Network Rail" and "Other") from the section showing the list of railway stations in the Central and Greater London areas? However, possibly Farringdon, City Thameslink and Waterloo East should be removed. Simply south (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Wonder if we can condense that a bit so that it doesn't grow quite as much vertically; (I haven't come up with a wording for the second line that was shorter than having main but without involving "TOC"). —Sladen (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you define "main" please? You seem to be implying that non-terminal stations shouldn't be included; certainly I think purely in terms of (non Underground) trains per hour, but possibly passengers as well,( - checked this and I'm very wrong!) Marylebone and Cannon Street are less major than City, Farringdon or Waterloo East. My proposal would be that criteria for inclusion should be as follows:
1) All terminus or part-terminus[1] fully- or partly- National Rail stations in Zone 1.
2) All other fully- or partly- National Rail stations in Zone 1 open for passenger services at least Mon-Fri 0700-1830 with passenger numbers above 1 million per year or with greater than 4 trains per hour each way.
3) Clapham Junction, unless something drastic happens to the lines out of Victoria and Waterloo.
Under this proposal, I would suggest the top group is for stations managed by the infrastructure owner (ie: Network Rail for most, but in the case of St. Pancras joint L&C/NR) with the bottom group for stations operated by someone else (ie: TOC or TfL). Alternatively, leave the darn thing alone, but I don't think St Pancras deserves to be on the second line unless we restructure the template to be alphabetical! --Peeky44 (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
That said, out of the two other options currently on offer, I'd go for the second one, but note TOC is a disambig. page which should be corrected if this is used. --Peeky44 (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Sorry, I was trying to save time by not doing a complete template. If you check closely (I didn't make it clear enough) you'll see that's more or less what I'm suggesting. The numbered elements 1-3 would have been better as a bulletted list.
To clarify, I suggest the template's top line should include "stations managed by the infrastructure owner" and the bottom line should be "for stations operated by someone else". That would imply that St Pancras would end up in the top group, which if this split is to mean very much, should be desired. Something like this:
Otherwise I'd be tempted to scrap the groupings and have it alphabetical, but if we did that I think only my 1st criterion (Z.1 termini) should be included. I think it would be a shame to do this though as it denies some important stations' inclusion. --Peeky44 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
New proposal
Here is another idea, lets start again. Just have a template on "Railway stations in central London", using those overground stations in Zone 1. Although this would get rid of potentially important stations such as Clapham Junction and Stratford, it would also sort out what are controversially deemed as major and minor stations.
That's fine. I just thought, if Clapham Junction and Stratford need to be added, there could be a third section "Other important stations". Simply south (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
St Pancras International - HM the Queen's speech, 6th November 2007
“
The remarkable re-birth of this great and gleaming station means that people across the whole of Britain, not just the south-east, are suddenly quite a bit closer to Europe. From now on, Sheffield is closer to Paris, Nottingham closer to Brussels. And as we look forward to the London Olympics in 2012, it is good to know that a journey from here to the new High Speed 1 station at Stratford will take spectators a mere seven minutes. All these things will bring real differences to people's lives.
My warmest congratulations go to everyone involved in this project, which is a wonderful illustration of what can be achieved through working in partnership, and it says a good deal about how we can take a twenty-first century approach whilst at the same time having due consideration of our heritage. Looking around me I am filled with hope that people of all backgrounds and ages, some of whom are not yet born, and most of whom we will never meet, will greatly benefit from the quality and the attention to detail which is at the heart of this significant undertaking; and will come to regard St. Pancras not just as a station but as a destination.
It gives me great pleasure to officially launch High Speed 1, Britain's first High Speed Railway and to re-open this magnificent station, St. Pancras International.[9]
Maybe it is original research, maybe it isn't. But your continual raising of this issue is starting to look an awful lot like trolling, while trying to start two discussions in different places at once looks like forum shopping. Stop it. --RFBailey (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
How can it be original research when the above quote is from a secondary source (see link provided)? Think before answering, please. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
You missed my main point. I honestly don't care whether it's original research or not, and didn't make a claim one way or another. I'm just sick of you constantly labouring this same issue over and over and over again, and I don't think I'm alone in this. Also, I suggest you read the link about forum shopping in particular. --RFBailey (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
