# Talk:King's Cross St Pancras tube station

Following discussion of what version of the names to use for Underground stations, can I suggest we relocate this page to King's Cross St. Pancras tube station in line with current London Underground literature. I'll do (or attempt) this in a few days if no-one has any objection.   Timrollpickering 10:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And it won't let me move it! Anyone know how to do it?

Done now; the page previously located here was non-trivial (several items on the page history, since moved by hand elsewhere), so it wouldn't let you overwrite them.
I deleted the page.
James F. (talk) 21:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Alwaystouchout.com gives the date for re-opening of the main ticket all, and the opening of the new Western ticket hall, as March 19 - ie Sunday.  Anyone want to go and see?  Morwen - Talk 21:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't open yet. Here are some photos.
  
Edward 23:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly getting there, though - they've got rid of the construction barriers here.  Hmm.  Morwen - Talk 11:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Any news?  Morwen - Talk 20:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, according to [1], the Western Ticket Hall opens tomorrow (Sunday 28th May).  Morwen - Talk 13:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some photos Edward 05:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
   
   
   
   

Wonderful!  I look forward to using the stair-less tunnel from St P to the underground platforms when I next visit.  For the first time ever!  Hurrah.  Morwen - Talk 23:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely the (whole) point of the explanation was to demonstrate that even though Euston and King's Cross St Pancras are consecutive stations on both the Northern Line and Victoria Line; they are consecutive in opposite directions.  Providing local geography gives very little in this case,  compared to the global direction which gives the main direction of the lines... —Sladen (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. It would be great if this could be discussed and a consensus reached. It's been stable in the previous version for some time so it would be good to avoid flip/flopping it between versions till there's some idea what works. Surely it must be a more general point that has been discussed elsewhere? Or not?? Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Bijou gapette ... Yes, but others argue that it is misleading to give directions which just aren't true. That is, Euston is not to the north of it, and so on ... and that true geography should over-rule the er er topological "truth" of the tube diagrams ... any more views? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the detail regarding York Road tube station from this article, but I thought I'd explain why. King's Cross isn't the replacement for York Road, York Road closed without replacement. I think people interested in other stations on the Piccadilly line will find the York Road article via the Piccadilly line article. Similarly those particularly interested in disused stations will find the York Road article via the Closed London Underground stations article.
As the article is about King's Cross St. Pancras tube station, it doesn't need to contain detail about other stations - whether current or former. And it certainly doesn't belong in the Past and future lines section - as it isn't a line. If anyone still thinks it needs to be linked from the King's Cross article (and I don't believe it does), then a simple link in the See Also section should suffice. DrFrench (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your proposed paragraph deletion[2] to the Talk: page.  Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, I have restored the original content whilst it is under discussion (it is extremely unusual and generally considered bad form to revert a revert, which is why Wikipedia has strong policies discouraging such actions).
As the historical next station (and possibly future next station[3][4]), linking to the York Road tube station article is extremely relevant for this KXSTP article.  Per WP:SEEALSO, such links to relevant subjects should be integrated into the body of the article, and ideally not placed in a See also section—thus affording the opportunity to provide suitable context as prose.
One can of course find the York Road article via several long, successive sequences of clicks via other articles, but that is of little use to the reader if they have not been informed of its existence.  The direct, relevant links are what make Wikipedia so uniquely useful.
Once again, thank you for raising the topic and I think that peoplewould welcome suggestions for how to improve the York Road paragraph (deletion does not appear to be appropriate).  —Sladen (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed rationale - but do remember that WP:BRD is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline and WP:STATUSQUO equally suggests that you shouldn't have reverted my edit in the first place. WP:SEEALSO is a style guideline which says that links in 'See Also' section are suitable for "subjects only peripherally related to the one in question".  But let's not play policy ping-pong, let's look at improving this article.
This article is about King's Cross St Pancras tube station. It's not called King's Cross St Pancras, York Road and City Road tube stations. (If you're going to include details of one closed station, why not another?.).
This article is not about the main line stations, or the local area, or anything else - it's about King's Cross St Pancras tube station.
York Road tube station is clearly not a "Past [or] future line", so the information does not belong where it has been put.
A discussion about the history of some other tube station is clearly "only peripherally related" to this article.
It's factually inaccurate to suggest that King's Cross St Pancras was a replacement for York Road.

Whether is takes "several long, successive sequences of clicks via other articles" to find the York Road article is irrelevant - even if it were true (it actually takes just two clicks). You've included links above to show a business case for re-opening York Road but listing historical details about York Road's opening and closing dates is not useful in informing readers about the re-opening proposals.
I have made an edit to the article to a) remove the irrelevant historical infomation, b) add the information about the re-opening proposal, c) clearly direct interested readers to the correct article and d) tidy up and rename the section to 'Future proposals'. I believe this meets what both you and I want. Have a look and say what you think, I'd also be interested in the views of others editors abut this change. DrFrench (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're looking for the City Road article, it is a geographically separate entity situated 1–2 miles further east.  The former City Road tube station is between Angel and Old Street on what is now the City branch of the Northern Line.  As expected, the adjacent Angel tube station and Old Street station articles both link to the City Road article in their WP:LEADs.
In the case of York Road, it is linked from the adjacent Caledonian Road tube station (in the WP:LEAD), and from this King's Cross St. Pancras tube station article.  The links give a quick overview of the relationship and timelines ...the reader is then directed to review the York Road tube station article itself for further details.
WP:STATUSQUO has clear intentions, please try to avoid the temptation to WP:GAME.
—Sladen (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Pot, kettle, black. But thanks for the lecture anyway. I see a lot of telling other people what they should do and trying to use use policies/guidelines to force your POV. You seem to be more interested in having your way than improving the article. Please don't patronise other editors - it's not constructive and makes the atmosphere here unpleasant. If you wish to revert the article to put inaccurate information back in - feel free. I've lost interest, as it's not possible to work constructively with you. Goodbye. DrFrench (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi all,
I've rewritten, moved around and edited a large section of this article and would welcome your feedback. I've also provided a wide range of references throughout the article.
I can't find a decent reference to "The Victoria line escalators cut through the location of the original Piccadilly line lifts", so I have removed it. Can anyone help with a reference?
I'd also welcome your opinion on changing the photo in the infobox - as the station entrance does not look like this anymore, since the rebuild of the front of KingsX station.
Turini2 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

All original research I'm afraid, but:
This photograph of a model of the works proposed for the Victoria line in the 1960s is suggestive that the escalator shafts and running tunnels (diagonal and horizontal white) transected the former Piccadilly line lift shafts and emergency stair shaft (vertical dark).
This photograph and this map show the position of the original Great Northern Piccadilly and Brompton Railway station building from which the lifts would have descended.
This plan shows where the Piccadilly line platforms are in relation to the main line station (faint outline). Comparing this to the position of the GNP&BR station building on the map, suggests that the lifts would have descended at the south ends of the platforms to the south of the Piccadilly line escalator shaft.
--DavidCane (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The dot after St doesn't match TFL use, elsewhere on wikipedia or even  the text in the article.
Should it be changed - again?
Chaotic Doire (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The change seems to be quite recent. Doing a search on tube maps from different dates, it looks like TfL changed the tube map in the December 2017 editing to omit the full stop after the "t" in for King's Cross St Pancras, St James's Park, St John's Wood and St Paul's on the Underground and for St John's Street on the Overground. The most recent map I could find with the full stop was the walking distance map which was published in March 2017 and is still on the TfL website with full stops.
Some parts of TfL haven't caught-up yet. The html and pdf (October 2017) versions of their editorial style guide still gives "St. James's Park station", though that is listed to ensure correct punctuation of the apostrophe and possessive "s".--DavidCane (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The latest tube doesn't have the dot, the official TfL link does. If I happen to be passing by the station tomorrow (not sure if I will yet), I'll have a look at signs and see what they say. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: not sure this is suitable for a bold move - would prefer to see an RM if you want to retitle the article. TFL's website shows a dot,[5] as do the roundels if the images online are to be believed.[6] So I would be inclined to oppose at this time. Please could you move the page back and start an RM if you feel it should be changed? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Well I think it's only semi-bold, as I saw a rough consensus here, as suggested by myself, The Rambling Man (who I think was predicting this) and David (as expressed above). Why don't we wait until the GA review is finished (otherwise it could be failed on criteria 5) and if there are more objections then, I'll start an RM. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
But that's just it. The long-term stable title includes the dot, so surely it shouldn't have been moved during the GA review anyway? I'm not sure why you decided to do that today. And David's style guide above does include it for St. James's Park too. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)