# Talk:St Pancras railway station

I would like to find out its height as well as its neighbouring one built at the Kings Cross Railway Station height.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhippetWild (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC) 

no date in lede noted and added. 
User removed content with passive aggressive edit summary. also removed appropriate tags 
User appears to WP:OWN page ? I reverted unconstructive edit.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If you go to just about anywhere in the St Pancras concourse (it’s celebrating an anniversary right now with big posters and displays everywhere) or read any of the book sources given, you will find the information you are looking for. If you’d started the discussion here with something like “I don’t understand when exactly the station was built - some time in the 1860s? Why haven’t we cited the Act of Parliament?” I might have been more sympathetic, but since you’ve not demonstrated any interest in the station, I’m not minded to listen. OWN does not mean “let anyone put any edits in even if they make the article worse for the reader”. User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts#Tags has the best explanation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
you are edit warring nothing else. and Wp oWNING --Wuerzele (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
No. The level of tagging was ludicrous and appeared to be hostile. This is supposed to be a collaborative project. I wouldn't quote WP:OWN at people like that in this circumstance. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
More to the point, the prose sets the timeline by citing the 1863 Act of Parliament, describes the construction methods (which, kind of by definition are a continuous activity), then cites the 1868 opening date. Specific dates won't help the reader, unless they're something like "this part of the project took 18 months". Of course, if you can't have a conversation about the topic and material, but just hurl random policies and insults, you'll never get what you want. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

KingsCrossDevelopmentModel.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done – it's gone now. Nuthin' to see here. DBaK (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As the article says, the station has been known officially as London St Pancras International for quite a while now. It is referred to as such on a lot of things (e.g. Thameslink announcements, TfL maps and signage). I see no reason why the article shouldn't be renamed to St Pancras International Railway Station. Bobster1001 (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I still think St Pancras better meets WP:COMMONNAME - whilst officially I agree it's now been St Pancras International since 2007, the majority of coverage from reliable sources ([1] [2] for two examples within the last week) still refers to St Pancras, without the 'International' suffix. Mike1901 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. In general use I've always heard it referred to as St Pancras so I suppose it's the best name for it. Bobster1001 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Could the services, domestic services, international services and service pattern sections be merged into one? There's a lot of information that appears to be repeated over multiple areas. I could do it now however I'm not sure if it's like that for a reason. Bobster1001 (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

IMO, the plain "Services" section could easily be made redundant by having its content moved to the relevant sections (the first paragraph really should remain where it is and have its heading renamed to "Platform layout" - consistency across other station articles). The other parts should be moved to the relevant sections later. Happy to hear the thoughts of other editors though. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. The services section seems a bit pointless considering there's already domestic and international services sections Bobster1001 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this template  from the article as it messed up a whole bunch of images, putting them in the wrong place. If anyone knows how to put it back without disrupting images, please do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

What browser are you using? How exactly does it mess up what you are seeing? On Safari, Chrome and Edge on a Mac, and Safari on iOS and it doesn't cause any problems at all, not least because the infobox is collapsed and unobtrusive. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
The infobox should not be collapsed by default: see MOS:DONTHIDE. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)