Talk:Balham tube station

message: I have revised the number of deaths caused by the bombing to 111 as this is the number referred to on the London Transport Museum's web site. DavidCane 3 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
:Eh? This LT Museum page says "sixty dead"; the plaque at the station says 64 , the Commonwealth War Graves Commission says 65. Are you sure you're not including the wounded in that count? -- Arwel 11:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little confusing that the article says that 64 people were killed, then goes on to say that the plaque "incorrectly states that 64 lives were lost" - if 64 is incorrect, then that number shouldn't be used earlier in the text.  And if 64 is used earlier in the text, then the plaque isn't wrong (unless this article is admitting that itself is wrong).  I'm going to try to reword to incorporate all the information and uncertainty.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestorm042 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Apart from being executed in a rather ham-fisted way, there has been no prior discussion that demonstrated any need or desire amongst editors for such a merge, which is hardly surprising given that while the two stations may be adjacent to each other, but are distinctly separate, with no direct interchange with each other. They cannot, therefore, be regarded as the "same" station any any sense that justified this merge. Nick Cooper (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The interchange may not be behind barriers but as far as I recall it's entirely indoors and on rail property, which makes it as direct as somewhere like Vauxhall, about which there's little question it should be covered as one complex, which is why I didn't think there was any need to discuss this merge. I think there's a fairly consistent rule that where stations have a physical connection they get covered by a single article, and Balham is currently the exception to this. --Mr Thant (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Balham is not the only "exception" by any means - look at Waterloo tube station, Charing Cross tube station, and King's Cross St. Pancras tube station, for example. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: KXSP is obviously because it serves two NR stations, and Waterloo was split off from the main article which was getting too large. So Charing Cross is the only real exception of those. Meanwhile, Kentish Town, Blackhorse Road, Marylebone, Paddington, Euston, West Ham, Stratford and many others all follow it, so there's plenty of precedent for mergers like this. There is a direct interchange, they're part of the same complex, and are best treated within one article. Which part of this do you object to? --Mr Thant (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How can two separately managed stations, with separate ticket office and separate gatelines, some 50-100 metres apart, be deemed "the same complex"? An easy (not direct, since changing involves passing through both gatelines) interchange and a common name does not make them the same station. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a single interchange complex, and it's best to cover those on a single page, regardless of management and gateline locations. The argument isn't that it's a "single station", it's that it's a single topic. If they were 50m apart, I'd totally agree with you, but that simply isn't true. On that basis, I've remerged the articles. --77.99.149.3 (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it may offer an interchange, I have some doubts that London Underground considers Balham to be a combined station. Such stations usually have combined London Underground Roundel and National Rail signage - Balham does not.--DavidCane (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Any merge proposal should also be announced on Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concur:      Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport#Requests..LanceBarber (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed merge with [[Balham railway station]] 

message: Haven't read the book and probably never will, but Googling on reviews seems to suggest that the Balham disaster is only "mentioned in passing". This might seem a small gripe, but knowing the context in which it appears might clear up whether it's an a plain error or dramatic licence, i.e. if the latter, is there any other discernable reason why the date was shifted? Can anybody who's read the book clarify? Nick Cooper (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the disaster is mentioned in passing, but the event is arguably one of the most consequential in the book. As to context, the mention isn't simply, "The event occurred in September 1940"; it's more like, "If I had wanted to tell this story in a different way, I could have told you about an event in September 1940...." The narrator has some intriguing and conflicting motives, and the whole issue of whether and when narrators can be trusted is at the very center of the book. So by getting the date "wrong," the novel actually gives the reader even more to think about. I didn't know the date was wrong until I found this article; now I'm actually quite pleased to make that discovery. (P.S., you should read it. Possibly the best novel I've read in the last 10 years.) -- Sharpner (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Atonement'' 

message: Just to clarify, the CWGC register of civilian deaths namesor this incident, so the sources that state 64 and the plaque are inherently wrong. It is possible that the GWGC register is incomplete, or that there were additional non-civilian deaths, so the total may well be as high as 68. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombing deaths