Talk:Clapham Junction railway station

message: 'It is possible that measured in numbers of trains, it may be the busiest railway station in the world.' - it would be good to have some more clarification on this. It's possible that pigs may fly, but it would be nice to have some concrete evidence :) Can anyone provide some? Andrewferrier 17:56, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
:There are plenty of websites claiming that Clapham Junction is Europe's business railway station. For example  but I can't find any data to back that up. --Etimbo 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Shinjuku Station has far more than 2000 train movements per day. A quick count of the number of trains on the Chuo and Yamanote lines gives a total of 1400 train movements, and that is only for 2 of the 4 train lines from 1 of the 6 companies that operate trains from that station. I think JR alone could beat the 2000. The Odakyu, Keio and Sobu train lines are each easily as busy as Chuo, which would make it at least 3200 train movements. An example of the Yamanote timetable in one direction: http://www.jreast-timetable.jp/0605/timetable/tt0866/0866100.html Mattopia 00:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Clapham Junction claimed to be the busiest Junction station in Europe, not the busiest station. There is a slight difference Simply south 10:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as I can remember thae claim has been that it is the busiest station. However it can probably lay claim to being the busiest junction in the world as most other contenders for busiest station are terminuses. Jooler 12:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Busiest 

message: Does the Gatwick Express now stop at Clapham Junction?       
If so, is there now a part of Clapham Junction for passport checks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec - U.K. (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 October 2006‎
:No & no. --Tagishsimon (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 10 October 2006‎
::You don't have to go through passport checks to use the Gatwick Express anyways... It's only a train.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.85.130 (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gatwick Express at Clapham Junction 

message: I have uploaded and added four more images, and have also taken the liberty of changing the 'main' image in the infobox to one of the south western entrance, on the grounds that (1) it's more illustrative of the Victorian architecture that still makes up the majority of the station than the modern northern exit, and (2) the southern exits are far more heavily used and therefore probably the 'main' part of the station (the previous northern exit photo's now in the Gallery). Not sure where the Gallery best sits in the flow of the article - I have added it after the explanation that there are multiple exits, but it may sit better at the very end.  The article could possibly do with an aerial photo of the station, given that the sheer concentration of lines is one of the station's most distinguishing features, if anyone is aware of one that can be suitably sourced.Curran2 (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:Galleries. Galleries are normally placed towards the end, but before the appendix sections such as References. However, since these images are all in commons:Category:Clapham Junction railway station, a  template is usually preferred to a gallery; and the article already has one. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Can someone help fix this page's issue that it just displays the infobox?
Thank you.Vincent60030 (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not an AWB malfunction, since  was not an AWB edit. I have put the infobox back to how it was before: please don't rearrange it again without good reason. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWB Malfunction 

message: "The railway companies, to attract a middle- and upper-class clientele, seized the unindustrial parish calculating that being upon the slopes of Clapham's plateau would only re-inforce this distinction, leading to a long-lasting misunderstanding that the station is in Clapham."
What is this actually attempting to describe — the siting of the station, the naming of the station, both or neither? Whichever, it's one of the most pretentious passages I've read in a long while. Harfarhs (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad writing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Clapham Junction 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/20150213065312/http://www.tfl.gov.uk:80/cdn/static/cms/documents/richmond-and-clapham-junction-to-stratford-timetable-december-2014.pdf to https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/richmond-and-clapham-junction-to-stratford-timetable-december-2014.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122073856/http://www.dft.gov.uk:80/pgr/rail/passenger/stations/betterrailstations/pdf/report.pdf to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/stations/betterrailstations/pdf/report.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, are you currently aware that the railway station page already had a section on the (more general) housing estates for the entirety of the wider area of Battersea? "The large Battersea Power Station brought slums, the population of which rose from 6,000 in 1840 to 168,000 by 1910 [this population figure is for the whole former Borough of Battersea, not just the far more specific area that I tried to include by the way]. Battersea's slums unfit for human habitation were entirely replaced with council and charitable housing between 1918 and 1975." 
As you have chosen to leave this unchanged, could you also please explain to me the significance of those dates please? The only three housing estates that have any obvious or more tenuous links to the station today are the: Winstanley and York Road Estates, Latchmere Estate and Shaftesbury Estate, none of which were started in 1918 (the end of the first world war!?) or finished in 1975. The Winstanley Estate has an obvious link to Clapham Junction because it is the immediate Northern exit and entrance of the station on Grant Road, has been linked with crime levels on the Estates by the Metropolitan Police and the London Riots of "CLAPHAM JUNCTION" in 2011 originated on the Estates.  Unfortunately, the associations with the Shaftesbury Park Estate and Latchmere Estate are not as strong. However, the Shaftesbury was built between 1872-1877, almost immediately adjacent to the Brighton Yard Entrance and largely due to the new workers that the station attracted, especially when the area around the station was not particularly developed and is also one of the earliest examples of social housing in the UK. The Latchmere was the brainchild of John Burns, who not only worked at Clapham Junction in his youth, but also grew up in a house on Grant Road, on what is now part of the Winstanley Estate.ref></ref> 
Please respond or I will change the page to include reference to the Winstanley and York Road Estates using some of the references that I have already provided for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip1234 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your edits and contributions using four tildes (~). I reverted your edit because it added information not immediately pertinent to the article's topic, which is Clapham Junction railway station. I stated this in my edit summary. Yes, I was fully aware of the "History" section in the article. You have been selective in your quote above: the article actually states: "Whereas the station brought wealthy streets to Battersea its adjoining (entirely modernised) manual railway works and the large Battersea Power Station brought slums". The section makes a general observation of the effect the station's construction had on the surrounding area, the "Clapham" name being used by the railway companies to improve the marketing of their product, and the negative aspects of its being built. No further expansion is needed in this specific railway-related article. There are other articles where your information might be better placed (such as Battersea, which is linked from the railway station article). If you have enough referenced information for a new article on your specific subject, then be bold and create it. I see you are a new editor on Wikipedia: please remember to be courteous, and not issue ultimatums such as "Please respond or I will change the page". Bazza (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Bazza (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't been selective at all. The first sentence includes a far more general area and population (the entire former Borough of Battersea and its population), rather than the specific page that I wanted to add, i.e. the specific streets next to the station that then became the Winstanley and York Road. The second sentence is also far more general in talking about unspecified council housing (again in the entire Battersea area), additionally using some dates that have no relevance to any council housing associated with Battersea or Clapham Junction railway station for that matter. I am not seeking to expand the article, merely improve a section that is already there (in the second sentence that you haven't contradicted) with valid referencing and a link to a relevant page, considering that the immediate "slums" around the station DID become the Winstanley and York Road Estates. I would suggest that you either remove all reference to the public/council housing section as it is much more general than my correction or actually include some valid references so that it is not considered a factual inaccuracy. As it is a very small section of the page and is already included, I'm not sure that a new article is needed under the content splitting policy, if that's what you're referring to. Additionally, doesn't the acceptable content forking policy of related articles allow for relevant information to be published on more than one page, without creating unnecessary multiple pages? If I am not aware of something because I am a new user, as you appear to be inferring, I would just like an explanation of why you would oppose an edit that has multiple sources whilst allowing statements that are inaccurate and have no sources whatsoever to remain. I also apologise for my lack of courtesy and will say that the signing suggestion is appreciated. Kip1234 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are indeed seeking to expand the article (by adding information not currently there). I have no problem with your material, nor the references you've provided. But they do not belong on the page about Clapham Junction railway station. See WP:OFFTOPIC. I have already suggested two pages where your material might better fit, including one directly concerning the Winstanley Estate. If you think even the general two sentences about housing development directly related to the railway station are likewise inappropriate, then remove them. Bazza (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  Last set of questions: Why are they "directly related" when there isn't even a reference provided to support that? Why is linking the Winstanley Estate in a small correction with references considered "WP:OFFTOPIC" but linking: Lavender Hill, Guildford The Falcon and Battersea Power Station considered "directly related" or "on-topic"? Why are you automatically opposing any page expansion when the WP:BOLD policy to which you earlier referred me to, also says that editors should be "bold" in updating pages as well as creating new ones? I would be tempted to remove quite a lot more of that section apart from the third paragraph and half of the fourth, due to the fact that it is not WP:V and could be considered WP:NOR for the history of "Clapham Junction" that you would like to be true, but actually is unsupported by any WP:RS. Please don't ask me to read any of the Wikipedia policies that you have already mentioned, none of these will directly address the questions that I've put to you (as I have already read them). The WP:OFFTOPIC policy in particular advises editors to "err on the side of caution", which would be especially true considering that I have included multiple valid references and writing from a nuetral point of view.
Thanks Kip1234 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  Since you haven't had a chance to answer any of my questions, just notifying you that I will be WP:BOLD and delete parts of the history section based on the criteria that you have proposed. These will be for all the sentences that have no WP:RS and are therefore not WP:V and also have links that are apparently WP:OFFTOPIC according to your reversion. Please see the WP:NOR policy for why this is necessary. 
Kip1234 (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clapham Junction Railway Station Housing Estates