Talk:King's Cross, London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

apostrophe[edit]

Please note that there is no apostrophe in "Kings Cross".

Reference: http://eur-op.eu.int/code/en/en-4100213en.htm

The Anome

Oh dear. It looks like I have b*llsing it up left, right, and centre then. Sorry. I was somewhat misled by some of what I found on the web (including the local developers' site!) but if it's good enough for ODWE then it's good enough for me. I see that I have created a nightmare of nonworking redirects and G*d knows what, I can;t sort it all out now but will have another look later (in the sneaky hope that someone with more brains than me will have done so already!)
Whoops, and sorry!
Nevilley 08:52 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Here's the story so far:

  • Kings Cross is the name for the surrounding area, as supported by both style guides and general usage.
  • Google searches also say that Kings Cross station is more common that King's Cross station
  • King's Cross is the "official" signage for the stations
  • but Kings Cross is the "official" usage in the timetable database, as well as being used on other "official" raliway pages: joyously, the official station page at [1] uses both styles

The Anome 09:41 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

I have a seemingly official map of central London, which I bought at one of the stations there - almost certainly Liverpool Street. It shows both the underground and overground stations and their connections. And it has "King's Cross" with an apostrophe all over it! I'm actually travelling on the London Underground today. I'll be sure to take a slight detour just to check that the signs at the station still have an apostrophe. Oh, the things I do for the Wikipedia... ;) -- Oliver Pereira 09:50 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)
The Railway station certainly is signed King's Cross, as I said. I'll take a look at the tube station signs later today, but I expect it to be signed tha same way as the Tube map, with an apostrophe. The question is which defines language, "official" usage (ambiguous), signage (apostrophes) or common usage (no apostrophes)? The Anome 09:58 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the name of the surrounding area pre-dates the use of the apostrophe in English to denote the possessive. I have no idea if this is actually true. The Anome 10:00 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I don't really know about the "common usage". But my AA Road Atlas of the British Isles 2001 (published 2000) calls the surrounding area "King's Cross" with an apostrophe as well. Just to add to the confusion. ;) -- Oliver Pereira 10:21 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Development[edit]

I've added a couple of links and a note end par.1 (this may have broken the grammar - apologies). I wasn't sure whether to cross reference Kings Cross station again. KX is currently under intense development. I'm not sure whether material of related interest belongs on the page though.

rsaum 10:46 May 03, 2004

>>Tagishsimon (Amending external links. Nice try with the blog, but I don't think a couple of photos and a cut & paste cut it, do you?)

ok- It's actually a photoblog dedicated to KX, and what I do there, ie make art. A bit more than a couple of photos, I thought it might broaden the idea of what KX is about.

rsaum 23:27 May 03, 2004

Caledonian Ward[edit]

Caledonian Ward falls into the area known as King's Cross and so is worthy of a mention surely? PurpleNaartjie (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

electoral ward (to add confusion)[edit]

The electoral ward is called King's Cross and is entirely within Camden. It is also south of Euston Road, West of King's Cross Road/Farringdon Road, North of Calthorpe St/Guildford Street and East of Woburn Place. This is way south of the area described in the article and of a different character being mostly residential and including a large number of hotels.Piersmasterson 15:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Caledonian Ward also falls into the area known as King's Cross. It might sound picky, but as KX falls into both Camden and Islington the relevant wards should surely be listed? PurpleNaartjie (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stations[edit]

"Nearby underground stations:

King's Cross St. Pancras tube station Mornington Crescent tube station Angel tube station Euston station Euston Square tube station Farringdon station Caledonian Road tube station Russell Square tube station"

That's rather a lot of stations, are they really all nearby? Russell Square? Lfh 11:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area of Kings Cross Central[edit]

There are serious inaccuracies regarding the area for the Kings Cross Central devlopment in the article. The site is huge and the development will be the largest London has seen in 150yrs (I have heard it claimed). Moreover, the heart (and bulk) of it will be Kings Cross Goodsyard. The Goodsyard is barely mentioned in the article but is the historic heart of the area in many ways. Re Goodsyard (capitalized), Kings Cross Goodsyard becomes Kings Cross Central (symmetry). I'll edit the info I've mentioned when I've time. Rsaum 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King's Cross Central[edit]

Hi,

The image showing King's Cross Central at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KingsCrossDevelopmentModel.jpg

Only shows a section of the site. The whole site is much larger as can be seen at:

http://kxdf.wordpress.com/kings-cross-central/

Cheers,

PurpleNaartjie (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great line - no citation[edit]

There's a great quotation in the history section that describes the old monument at King's Cross: The monument was sixty feet high and topped by an eleven-foot-high statue of the king, and was described as "a ridiculous octagonal structure crowned by an absurd statue".

That is a lovely and comical description and I am loathe to remove it, but it completely lacks citation. Do any more knowledgable editors have a reference for this? A Traintalk 16:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is already there at the end of the para. Highbury, Upper Holloway and King's Cross, Old and New London: Volume 2, by Walter Thornbury (1878), accessed December 6, 2007 (British History Online), but i have now repeated right next to the line.

In 1830 Battle Bridge assumed the name of King's Cross, from a ridiculous octagonal structure crowned by an absurd statue of George IV., which was erected at the centre of six roads which there united. The building, ornamented by eight Doric columns, was sixty feet high, and was crowned by a statue of the king eleven feet high. Pugin, in that bantering book, "The Contrasts," ridiculed this effort of art, and contrasted it with the beautiful Gothic market cross at Chichester. The Gothic revival was only just then beginning, and the dark age was still dark enough. The basement was first a police-station, then a public-house with a camera-obscura in the upper storey. The hideous monstrosity was removed in 1845. Battle Bridge, which had been a haunt of thieves and murderers, was first built upon by Mr. Bray and others, on the accession of George IV., when sixty-three houses were erected in Liverpool Street, Derby Street, &c. The locality being notorious, it was proposed to call it St. George's Cross, or Boadicea's Cross, but Mr. Bray at last decreed that King's Cross was to be the name.

Lozleader (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed that! Thanks for making that amendment. A Traintalk 16:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Stamp (who is usually very accurate) in "Change at King's Cross" states that the monument was "Proposed in 1830 and completed by 1836" so I have changed the text in accordance. (Apologies for not knowing the procedures for noting this down - probably this should be elsewhere) KAZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.17.22 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to form with apostrophe?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Both names are commonly used. Aervanath (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Cross, London → King's Cross, London – Per WP:COMMON; see rest of section belowabove. James F. (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To re-visit this, I note that:
  • every other article on enwiki about related buildings/stations/developments is located with an apostrophe;
  • the ward has the apostrophe - see the Ordnance Survey's official term and Camden Council's electoral result listings;
  • the area is officially referred to at least some times with - e.g. Islington Council, albeit talking about the area's transport improvements (which are all with-apostrophe); and
  • the locals appear use it too, e.g. the hyper-local site.
The article generally (but not exclusively) uses it, and our lack of consistency has itself been noted. Frankly the idea that the area doesn't have it but the station does doesn't seem to be true at least any more.
We eventually settled on using apostrophes etc. on-wiki for similar place names (see St. James's Park discussions et. al), so I guess we should move this too. Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict]

History of the apostrophe, (both are used officially, so both are correct) http://www.lurs.org.uk/documents/pdf%2008/nov/The%20Underground%20and%20the%20Apostrophe.pdf

QuentinUK (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kings Cross, London. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 September 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Cross, London → King's Cross, London – Enwiki ought to use "King's Cross" vs "Kings Cross" consistently. Whilst it is true that in common use both the form with the apostrophe and without are used (often in the same authoritative source, see [2]) our readers are better served by the technically correct application of English, and consistency in approach (e.g. with King's Cross (building), King's Cross Central, London King's Cross railway station, King's Cross St Pancras tube station, King's Cross fire, King's Cross Thameslink railway station, King's Cross (ward)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The case made by the nom. is reasonable. These articles should be consistent with each other, and the most common usage is the grammatical one with an apostrophe. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In addition to the issue of grammar, this page from the Camden website, containing the official list of wards, is probably the most authoritative, and the name there has the apostrophe. Tevildo (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I regret to inform you that searching Google for site:camden.gov.uk "King's Cross" returns 4,020 results while site:camden.gov.uk "Kings Cross" returns 6,360.  — Scott • talk 21:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the apostrophe isn't consistent throughout the Camden site, as pointed out by the OP. However, the page I linked is the closest thing they have to a list of ward names. Tevildo (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King%27s_Cross,_London&oldid=1207985141"