Talk:Eurostar

Image removal
The image File:Eurostar Departures Building - Amsterdam Centraal.jpg was removed by myself and @Murgatroyd49 because it was poorly lit, badly framed and of generally low quality. The logged-out IP that initially added it, and the user that reinstated it several times have both been blocked for a week for edit warring. Although they can't argue their case here it would be useful in the meantime to get the opinion of other users on the merits of the image, and see whether a better Eurostar Amsterdam image can be found. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @10mmsocket As a professional photographer I disagree. The eurostar photo is correctly exposed, well framed and actually very high quality 81.98.108.119 (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ? sockpuppet? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should assume good faith, but it's hard to. I can't see how any "professional photographer" would describe that as high quality, let alone well-framed or correctly exposed. We should let others draw their own conclusion about the comment. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't see an issue with the image. It is in focus, not blurred, and high resolution. Although it was clearly taken in the evening/in an overcast day, the building is perfectly clear to see and shown centrally in the frame. I don't see any benefit to the overall usefulness of the article by removing it. Blaiserandpascal (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed @Blaiserandpascal I think @10mmsocketmust be having a hard time working out that it's shot in low light... 81.98.108.119 (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the picture of Ashford international is darker, lower resolution and blurry, also from 2007. Would be good if this could be updated with a better one. Blaiserandpascal (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * More sockpuppets? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @10mmsocket@Murgatroyd49From the looks of it others are drawing their own conclusions you just disagree with them. Maybe you might be able to enlighten us on specific areas of the photograph in question which appear blurred or wrongly exposed to you 81.98.108.119 (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While I disagree that the lighting is particularly poor, I do agree that the image is generally of poor quality, with much of the building obscured by passengers. A better image showing the building would be preferable. Danners430 (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it would be preferable to have a photo with less people, the building is still highly visible and the focus of the image. As neither @10mmsocket@Murgatroyd49 have provided a better image, and I cannot see one, I don't see how removal is benificial to anything except the personal tastes of certain users (@10mmsocket @Murgatroyd49) Blaiserandpascal (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * sockpuppet Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not. I assume you're a sock puppet of @10mmsocket. Blaiserandpascal (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest we all stop throwing accusations of sockpuppetry around - this is not the place for it. If there are concerns about sockpuppetry, they should be raised at the appropriate forum.
 * What this discussion is for is to get consensus on whether the image should be reinstated or a better one found. Danners430 (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed! @10mmsocket@Murgatroyd49 are yet to actually explain why they are so strongly opposed, they have both just said "bad". Blaiserandpascal (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Their opinion is just as valuable as yours or mine.
 * Additionally, please stop edit warring on the main page until this discussion is concluded. Danners430 (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An edit war is not going to help anyone. We need to understand eveyone's reasoning before making a decision. Mine has been explained clearly. Do we know if something lead to this becoming so contentious? Blaiserandpascal (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not - however I agree with the point originally made that the image is poor quality, and a better one should be found. As of right now, I cannot see a consensus saying the image should be kept, however the discussion is obviously very new. Danners430 (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your particular complaint about the image being "low quality", at this point I'm struggling to understand. Myself, ip user (professional photographer) and the original poster (banned apparently) have all suggested keeping it. @Murgatroyd49@10mmsocket both seem to favour no image of the Amsterdam departures building. You dislike this image but welcome a better one, I suspect it would be equally as difficult to agree on. Blaiserandpascal (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If the IP user is a professional photographer, I'm a monkey's uncle. The image is fine if you want a picture of an underlit group of passengers waiting on a platform with a partly obscured building in the background. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the people are underlit none of the image is in shadow and the details of the building are visible. I also don't find having people in the photo particularly offensive as this is how the building looks when in use and the people are not obscurity most of it. Perhaps a new caption ,'people queueing at the Amsterdam departures building'? Blaiserandpascal (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also worth mentioning if this image is deemed not high enough it raises questions about other images on the same article. Blaiserandpascal (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with, very poorly lit. Furthermore as I may have pointed out in an edit summary, I'm not sure what purpose it... serves? It doesn't "say" much. If the article/section was about groups of people it might be more acceptable, because that's what it shows. But plonking it next to the section about "records"...?
 * Points have already been made that a better image should be found. However, I'm not sure if there has to be one there at all...? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Lille to Brussels is the only international intra-Schengen journey that Eurostar is offering for sale.
I believe this information to be outdated, as ex-Thalys services are now branded Eurostar, too. Regards, ULF 2001:4C80:40:493:9AEE:CBFF:FEE7:FBAD (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Eurostar and Schengen
. Hi, agreed that problems existed because of not being a member of Schengen, but the statement is in the present tense and all the problems have been greatly exacerbated by our withdrawal from the EU. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Murgatroyd49: My reversion was due to a lack of referenced. Here's a couple of references to support your addition:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/24/eurostar-trains-empty-seats-brexit-passport-rules-london-paris-brussels from 2023
 * https://www.belganewsagency.eu/possible-restrictions-on-eurostar-services-due-to-future-post-brexit-passport-controls
 * The previous restrictions were around the problem of the which was eventually closed by separating passengers travelling from Brussels to Lille only from UK-bound travellers. A reference from that article seems suitable for reusing:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20200327221758/https://www.eurostar.com/uk-en/conditions-carriage
 * I've added text and the references, but it's a bit messy so open for copy-editing. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)