Talk:Finsbury Park station

Comment
The article currently tries way too hard to explain the entire context and history of every line that passes through the station, making it a bit unwieldy. I think a lot of it could be summarised without losing anything. --Dtcdthingy 21:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Finsbury Park station does have a very complicated history with all the different railway companies that have served the station and the reconfigurations that it has undergone and to fully reflect that in an encyclopaedic manner does require quite an extensive and detailed article. DavidCane 22:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But on Wikipedia, the history of each line is only a click away, so there isn't really any need to repeat them here. For example, this article contains a pretty much complete history of the Northern Heights plan, rather than just the parts that would have affected Finsbury Park. Similarly, what does the Moorgate tube crash have to do with anything? I'll try to prune some of it myself when I get the chance. --Dtcdthingy 00:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do agree that unnecessary duplication of information across a number of articles should be avoided; however, if the article is to properly present the history of the station in a complete narrative manner, the context needs to be given and there does have to be some reuse. The balance of what needs to be included for context and what can be left to be discovered by clicking on links for more information is a fine line, but, personally, I feel that the article is more readable and is more informative without the need to keep clicking on links elsewhere to find the context.


 * I don't agree that a "full history" of the northern heights plan is given here only what is relevant to Finsbury Park itself. As the starting point for the branch and where the branch and the Northern City Line were to be connected together, a significant amount of information needs to be given. There is much more that can be said about the Northern Heights plan that is included in the Northern Heights section in the Northern Line article and also at the Edgware, Highgate and London Railway article and the various articles on the Northern Heights stations but which is not repeated here.


 * There may, perhaps, be slightly more than needed on the Moorgate crash, but it is partly relevant as many people who are unaware of the pre-existing plans to transfer the Highbury branch to British Rail think that the crash was the reason for the transfer.


 * My personal preference for the article is for a single historical narrative without the artificial split between National Rail and tube. It avoids the need to chop the timeline between the two parts of the station and the duplication this causes. That is how I originally wrote most of what is here before the article was split on 24 December last year. I note that, since it has been rearranged again, the order of the two sections on the City Line has been reversed and the see above and see below links are the wrong way round and could be omitted if the paragraphs were merged. DavidCane 02:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But the whole issue of the transfer and the crash are NCL issues. I've pruned quite a few things that concerned the NCL (or other lines) in general but weren't directly related to Finsbury Park. --Dtcdthingy 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif
Image:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif
Image:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Move
Could this page be moved to "Finsbury Park interchange" it seems a more appropriate name for the article. L07ChLeo3 (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Current naming conventions on Wikipedia suggest otherwise. An article about a National Rail station called "Name" is called "Name railway station" and a tube station "Name tube station". Those stations which are both railway and tube stations with the same name in each case are named "Name station" with both the rail and tube mentioned in the article. I'm sure someone will be able to link a relevant discussion which provides consensus. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 01:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The original discussion was here back in February 2004. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Referencing
I can't fathom how to reference an article on here but I added the future development info on - if someone can please link these pages I'd be grateful - definately something WIKI needs to work on! User interfaces!

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3116455

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/city-north-site-finsbury-park-london-by-benson-and-forsyth/5205872.article

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.234.98 (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Metaphor for old age
Didn't somebody famous - I can't for the life of me remember who - once say that "on life's journey, I have reached Finsbury Park"? Meaning that it is the last stop on the train from Cambridge to King's Cross.Paulturtle (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ticket barriers
From the Underground section: "In 2015 ticket barriers were installed and operated on all the entrances to the station." - This is not strictly true. At least one entrance (ostensibly for the National Rail platforms, but from which you can access the Tube via staircases) has no barriers. Remove, or re-word? I'm not familiar enough with all station entrances to say what the whole and accurate picture is. Grunners (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was added, without source, in . Feel free to revert. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Subheadings
I know nothing of the history of Finsbury Park station - could someone more qualified/knowledgeable add relevant subheadings to the History section of the article? I feel it would improve readability a great deal. Thanks!Turini2 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)