Talk:Holborn tube station

Holborn rail crash
I think that this article should be merged with Holborn tube station. This is because, it is only a minor article and is a stub. There is not enough depth in this article to warrant it existing on its own. I continue to believe that the two articles should be merged. I think that there should just be a heading in that Holborn tube station article that documents the disaster. Thanks Britishrailclass43 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * i agree it should be merged. there are other tube station pages which have any accidents listed on the same page, and not on a separate page. merge away! 194.221.133.211 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Long since merged.--20:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox images
What happened to the images of this station in the infobox? I happen to be going there on Sunday afternoon, so I will add some photos to Wikimedia Commons, but probably when I am home.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh? The image is still there. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Problem with source verification.
It's impossible to explain this inline. The original URL is dead. However the article (not the photo) can be found at Archive.org. The problem arises that the source did not provide the information that the citation claims. It took me forever, but I believe I found the print here by using Archive's Reference number. The photo caption however still does not support the claims made in the citation. Should the reference be removed entirely? I may be able to find some supportive information on it, but it will only be available to subscribers of the archive that I would use. Please ping me if you answer. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Magnoliasouth I found this earlier shot (1907) in the LTM archive that may support the claim, take a look. Turini2 (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:Turini2 Hmmm. Well it doesn't support the granite or Portland stone claim. However, I did find this, which seems authentic. It says "Existing red granite replaced with Portland stone" in the sketch. The problem is whether or not it is considered a reliable source. What do you think? MagnoliaSouth (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Magnoliasouth Given that Mike Ashworth was the Design and Heritage Manager for LU for over 10 years - I think that's a reliable source Turini2 (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:Turini2 Sorry it too me so long to get back to you! Okay, I created the citation and I think I tagged everything that could use it. I didn't even look at Ashworth's About page so I didn't realize his connection to LU. Thanks so much for your advice!MagnoliaSouth (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Magnoliasouth. I wrote the section you were querying. If you look at the architectural drawing linked from ref 8 and zoom in twice, just above the large window in the facade drawing at the top you will see the handwritten architect's annotation "Original Red Granite Cornice replaced with Portland Stone". You can see the original facades photographed in 1930 here and here. The original granite dentil cornice corresponded to that still seen on the rest of the facade and was replaced with a smooth moulding to match the new Holden-designed facade. In the 1930 photos you can see that it is much smoother and is composed of much larger blocks than the standard glazed terracotta blocks normally used on Leslie Green facades (see Russell Square for a comparison). These are the granite blocks. Antony Badsey-Ellis mentions that Holborn had a unique stone facade on 25 of his book Underground Heritage (ISBN 978-185414-360-0).--DavidCane (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Another source is page 4 of Desmond F Croome's Piccadilly Line: An Illustrated History (ISBN: 1854141929), which shows a photo of the small High Holborn entrance to the station with the caption: "The untypical entrance to Holborn station, where the facing material was coloured granite instead of the usual ruby-red terracotta. This is the High Holborn entrance."--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:DavidCane No worries. It's just that the original link was broken, is all and they changed the write up when I found the picture. You've done an excellent job! MagnoliaSouth (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)