Jump to content

Talk:Farringdon station

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

Untitled

[edit]

I changed the claim that it's in the City,. I think the City border is south of there, maybe running along the north side of Smithfield meat market, and if so it is in Islington. I will try and nip round there and check some time but for now I am reasonably confident that this is correct. Nevilley 08:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It is in Islington, just across the road from Camden. Morwen 08:28, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
Yep. I walked round there on Friday: definitely Islington. Nevilley 00:05, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted - my London street map shows that it's literally a few yards inside Islington! -- ChrisO 09:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - if you walk along Charterhouse St (N side of Smithfield) then the N side of the road is Islington - although of course many of the street signs still say Finsbury! - and the south side is the City. Ansd the road that the station is actually on, whose names escapes me right now, is wholly inside Islington. It's an odd, and very interesting area round there. Nevilley 10:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the new Barbican entrance to the (Elizabeth Line) station is in The City. 82.46.163.160 (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Farringdon into this article

[edit]

I have previously contended on Wikipedia that there is no actual area called "Farringdon" in London, other than two wards of the City, Farringdon Within and Farringdon Without. People sometimes call the immediate environs of the station "Farringdon", but then people use rail/tube station names as a handy way of referring to areas all the time - this doesn't mean, for example that Liberty's department store is in an area called Oxford Circus, or that Borough Market is "in" London Bridge. Nor does it mean that there is an area called Farringdon, distinct from Clerkenwell/Holborn/Smithfield Market. Another user (Mrsteviec) brought the following source to my attention:

quote from Mills, A., Oxford Dictionary of London Place Names, (2000): "Farringdon, Islington. Station named from Farringdon Road which was constructed in 1845-6, this being a continuation of Farringdon Street in the City which was built over the Fleet river in 1737. All preserve the name Farringdon, one of the ancient wards in the City, which was so called from two of its alderman in the early 13th Century, William and Nicholas de Faringdon."

This supports what I am saying. The Farringdon article has been battled over at length by myself and Mrsteviec, and all this discussion has done is bring me back to my original conention - that there is no such "area" as Farringdon, and that the article should be deleted /merged to here. I propose adding wording to this article on the station to the effect that people often refer to the area around the station (which is in fact in Clerkenwell) as Farringdon, and setting up a redirect here from Farringdon. --SandyDancer 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote doesn't support that Farringdon isn't a placename it all especially given it is from a dictionary of placenemes. See Talk:Farringdon.
Yes. I agree that Farringdon is a placename. The place in question being a railway station. That is why Mills refers to "Farringdon, Islington. Station named from Farringdon Road" - the dictionary emhpatically does notsay that Farringdon is a district/area/locale of London. Just read it again with a cool head. --SandyDancer 18:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the area was named after the area or both were named after the road is immaterial both now exist as separate entities. 62.49.61.203 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry forgot to sign in Wilmot1 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked extensively on the Smithfield, London article (and having tried to sort out a similar problem, i.e. how to distinguish the area from the market), I second Wilmot1 in that today the Farringdon area exists independenly of the station, witness the number of people, companies, services, pubs and restaurants, venues that refer to Farringdon as the area where they are located. Whether the Farringdon article has enough materials to live on its own has little to do with the fact that the area exists with this name and is perceived as such by the people who live and work there. My suggestion would be to expand the historical/geographical sections in the Farringdon article and move to the present article all materials that are only relevant to rail and tube transport. E.g. the impact of the planned Crossrail station on the area would definitely need to stay under the Farringdon station article, whereas more general materials on the history of this area and its relation to adjacent areas (Smithfield, Clerkenwel) should go to the other article. --DarTar (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no actual area called "Farringdon" in London"
"people use rail/tube station names as a handy way of referring to areas all the time"
Self-contradiction. 82.46.163.160 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Crossrail icon.png

[edit]

Image:Crossrail icon.png 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 Wikipedia: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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making references more useful and informative

[edit]

This recent edit fixes a number of issues:

  • Convert bare references to use {{cite}} template to make them more informative and to avoid {{linkrot}}.
  • Add |archiveurl= and |archivedate= to all web references in case the original referenced material ceases to be available.
  • Remove redundant accessdate information.

<ref name="">{{cite web | url= | title= | last= | first= | work= | publisher= | date= | archiveurl= | archivedate= | deadurl=no }}</ref>

  • References that include the article title, author, publication name, publisher and publication date are much more useful to readers than a bare URL. The {{cite}} template provides a simple way to add that extra information.
  • Replace web with news for newspaper references.
  • Add |format=PDF or |format=DOC after the |url= parameter where appropriate.
  • Archiving the referenced web content also preserves a separate copy just in case the original URL stops working.
  • Adding archive data to references through the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters is further aided by the fact that the Internet Archive Wayback Machine now supports on-demand archiving of content.
  • Once the original publication date and/or archivedate have been recorded, the accessdate is irrelevant and should be removed.

Similar work is needed on the majority of rail and tube station pages, but there is just too much of it for one person to tackle in a reasonable timeframe.

Any volunteers? -- ­­­­79.67.255.56 (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Farringdon 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Farringdon 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Farringdon 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Farringdon 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Screaming Spectre

[edit]

I heard Farringdon Station is (supposedly) haunted by a ghost called 'The Screaming Spectre'. Can we include that? VenomousConcept (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VenomousConcept, if you can provide a reliable source for it, then in principle yes. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digression

[edit]

The paragraphs about The Elizabeth Line (Crossrail) and 4 lines modernisation and Thameslink are not especially relevant to Farringdon and go into detail that would make more sense in separate articles about those projects/railways. 82.46.163.160 (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Surface Lines

[edit]

I think this section is not appropriate to an article on a particular station served by the SSL, but I have nevertheless undertaken a clarification.

The four so-called 'lines' of the SSL are better understood as service patterns on the SSL network. During engineering works, for example, diversionary routes are used that don't follow the usual coloured line routes, and there's no technical reason why trains shouldn't run from (say) Upminster to Uxbridge. Hypothetically, the H&C line could cease to exist - it is either sharing track the Circle (and Met) Line or the District Line (with the small exception of Aldgate <-> Liverpool Street.)

The four lines have not been grouped together for modernisation - they are a single (sub) network and where two or three "lines" are sharing track, platforms, etc, they must share a signalling system. The upgrade will of course be phased, but that can't be done in "line" based phases. 82.46.163.160 (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Farringdon_station&oldid=1201928853"