Talk:Kensington (Olympia) station

Text asking for a move removed now it has happened.

article name

Should this be at Kensington Olympia station? The station name only has brackets on the tube map, and since it is managed by Silverlink (who are the primary users) shouldn't the name be what they call (and National Rail call it) rather than what one of the minority users (LUL) call it? Thryduulf 23:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

motorail

Should this section be deleted, or at least changed, since motorail no longer operates? Badgerific 11:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Kensington (Olympia) station → Kensington Olympia station — Brackets only appear on the Tube map. Majority of official sources (Network Rail documents, the National Rail Timetable, station signage itself - at one point a huge banner across the footbridge) omit them. —90.203.45.244 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. It seems likely that the brackets are there just because of the tube map. The common name would most probably omit them. No significant edit history at the target name, incidentally. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Opening date?

This article, though written with some elegance and redundancy, is rather thin on history. The only mention of a date of opening is "1864" in the box. Borley & Kidner's "The West London Railway and the W.L.E.R." gives 27 May 1844 for the opening of Kensington station on the north south side of the Hammersmith Road. That seems to be near Kensington Olympia station. Is 1864 erroneous?--SilasW (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The 1844 "Kensington" station was open for only 6 months or so. Then in 1862 an "Addison Road" station opened to the north of Hammersmith Road, according to the London Rail Atlas, J, Brown (Ian Allan, 2009). "Addison Road" station became "Kensington (Olympia)" in 1946 after a period of closure from 1940. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Kensington (Olympia)

The name (Olympia) is that signed at the station, and isn't a case of it just appearing in the Tube map (as discussed in 2007 - see above). In fact, it appears on the National Rail "London Connections" map as (Olympia). Also, this is the name it was given as early as 1946, as it appears as such in the "London Railway Atlas" by Joe Brown (Ian Allan Publishing, 2009). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Image:Kensington Olympia stn Overground signage.JPG and Image:Kensington Olympia stn Underground signage.JPG. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(Yes I know I didn't use brackets when naming my photos - but's another matter!)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kensington (Olympia) 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/3749781.Train_services_from_Brighton_withdrawn/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1s76.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605014339/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmenvtra/89/8906.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmenvtra/89/8906.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 21:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kensington (Olympia) station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amakuru (talk · contribs) 10:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Getting started on this now.
• Initial comment - Earwig reports a somewhat high match to the disused stations page at [1]. For example these two sentences are almost identical:
  • The link to the Great Western Main Line at North Pole Junction, 3 miles (4.8 km) to the north, avoiding Paddington station, meant that the station was to play an important role in the Cold War should a nuclear exchange have seemed likely. (from the article)
  • The link to the Great Western Main Line (at North Pole Junction, three miles to the north), avoiding the western central London terminus of Paddington station, meant that the station was to play an important role in the Cold War should a nuclear exchange have seemed likely. (from disused stations)

  @Ritchie333: Please could you have a look through and fix the examples Earwig finds so that they aren't so closely matched?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

  Hmmm, must have missed that. Anyway, I've done a sweep and Earwig is now reporting a more healthy 22.5%, with snippets of prose I can't think of writing any other way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   • it became the preferred embarkation point for US Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II - embarking for where? This could maybe do with a bit more clarity as to what he used the station for.

     Done, it was a less conspicuous place to visit Welsh troops in the run up to D Day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

   • The second and third pararaphs of the "Decline" service could maybe be tidied up a little for clarity. For example:
     • Was the service to Clapham Junction a new one on a new line, or had there been something like that before?

       It had been running on / off since 1862 - added Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

     • What timeframe does the the third paragraph deal with?

       Reworded so this makes a bit more sense Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

     • The part about the post office workers at the end of the third paragraph feels like repetition from their mention in the second. Maybe combine this aspect into one piece of prose.

       Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

   • the inter-regional services from the Midlands and northern England were increased in frequency and now stopped at the station - I don't think these inter-regional services were mentioned before. Last we heard the station only saw an occasional service to Clapham Junction and Earl's Court. "Now stopped at the station" could probably be worded better too.

     Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

   • There were two bay platforms on the south-eastern side mainly used by services from Clapham Junction - when?

     This is now dealt with above, the platforms existed from the 1862 re-opening until closure in 1983. I've taken some photos of the allotments today, which I'll upload in a mo. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   • The station was bombed during World War II and subsequently closed as it was felt uneconomical to repair - it might be useful to say who felt it was uneconomical to repair, so this isn't an unsupported attribution.

     The source (Davies & Grant 1983 p. 120) merely says "... a shuttle from Edgware Road to Addison Road, which ceased after the link line sustained severe bomb damage in World War II and was not considered worthy of re-instatement". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

   • "Olympia exhibition centre" is sentence case in the lede and title case in the body. It is also referred to as "Earls Court Olympia" in the Motorail section (assuming that's the same thing).

     Earl's Court and Olympia are two separate exhibition centres about 0.75 miles apart. "Olympia exhibition centre" should be sentence case, as "exhibition centre" is not part of its name.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

     You'll be hard pushed to find Earl's Court these days as it's a pile of rubble. The official name (as appeared on tannoy announcements today) appears to be "Olympia London". As Ehrenkater says, there's no such thing as Earl's Court Olympia Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   • "Page 5". Subbrit.org.uk. Retrieved 2 July 2011. - the title should not be "Page 5", it should be the name of the document, and it is also not clear where to look, since the page is apparently arranged in "Files" and sections rather than page numbers.

     Formatted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   • "The station is located alongside the namesake Olympia Exhibition Centre" and "The station's name is drawn from its location in Kensington and the adjacent Olympia exhibition centre" - could do with a citation for (a) the fact that the two are next to each other (I don't see the exhibition centre on the map source), and (b) that the station is named after the exhibition centre.
   • "Russell Road and Olympia Way respectively" - this is also not obvious from the map source, which only shows Russell Road on the K&C side - H&F streets are not marked. And what does the respectively refer to? Is it two platforms, or does it mean the two boroughs respectively?

     Any decent map will show that the station is next to the exhibition centre and will also show Olympia Way on the west side of the line. I agree that "respectively" needs clarification; presumably it means two platforms.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

     I've dropped in a National Rail map. Russell Road is on one side of the station; Olympia Way is on the other. The footbridge is segregated, allowing you to walk from one street to the other without having to pass through ticket barriers. I've expanded the "name / location" section to emphasise this; it does look a bit confusing that you can walk across the railway without having to pass through a ticket barrier at first glance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   • Some discussion of the station infrastructure and platform layout might be useful. Otherwise it seems to cover the main topic areas.

     I've added a basic outline of what platform takes you where. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Ritchie333: I have finished my first look at the article. Points are in the sections above. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

   @Amakuru: Okay, I think I've addressed everything above, one way or another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

   Ok, thanks mate. I'll have another look soon.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

   • I've had another look at this, and now satisfied that all the points have been addressed, so passing the GA. Well done, good work! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

   • Thanks for the review and your help improving the article, this was a tricky one to get there and required some "on the ground" research just to make sure I'd got everything!

The external links are to the National Rail website, despite the caption saying they are TfL. This is an appropriate TfL link https://tfl.gov.uk/hub/stop/HUBKPA/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.163.160 (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)