Template talk:Infobox UK station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Template This page is a template and does not require a rating on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stations.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2006 April 20. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Archived talk

[edit] Birmingham New Street

What goes wrong on this article? MRSC 22:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The same issue that forced the change in template design for {{infobox country}} and {{infobox city}} occurs for pretty much every template that has a title outside the main box. Due to technical reasons which I don't pretend to understand, the titled text invariably becomes hidden underneath the actual infobox, and worse still if the text wraps onto a second line then half the text is completely lost. Moving the title into the infobox has been used on countless templates now in order to avoid this issue because it is a clean, fast, simple solution. Simple practicalities should always take preference over pinickity style concerns, hence the precendent of infobox country, city, uk county etc. etc. Obviously I am not about to break WP:3RR, but I would ask that you take the opportunity to revert your own edit and save the trouble. DJR (T) 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The trouble is that this is an ad-hoc and not a systematic change and there are countless UK templates that use the standard style outside the box. The infobox city and country had this problem so it was the right thing to do there, but the other UK templates do not appear to have this restriction. MRSC 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree there are countless other templates using the outside-the-box style, but if there has to be a standard then it has to be a standard that works for all. Putting the title within the box seems, touch wood, to provide a solution that works when a problem arises. All I can say is that every template I see with an exterior title, I try to correct - the way I see it every single one has the potential to go wrong under the old format, so it seems to make sense to use a foolproof-standard rather than one that is liable to cause issues. DJR (T) 11:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This needs to be discussed somewhere more general than here so it can be applied generally if there is consensus. There are still countless other templates that use that style and looking at the bigger picture it would be better to have consistency. Furthermore, I am yet to see any evidence that the problem that occurred on the city/country infobox occurs here. MRSC 19:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Your two points seem incompatible. The problem has occurred with the city/country infobox, and was rectified. If there is going to be consistency, then consistency is surely going to have to take the rectified form, is it not? Furthermore, even if there is no issue with individual templates, there is always the potential for the issue to arise. When there is a solution already implemented in many templates, in seems senseless to stick to an old format just because other templates still use it. The fact that consensus was reached on all of these templates suggests that there is acceptance that this is the way forward... and by extension the simplest way to resolve this issue once and for all is to change each template one by one. Finally, this particular template (UK station) does have an issue - the Birmingham New Street example has overlapping the same way as "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" did using {{infobox country}}. I really don't think it's fair that some users (such as myself and everyone using common computers at my university) should be penalised just because other users cannot see a problem for themselves. It shouldn't matter whether you can see the problem - the fact that the problem can arise is more than enough reason to change it. DJR (T) 19:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you not think it would be better discuss this somewhere more general, say the UK noticeboard, to get some more input. This could be with a view to further standardisation and user envolvement. I don't understand why you resist this. MRSC 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
What/why exactly are you accusing me of resisting? I'd appreciate it if you assumed good faith for once and stopped talking to me as if I'm some sort of subordinate. If you're suggesting I don't support wider involvement then I think you've been reading another discussion. All I'm saying is that a simple solution has already been implemented in several instances, and given that nothing of any importance is actually being changed, WP:BB is quite clear that changes should just be made. It must be borne in mind that nothing is actually being changed - it is simple formatting corrections. DJR (T) 21:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I am suggesting that it would be better to effect a change from the top-down instead of changing only those templates you locate. There are hundreds of them on here. More importantly, Template:Infobox, the generic infobox template many new infoboxes will be based on, uses the style that you are trying to replace. A discussion, say on that template's talk page, could effect a system-wide change that others could participate in and provide a consistent look-and-feel or perhaps find a solution to the technical problem you have encountered. I don't think this is unreasonable to suggest moving this discussion there as this is hardly the forum for discussion on general infobox style changes.
As an aside, I don't understand why you have reacted to my calm and frank comments about content and suggestion for wider discussion with such an emotional and provocative reply. MRSC 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree that wider discussions would be better - I have never disagreed. If this is what you meant by "I don't understand why you resist this" then presumably you've made a wrong assumption somewhere. All I would like to say is that all of my edits did not involve significant changes - in fact they were minor edits. All were made in good faith so that users with my browser/settings including myself could benefit from the consistency of the new format on more pages. While I appreciate discussions can happen, they can happen without needlessly reverting several edits that, ultimately, does no good to anyone. DJR (T) 00:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. As far as I can tell, Template talk:Infobox would be a good place for you to suggest your change to the generic standard and generate some discussion with a view to its acceptance. MRSC 06:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bilingual station names

Most stations in Wales, many in Scotland and Southall station in London have names in two languages (Welsh, Gaelic, Punjabi). In most cases these names are shown in the infobox with the English names, but there is no standard formatting - compare Mallaig railway station, Swansea railway station, Cardiff Bay railway station, Severn Tunnel Junction railway station and Southall railway station, and there are probably other formattings as well.

The template's name field is also used in the text at the bottom of the template about usage figures, which can be very messy when there are foreign language names.

What I suggest is that we add a new optional field to the template: "other_name", which using Swansea as an example would give:

|name = Swansea
|other_name = Abertawe

We should agree how we want this formatted. I think it should be slightly smaller (<small>), italicised and on a second line without brackets - i.e. like Mallaig railway station and Cardiff Queen Street railway station articles do it.

I will implement this in about a week if there are no objections. Thryduulf 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I support Thryduulf's suggestion. (Might italics be a bit tricky with the Punjabi one though?) --RFBailey 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah this seems like a sensible solution. The English name should always take precedence given that this is an English Wikipedia, but it makes sense to create an optional field for an alternate name. DJR (T) 00:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Simply south 00:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Go with the italics on the template as described. If, after rolling out on a few boxes, it doesn't look right the template can easily be tweaked. MRSC • Talk 06:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re italics for Punjabi, under the proposed formatting it would appear as on the left. An alternative would be to colour the alternate names green, as is done on the signs. The third option makes the altnerate names small and green, but not italicised.

Southall
ਸਾਊਥਹਾਲ
Swansea
Abertawe
Southall
ਸਾਊਥਹਾਲ
Swansea
Abertawe
Southall
ਸਾਊਥਹਾਲ
Swansea
Abertawe

Which style to people prefer? I think my favourite is actually small and green without italics, but I'm not set on this. (note I've made the boxes slightly narrower to fit side-by-side here) Thryduulf 09:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Another example to consider is that of country infoboxes, as you can see on Luxembourg. Three other languages are shown for the subject name on that page (included via one parameter in the infobox and separated by <br> tags); they put the alternate translations in italics above the English name. Looking at the samples here, though, I would prefer small italics in black below the name. Slambo (Speak) 11:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Are there any UK stations with more than one non-English names? If there are I think putting all of them on the other_name parameter would be fine. The reason for the two parameters is name is used again in a sentence at the bottom of the template. Thryduulf 16:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
They all look fine to me. I'm wary of colour as there may be accessibility issues. MRSC • Talk 07:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point about the accessibility of colours. I'll implement the field with small black italic formatting. Thryduulf 13:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thryduulf has asked me to come here and check that the Punjabi rendition of Southall is correct. I can confirm that it is. Regards, Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Thryduulf 13:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Small italics black? Whats wrong with bold italics? In Wales, the welsh name is ust as, perhaps even more, common. 13:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, so the English language name is the most prominent. Thryduulf 12:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Depends where you are, some parts of North Wales, Welsh is the first language of the locals, English is secondary - yes this is an English (language) encyclopedia but thats the main name of the local area - probably would help if we had a local to give us a better take on that area. Pickle 21:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
How do we define objectively which is the most common? Swansea/Abertawe serves areas that are predominantly English speaking and other areas that are predominantly Welsh. Also, there are stations like Dovery Junction/Cyffordd Dyfi that are nowhere near a population centre from which to gain stats. We need consistency for all stations.Thryduulf 00:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant template usage

I noticed that there are a number of stations that have the template:UKrailwaystations and the Template:Infobox UK station templates which seems redundant, since both of them have an alpha directory of stations, I started removing template:UKrailwaystations from those stations that have both templates, but I fear I might have done the wrong thing. Should I continue, leave as is, or revert my changes? I've changed around 20 articles (using AWB) --ArmadilloFromHell 04:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I remember the intention was to replace the UKrailwaystations box with Infobox UK station. So it was the right thing to do. 06:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well its not totally redundant as it is used in the other templates so it can't be got rid of (possibly yet). Simply south 14:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree, there are a lot of places where only the smaller template is used, I was not planning on changing any of those, only the ones where both are present. In fact some of the ones I changed looked downright ugly, with the small alpha bar hanging in the middle of the article instead of being at the bottom. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I've run AdambroBot through all instances where both the infobox and {{UK railway stations}} were present and removed Template:UK railway stations. 335 edits were made. Adambro 13:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Copied from User_talk:MRSC: I note that you have removed the dates from the table in Template:Infobox UK station. This can cause confusion at stations such as Oban railway station. I suggest that the dates are re-instated, however I suggest that consideration of the disclaimer is more appropriate. Stewart 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the other editor who removed the dates from the template. These are clearly given in the disclaimers and it was otherwise clutter. In the case of Oban etc. there is no confusion as the * and ** tell us what is going on. MRSC • Talk 07:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that there is clutter, however in the case of Oban, etc, I would suggest the multiple disclaimers create clutter as well. Is there a way that the Template can be revised to keep the disclaimer, whilst de-cluttering it. Maybe what I am asking is a review of layout of the Station Entries/Exits and the associated disclaimers, possibly before another set of figures are published. Maybe a separate section in the info box devoted to usage figures, concluded by a generic disclaimer which can pick up the relevant disclaimer link, for the figures being entered. Unfortunately this is beyond my level of knowledge in coding #if statements at present. Thoughts, etc...... Stewart 10:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Start' field, and optional 'served by' field

Hi, what is the status of the 'start' field in this template? Is it now deprecated in favour of years / events? If so, could the proper syntax for more than one event per station be shown above in the syntax section, please?
I also wonder whether the template should have an optional 'served by' field for stations where more than one TOC calls. Obviously this would need to cope with multiple TOCs. (As an aside, it would also make explicit those stations where the TOC that manages the station doesn't actually have any of its own trains call there!) Is this possible, and would people support the idea?
Cheers Rushey Platt 11:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea. With regards to the stations operated by a TOC but with no services buy that TOC, that amounts to I think, 3 stations at the moment, 1 First ScotRail (Lockerbie) which used to be the only station in this situation, but IIRC, there's a couple of Northern Rail stations now in the same situation. It might be an idea to add in the route box which normally sits at the bottom on many pages into the infobox to simplify the structure of the page, reducing the number of templates on each page. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Re the Lockerbie etc. there are a number of these examples at the small stations between Norwich and Peterborough, but that's by the by!
I agree about simplifying the structure of templates. For example, my local station at Waltham Cross has 3 templates which looks quite crowded, but the next station to the south, Enfield Lock, has 5 templates as it's in London. I don't quite see why London should not use the national info box, with options to suit. What do others think? -- Rushey Platt 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage data

I've proposed that only the latest usage data is included, over at WikiProject UK Railways and would welcome comments on this. If this proposal were to be adopted, I would suggest retaining the 0405 part of the variable names (lowexits0405 or exits0405) in this template to ensure the correct disclaimer is displayed.

On a similar note, there seems to be a mixture of 'exits' and 'usage' within the template and I'm not sure as to the reason for this. Whilst 'usage' would be a more accurate description of the data, it doesn't seem very widely used and also requires 'stats' to be set to yes in order to get the discliamer. This puts the disclaimer part way through the infobox which I don't think looks as good as having it at the end. I'm going to try to find how much 'usage' is used and will change it to exits and remove it from the template if it seems appropriate. Adambro 15:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and make the changes to move over to the more common 'exits' variable as it doesn't seem to effect too many pages. I'm also removing the old data as per my comments at WikiProject UK Railways. Adambro 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've searched for uses of the 'stats' field and changed them to the more common format. I've removed the stats/usage fields from the template in favour of the more common 'exits' format, and I've updated the info on how to use the template on this talk page. This hopefully all makes for simpler and more consistent station articles. Adambro 16:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think your boldness whilst well intentioned was in the wrong direction. Moving of the disclaimer to a more appropriate which another editor has done was probably a more appropriate way forward. As regards changing all the stations you found - one step to far. a single figure from the latest year available does not give a story. Consider books in railway lines (on their rise and fall) - and for that matter stations - they include tables of usage to illustrate the lead up to closure, or the justification for expansion. To my mind this is classic encyclopedic information.
Whether is should be located in the side infobox, or in a newly designed template elsewhere in the article is another issue. Maybe some of the other editors that have argued the pros and cons of the usage data should give their views. 202.82.32.177 12:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I would accept that the question about what usage stats to include is open to debate, I'm not sure how the other change I made can be questioned. That being to move from 'usage' to 'exits'. 'exits' is far more common, and while it isn't a completely accurate description of the data, I've suggested its probably better to stick to it because its use is the most widespread. The change you have made to revert back the edits I made have made the template more complicated without any advantage being gained. I will however, consider working through station articles changing them to 'usage' if other editors feel it is more appropriate. This will be a greater task than going the other way around, but as I've accepted 'usage' is a better description of the data. It would requiring working through the 1744 uses of the template and changing most of them.
I must suggest though that this seems to be a somewhat pointless exercise, considering the limited use of 'usage'. A solution needs to be found to this, having both 'usage' and 'exits' is unnecessary.
Now regarding, what stats to include, which as I've accepted is appropriate for discussion, I don't think having two years data is necessary. As I've already mentioned, the data is of limited accuracy to start off with, and then there is the difference between the methods used to consider. Adambro 14:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, then I would suggest that we revert to "exits" but in the format that is currently given in the template - i.e. with the year in the left. I have adjusted to template to suit. 202.82.32.177 06:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Checked it with several stations in England, Wales and Scotland and appears to be working. 202.82.32.177 06:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Further to this discussion, I've now set about standardising to 'usage' with the help of some robots. Usage is a better description of the parameter. This change will allow the template to be simplified and hence make it easier to maintain. I'm tracking the usage of the various parameters, and will remove them from the template once they are unused. Adambro 17:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The Station usage information for 2005/6 has been published on the ORR website. I have made an adjustment to the infobox template to allow for an extra set of data as usage0506 and lowusage0506 as with previous years figures. I am prepared to start uploading information from stations. Not sure, does anyone else want to do this? As previously discussed would we include only the information from the current year? RobinsonP 20:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Disclaimer logic also now adjusted. My feeling is that we are now getting into the realms of being able to discern trends. My preference will be when adding this data to keep the previous data. The prose will identify significant events which will describe the reasons for major changes - including service changes. --Stewart 00:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a) an article on Wikipedia that can be linked to that explains what these statistics mean and b) a better name that can be used? On Dorking West the "usage" is being reported as 29 passengers in 2004-2005 when it's actually "29 tickets specifically for Dorking West sold in 2004-2004" - this is because of the way tickets for station groups (in this case Dorking, Dorking Deepdene and Dorking West) are sold as valid to all stations in the group (and so are technically for "Dorking stations" not an individual one):

Any return sold at the station itself - allocated to that station (but if I remember correctly Dorking West doesn't have a ticket machine - tickets are brought on the train)
Any ticket sold at a station on a direct route to one and one only of the stations - allocated to that station (again meaningless because Deepdene is on the same line)
Tickets sold at other stations - just allocated to the main station in the group (here Dorking)

As it's near impossible to get a ticket for "Dorking West" itself, it doesn't register well on the statistics. I think it's counter intuitive for Wikipedia to present ticket sales data as indicative of "usage". Timrollpickering 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

From what i can infer from all of this, is that its the most up to date means and readily accessible means of giving an indication of how busy a station is. One needs to make the distinction between a major London terminus with millions of passengers and the obscure halt for ramblers up a mountain in Scotland. of course there is a very large caveat on the statics and the Dorking example is good one. Thus in principle IMHO we should keep the data. Pickle 13:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates and hCard microformat

Can we add coordinates (lat/ long) and/ or OS grid ref to this, please?

Also the hCard microformat (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microformats). I can advise on the required mark-up, but I'm not familiar with template code editing. Andy Mabbett 11:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've considered doing this for a while and have being doing some work in my sandbox. I've added a latitude and longitude field which allow the coordinates to be displayed using the Coor title d template at the head of the page with links to map sources. See Dinsdale railway station for an example of this in operation.
A point about the precision, I think going to three decimal places is adequate.
I'm not familar with the hCard format or how to implement it on Wikipedia so would appreciate any advice Andy, but I will work to familiarise myself with it. Adambro 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Thank you. That looks fine; three decimal places seems adequate. Please see Template talk:Coor dms#Geo microformat for news of a revised "coor" template, which will add the necessary markup for a geo microformat; itself one component of hCard. No point in reinventing the wheel!

Otherwise:

  • Change table class="infobox" to table class="infobox vcard"
  • Change
<td><a href="/wiki/Middleton_St_George" title="Middleton St George">Middleton St George</a></td>
to
<td class="adr"><a href="/wiki/Middleton_St_George" class="locality" title="Middleton St George">Middleton St George</a></td>
  • Change:
<a href="..." class="external text" title="..." rel="nofollow">DND</a>
to:
<a href="..." class="external text url" title="..." rel="nofollow">DND</a>
  • Add class="photo" to the <img>, if present.

That should do for now; there are some issues about marking up such tables, which I'm discussing on the microformats developers list.

Eventually, we'll want the lat & long inside the "vcard" class. Could the coordinates and infobox be wrapped in a div?

Incidentally, wouldn't the links in {{stn art lnk|DND|DL21DX}} go better in the infobox?

Cheers, Andy Mabbett 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sill digesting? ;-) Andy Mabbett 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal link

I think "UK Rail(way) Portal" would mean more to overseas visitors and younger people than "BR Portal". Can it be changed, please? Andy Mabbett 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an error in the "BR Portal" template which actually points to "UK Railway Portal". I think the change needs to be done there (at Template:BRPortalframeless). --Stewart 23:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ta. Done! Andy Mabbett 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Former names

Is it worth including former names (or does the "years" feature cater for renaming - trouble is, we may not know the date of name change)? Andy Mabbett 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the "years" feature caters for this. A series of question marks (or equivalent) can be added with a fact tag. I am sure someone else will be able to add the date. --Stewart 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links from Template:stn art lnk

Continuing Andy Mabbett's point above about the links from {{stn art lnk}}, the suggestion to incoporate these links into this infobox was made in the recent deletion discussion about that template (which was an overwhelming vote to keep it).

In that discussion, one point I made was that the existing link from the station code in this template isn't particularly obvious what it links to (or why "Code" should be an external link). I've made this modified version in my user space (see here for an example of its usage). If no-one objects, I'll change the infobox to this version. (My only gripe about it is the external links being in bold: does anyone know how to fix this?)

However, I still think that we should keep {{stn art lnk}} in the external links section, as external links are what it provides, and that is where they properly belong (I also think they're very useful!). --RFBailey 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly gets a thumbs up from me. Makes it much clear for the reader. As per your comments I've changed the links to not bold, hope you don't mind me meddling in your user space. Let me know if that is how you intended it to look.
Regarding {{stn art lnk}}, if there was an easy way to go from the postcodes to coordinates to populate the field in the infobox, I'd say this could be made redundant. I can't see such a way though so still think it's worth keeping for the map links it provides. Adambro 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Looks good. I've added the current version to your example page, for ease of comparison. I think, perhaps, "Station information" needs better link text - the whole thing is "Station information"! Suggestions? I've recently been adding some additional location details to station articles (e.g. [[Hamstead railway station), giving road names. I'm beginning to wonder whether we shouldn't give full postal addresses. Come tio think of it, you could save space by not having "code" on a separate line - put it after the station name, or the operating company, or such like/ Andy Mabbett 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement! The non-bold links are what I intended (although I'd prefer a better separator than –: any more suggestions?). Regarding the "Station information" link: maybe change the line to "Live departures and station information from National Rail". Also, I'd rather leave "code" as a separate line: other people's previous attempts at putting it elsewhere failed miserably. --RFBailey 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"eNdash" is for separating runs ("open 9-5"); try eMdash; but I like your sentence wording more. Better, perhaps if "station information from National Rail" is all part of one link? NRE have the code after the station name, in brackets "Leatherhead (LHD)" The postcode-linked maps, from MultiMap, are awful compared to Streetmap or Google. Andy Mabbett 20:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not have "station information from National Rail" as one link, as National Rail is the target of both the links. Also, I'm sticking by my comment about where the code should go: putting it after the station name at the top of the infobox (was this your suggestion?) would give it undue prominence, I think. Finally, the merits of the map links from {{stn art lnk}} are probably best discussed on its own talk page, rather than here. --RFBailey 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Like it - this will also need to be migrated into the various regional templates (London and Strathclyde - although the Strathclyde one is now gradually moving back, with the introduction of the Glasgow Subway template. Adambro is handling a fair bot of these changes and I would value his view. --Stewart 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Adambro is on a wikibreak. Andy Mabbett 09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, we need a bot to copy the station code from {{stn art lnk}} to {{Infobox UK station}} Andy Mabbett 11:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Former companies

What about entries for the building - and subsequent - companies? Perry Barr railway station, for example, went GJR- LNWR - LMS. Andy Mabbett 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather this was discussed in the "history" section of an article, rather than summarised in the infobox: it might be quite long for some stations. I'm also concerned about the amount of historical information in some cases of the use of this infobox: see Dorking railway station for a rather extreme example. --RFBailey 20:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by that (the Dorking example), but what about just "former Big Four allegiance" or some such? Or a small logo indicating the same? Andy Mabbett 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
We went this way for Cambuslang and Rutherglen. The latter has now been simplified with information being moved into the text, following message of dissent from a third party. Some of the Scottish Historic Stations have long lists. --Stewart 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't see what you're referring to, on either of those pages. Andy Mabbett 08:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, I now think there should be just one or two entries; original owner and big four owner; so for my Perry Barr example we would list GJR and LMS. For Tyseley railway station, just GWR. Andy Mabbett 08:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should respect that many editors will want to include a some what long list of past station owners, and further consultation would be needed. This will of course depend on the station article, many are stubs, with just infoboxes and rail line/s-line infoboxes, others are really good article where this will be needed. Pickle 12:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My preference would be to keep this as prose in the article text, otherwise, we risk devaluing the infobox by overwhelming the reader with information. Adambro 13:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I do't see how people would be "overwhelmed" by this; but perhaps a compromise is to have the 'opened' date in the infobox say

1838 Opened by Grand Junction Railway

I'll do that on Perry Barr railway station for illustration. Andy Mabbett 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine, maybe I misunderstood the proposal. I was suggesting that we don't list every company that has owned the station in the infobox to avoid it getting too lengthy. Adambro 13:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought you were on a break?!? ;-) I suggested "just one or two entries; original owner and big four owner", which Id still prefer as discrete taxobox options. Andy Mabbett 14:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate links

We've now got two links to National Rail in the template, one with the "live departures" link and one above the A-Z index (example: Perry Barr railway station). Andy Mabbett 10:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is still an issue. Andy Mabbett 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much of a problem it is myself but I think if we were to remove one it should be the one with the station info links. I suppose it could be unlinked as opposed to completely removed. Adambro 21:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the National Rail link on the live departures/station information line. --RFBailey 11:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disused stations

I tried using this template on Dudley railway station, but it doesn't really fit. Is there an alternative, for disused stations, or should this template be amended to fit them? Andy Mabbett 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is {{Infobox Scotland disused station}} which looks like it could be expanded to cover the United Kingdom. I've asked the creator about doing this (see User talk:Dreamer84) and they seem to welcome the idea so I'd suggest you participate in the discussion there. As I understand it, there isn't much that would need to be changed. Adambro 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage notes links

I'm wondering whether we actually need the links to the usage notes for the station usage figures as both years are linked from the source link. Adambro 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Template Modifications

Recent changes have introduced features that I do not understand, for example Classes "vcard", "fn", "org" and "label" are used by the hCard microformat. Can I suggest that some user notes are added, for those of us who are not up to speed with this syntax. --Stewart 21:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done that; how does it read? Andy Mabbett 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved documentation

I've moved the documentation to {{Infobox UK station/doc}} and included that in the template itself, as done elsewhere. Andy Mabbett 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Co-ordinates

If possible, could the co-ordinates be put in line with the other information, rather than floating to the right of the station name (see Arram for example. – Tivedshambo (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed this, though it may be preferable to put it in the places section (at present it floats above the image). I've also added the option of using OSGB grid reference co-ordinates instead of lat-lon. – Tivedshambo (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Co-ordinates and OSGB grid-ref are now both in the Location section of the infobox. Apparently the lat/long co-ordinates should not be replaced (if they already exist) by OSGB in the template, for technical reasons, but there is no reason why they cannot both be used. Presumably like quoting distances in miles, kilometres or both. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I completely understand your changes. Coordinates are by standard located in the top right hand corner of pages, I'd rather we stick with the standard so readers will know where to look for them. Which regard to the OS grid references, I'm don't think including these are necessary. If readers want to know the grid reference, and I doubt many will, they can follow the link from the coords which takes them to a page with the coords in different formats in addition to the different map sources. Adambro 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I believe OSGB references are more useful than lat/long for British locations. Remember that Wikipedia articles may be printed. It is far easier to locate a place on OS maps (by far the most popular type of large scale map in UK) than with its geographical counterpart.
As far as location of the co-ordinates are concerned, what standard are we talking about? I've seen them used in various positions in articles: sometimes at the top, sometimes at the bottom, and sometimes in-line. – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, good points, I guess OSGB references can be useful to readers. As you say, it is certainly easier to find a point on an OS map using a grid reference than using geographical coordinates.
Regarding a "standard", apologies, I'm certainly not aware of any policies or guidelines on this issue, more that is my perception as to what the conventional location of coordinates in articles is, however, I would agree this does vary a fair amount.
As you've only recently added the field to the template, I expect inclusion of grid references is quite low at the moment. Would you be able to point me in the direction of an article which uses it so I can look at the layout. Cheers. Adambro 13:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Anything on the north side of the Birmingham Cross-City Line, e.g. Erdington. I intend to do other stations in due course. – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a de facto standard of putting coordinates at the top of an article to which they relate (as opposed to when there's more than one set on a page). The old coor at templates, and {{coord}}, which replaces them, have the option of displaying coordinates in-line and in the title. I've just updated T's edits to make use of this, which should satisfy everyone. It shouldn't matter where in sequence of infobox mark-up they occur; they can be shown in-line at the point, or not, but always in the title bar. Andy Mabbett 13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Tivedshambo, that looks fine. Andy's recent edit seems to provide a good solution. It might be considered duplication but I'd point out that the coords at the top of the page are very small and unobtrusive. Adambro 14:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(back-tab) - Doesn't appear correctly for me, I'm afraid. I've left a message for you, Andy, as I think it may be due to the skin I'm using (classic). Could other users try looking at it in classic skin and see if it works for them or not. – Tivedshambo (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Not just you. I've just tried it using classic and find the same problem. Also, having the coords both inline and at the top right gives me two locations using the Operator extension for Firefox. I think it might be worth going back to just having it in the infobox until the issue can be resolved. Adambro
I'll do some testing with Classic. The double occurrence in Operator is not a bug, though it's something that Operator might fix in the future, by dropping duplicates on one page (which are valid, otherwise). Andy Mabbett 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've asked Quarl, who made coord,` to fix it. Andy Mabbett 16:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It now seems to work in Classic. – Tivedshambo (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Quarl did some magic with it - he's pretty good at responding, quickly to such issues. Andy Mabbett 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
For me the coordinates at the top now seem to 'stick' whereever the initially load on the page, eg. if I resize the page after loading, the coordinates disappear off the screen, when before they would move with the infobox. Hope that makes sense. They are also stuck in the article title's 'line' slightly. Using IE7. --Dreamer84 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There also seems to be a problem with Google Earth compatibility. Although the coordinates links on the pages display the same way at the top right of the page as those which use the standard {{coord}} template they aren't picked up by Google Earth. Compare, for example, Meadowhall which uses the infobox with Brightside which uses {{coor title dms|etc}}. Talltim (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S-rail

I see that Geoking66 has added code to the template to allow both "rail line" and "s-rail" navigation boxes to be moved to the infobox.

a) personally style wise i don't like it but the Americans have been doing it for ages so what the hell... I would ask Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways first though for a style POV. Especailly considering the the trend on longer article to move the nav box with the "services" part of the article.

b) may i recommend you be very careful in "rolling out" "s-rail" like you have done on Stoke-on-Trent railway station. when it was first rolled out int he UK, place like the tube, dlr, tyne and wear, Manchester metro link, etc all adopted it but UK railways didn't. a certain individual objected significantly resulting in several mini edit wars. after some talk (on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways) consensus was not achieved, thus "rail line" was maintained and s-rail not allowed on to UK railways.... - don't say i didn't warn you.

Pickle 12:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with the template

Using the new events system, no distinction is made between the PTE section by adding a "History" sub-heading as was the previous case.

See Bescot Stadium railway station to see what I mean. Worley-d 21:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem: 'years' and 'events' must be used for the first event to make the History sub-header appear, rather than 'years1' and 'events1'. --Dreamer84 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) Worley-d 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transport for London

User:Mark999 has added tfl and zone fields to the template. There is an existing zone field, which is now resulting in double displays - see Tipton railway station --Stewart (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted his changes so that the matter can be discussed: I suspect this is something to do with his rather enigmatic comment here. --RFBailey 15:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am slowly working towards merging the London infobox into this one but will try to ensure that any disruption is kept to a minimum. It is a significant task and not something which can be rushed into. I hope that taking a more considered approach to this is welcomed. Adambro (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image Width

I have noticed that there are a number of different widths being applied to images. A number of us within WP:TIS have been using 265px as the optimum width that uses the maximum width without rescaling (widdening) the infobox. Recent discussion with User:Nick who had been been setting these to 250px has made me realise that there is not really a standard width. User:Nick has suggested that a width could be hardcoded into the infobox. This would make life easier and all the infoboxes look the same; a medium border - with a 250px width; or a minimum border - with a 265px. Then there is the decision of a suitable width for the few portrait images that exist, and those that are not a standard aspect ratio. Thoughts? --Stewart (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hardcoding the width into the infobox is a good idea (although I'm not entirely sure how to go about it, I'm sure there must be more to it that just adding 'width=265px' to the image line). As one of the fellow "265ers" I'd opt for that size. I'd probably suggest that one width be used for everything, the portrait photos aren't too bad, for all the handful that there are. --Dreamer84 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be quite happy to go along with the 265px for all the boxes too. I wasn't actually aware there was an agreed upon size for the Scottish stations. We would need a bot (or a few volunteers, which might be the best option) to swap from the present image syntax of image=[[Image:Example.png|265px|blurb]] to something simple like image=Image:Example.png or image=example.png, with the template having the size hard coded in. There's a couple of ways to do this, it should be possible to have the template compatible with both formats of image at the moment, we can gradually swap them over and then when the bulk of the templates are done, simply remove the old code from the template, leaving the new streamlined code to do all of the work. Given that nobody has objected and we're not seeing a mass reversion of image sizes on the template, it looks like the image size of 265px isn't going to upset or annoy anybody, and on that basis, I'll give it a few more days, but will make some changes towards the end of the week. Nick (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
A fixed width is fine (and 265px seems a sensible one), provided that all images used are that width or wider, otherwise the image gets stretched and looks messy. On the off-chance that there is such an image used, perhaps a "narrowimage" field should be implemented to allow for this situation. I think there are templates with such a field, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. --RFBailey (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
265px seems a sensible size but is this such a big problem as to justify changing the template. Every instance where this is used on articles will have to be changed. Seems a load of edits for not a great deal of gain. Whether it's 250px, 265px, 300px, or whatever, I don't think it matters too much. Consistency is great but I'm not sure a few pixels difference here and there really justifies the thousands of edits which would be required. Don't get me wrong, this is a better way of doing things though. Perhaps rather than replacing image= with a new format, add a image_name= option so that this can begin to be used whilst maintaining backwards compatibility until such time as some other changes related to this template are required to justify the large number of edits. Adambro (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been bold and added a new field, as suggested by Adambro, called 'image_name', hard coded to 265px. It seems to work as seen at Saltcoats railway station. This new code only requires "Imagename.jpg" to work, without any square brackets or the "Image:" prefix. --Dreamer84 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This is probably a dumb question but will it also work with images that are not .jpg ? Simply south (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep shouldn't be a problem, I just used jpg as an example. ;) --Dreamer84 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status

This may be a useful addition. Adding status to the infobox so to show Whther it is open, closed, proposed, being planned, under construction etc. What do others think? Simply south (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, we should only be using this for open stations. There is already {{Infobox Closed London station}} which could perhaps be adapted to provide {{Infobox Closed UK station}} or some such thing. --RFBailey (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There has already been a {{Infobox UK disused station}} infobox for that purpose for some time now. --- Dreamer 84 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I forgot about that one..... --RFBailey (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree though that since this template should only be used for open stations, a 'status' field is really redundant. If the template is used for proposed/under construction stations, I think the History section would be the best place to note the station's current status. --- Dreamer 84 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, just a thought. Probably events and years will suffice. Simply south (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you could have "|years=2009 |events=Proposed opening date", for instance. --RFBailey (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Transport Partnerships (Scotland)

Should the template also take account of the presence of Regional Transport Partnerships in Scotland, including the readdressing of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport from a PTE to a RTP? Jacqueline2008 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Postcodes

Could a postcode be displayed for railway stations? I know this might be arguably too much information / duplicated on national rail site etc but doesn't seem an unencyclopedic thing to add, particularly because postcodes are arguably more often used by people for navigation than OS grid references (e.g. on a satnav unit, or when searching for locality information on the internet). Just a thought but would be interested whether anyone else could find it useful. 87.113.20.140 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Providing you can get them accurate! Railway stations are rarely written to (give or take a big regional station where the relevant complaints manager is based) and I suspect many will not be 100% sure of their postcodes. The Royal Mail will not find it difficult to deliver the mail to the station anyway so the wrong post code can easily linger without correction and the problem only discovered when someone tries to get the location on an electronic map. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Too right! I have been trying to get BT to install lines for CCTV at some South Yorkshire stations recently and even National Rail can't get them right (see Goldthorpe http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/goe/details.html, the postcode given is halfway to Mexborough and in fact further away than the next station (Bolton on Dearne), it was only by ringing Northern Rail that I found it was S63 9BS). However that's not a vote against the suggestion Talltim (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
When we used to use {{stn art lnk}} as our way of providing map links on station articles, we used the postcode for this to link to Multimap. On lists such as UK railway stations - A, the postcodes are given for all stations (presumably obtained from the station information pages on www.nationalrail.co.uk, such as [1]). These are usually accurate, as far as I know. So the data is out there.
However, actually including the postcode in the infobox might be adding extra clutter to it: they're full enough as it is. That's the real issue we should be discussing here. --RFBailey (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)