![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2020 July 22. The result of the discussion was "merge". |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2006 April 20. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
![]() | This template ( UK + GB station infoboxes) was considered for deletion on 2 March 2012. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
|
|||
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)
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)
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)
(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
I'll do that on Perry Barr railway station for illustration. Andy Mabbett 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
Thank you :) Worley-d 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Perhaps it would be more useful to link to live arrivals/departures (e.g. [2]) than to just live departures (e.g. [3]). What do others think? -- RFBailey ( talk) 11:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently, Thumperward ( talk · contribs) made some changed to this template, with the edit summary "overhauling of template code in preparation of migration to {{ infobox}}". I'm not sure of the technical aspect of what was going on here, or whether this is part of some more widespread infobox-standardisation scheme, but as far as the reader goes, all it did was to mangle the formatting making it a lot less readable. (See also this discussion.) I've therefore reverted it to the more readable version, until such time that the "overhaul" is actually an improvement to the 2000+ articles that this template appears on. -- RFBailey ( talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
headerstyle = background-color: #efefef
, and where to put it. If I have attempted to change it I would have tried to add backgound colours to each of the header lines. Without copying the template into a sandbox and experimenting for quite some time (and probably getting it wrong - probably by making an error in the data labelling renumbering).(unindent) I'm still concerned about the text size--if one compares the old version [4] to the new one [5] side-by-side, the text in the new one (e.g. in the "Place", "Local authority" fields) has clearly shrunk when compared to the old one. I'd like this to be fixed, please...... -- RFBailey ( talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is national rail linked in this template if it is only a regional service? Fasach Nua ( talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
User Fasach Nua ( talk · contribs) has moved the template to the new name of {{ Infobox GB station}} ( log entry). This now means that all 2000+ instances will now have to redirect here. Presumably if this needs to be fixed a bot should do it. Also, the documentation subpage wasn't moved (or updated to reflect the new template name): I've now fixed this. -- RFBailey ( talk) 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
"This template is intended for currently-open stations that are part of the National Rail network". Is there any reason for this? A lot of stations on preserved lines, private lines etc. use this template, and I cannot find any alternative for them. As this template seems to work perfectly well (other than categorising them into the hidden category UK stations without latest usage statistics) I suggest changing this to "This template is intended for currently-open stations that within Great Britain". Any thoughts? — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 18:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Where are the correct contents of |locale=
and |borough=
documented? There is an IP user
90.205.32.99 who is methodically altering values in |borough=
to be the county; and in several cases, also altering values in |locale=
as well, but in different fashion - I've not yet worked out the basis. I've not reverted any, just in case he's correct. When I do, I'd like to point him at the relevant doc. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the category page
Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics and noticed a few things which I think we should sort out. No major rush; just a few things that seem a bit odd. I'm guessing that this category is based on the lack of information in the {{{usage0708}}}
or something, from {{
Infobox GB station}}. But what about stations at which passenger numbers are not freely available?: for example, stations like
Barmouth Ferry; one of those that caught my eye when looking through the category above. Another that did the same was
Ballabeg (IoMR) railway station: also a heritage station, but this time one on the Isle of Man (which may be within Great Britain as a mindset, but it is not within the United Kingdom as the category, and template contents suggest). I'm not saying that the IoM should have their own railway station infobox, nor am I asking for support in developing one for UK heritage railway stations; in fact, I'm sure there's probably one out there.
Kevin Steinhardt (
talk) 11:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
My recent changes in this are intended to handle errors which may occur when the data in the fields doesn't correctly parse as a date and an error is generated. Without error handling, this produces a nasty notice at the top of these articles. Now, the template will add any such articles to a temporary maintenance category, Category:British railway stations opened in Invalid Time. Examples of when errors can occur is when the field includes a reference for the opening date as in Honley railway station.
My intention would be to leave it a few days for this category to be populated as the server updates and then assess how big an issue this might be. An option could be to move the refs from the infobox field to within the article text though I think it is wise to leave it a few days before changing anything. Adambro ( talk) 14:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
|years=1853
/|events=Opened
pair as well as a |start=4 June 1853
, or is it that one is a year only and the other a full date? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I've found where the 2010 problem comes from. In the case of Hanborough railway station, in years the year is specified as "1853". The time function {{#time:Y|{{{years}}}}} treats that as hours and changes it to 2010. (See here). I'm coming to the conclusion that it might be easier to add categories to the relevent articles directly rather than via the template. The problem is that the years and start fields may contain more than just a year or a full date, citations for example, and that means that the template would need to try to format the parameter as a year and not add the category if that fails. However, in the case of the year field, the value cannot be checked by trying to format it as a year because of how the time function treats four digit numbers so potentially the page could be categorised very strangely in a non-existent category depending on what is in the years field. Does any of this make sense to anyone? Adambro ( talk) 15:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox UK disused station}}
. I think that Beeching closed well over 2000, and a good number had been closed before then, so 5 or 6 thousand altogether? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox London station}}
, {{
Infobox Closed London station}}
and {{
Infobox UK heritage station}}
to consider. A challenge - which station holds the record for most re-openings? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)For the 2010 category I've temporarily sorted the problem by reverting to a version in August. Feel free to rollback\revert me if you have solved the problem. Simply south ( talk) 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
From my talk page:
On a related issue regarding Category:British railway stations opened in 1829 as an example, it might be better to use the format Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom opened in 1829 for consistency with Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom. British railway stations is a bit awkward and doesn't really fit nicely within the existing category structure. In the fomat Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom opened in 1829, each category could go in a new Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by year of establishment (for consistency with Category:Railway stations by year of establishment) and Category:Railway stations opened in 1829. I would welcome your thoughts on this, and I'd be happy to work with you to change this if you agreed. Adambro ( talk) 14:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed three parameters from the documentation which are unrecognised by the template as it stands; these are |years9=
, |events9=
and |tfl=
.
I've also added a (nearly) complete blank template for copy-and-paste purposes. I say nearly, because the template recognises five parameters which are undocumented; it may be that these are still in development. These five are: |logo=
, |services=
, |style=
, |style2=
and |noclear=
. The last three are ignored unless |services=
is also specified. Should these five be documented? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
As currently implemented, it is possible for up to three separate "History" headers to appear in this infobox, depending on which parameters are supplied. Shouldn't they be merged into a single section?
In any case, I feel that if you choose to use the multiple "events" and "years" parameters, it's better to specify the opening as one of the events instead of using the "start" parameter. The layout looks more consistent. So could the "start" and "starting" parameters be reformatted to look cosmetically like any other event?
Finally, any changes here should also be reflected in {{
Infobox UK disused station}}
and {{
Infobox NI station}}
. --
Dr Greg
talk 16:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It occurs to me that this template, {{
Infobox NI station}}
and {{
Infobox UK disused station}}
have a lot of similarities between them. Would it be technically possible to make all three use a common, shared sub-template to handle those elements that exist within all three infoboxes? This would make template maintenance easier, as for many changes only one sub-template will need changing instead of all three main templates. --
Dr Greg
talk 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Would it be worth adding NLC's to this template? CrossHouses ( talk) 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
|code=
parameter. These codes are useful because they may be used to construct the
Live arrivals/departures and
station information links. In what way would the NLCs be useful? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I came across an article on United Kingdom railway station categories on the categorisation of railway stations by the DfT. It gives the opportunity to identify the many unstaffed stations which I think would be useful. This could be achieved by a new optional heading under Operations - DfT Category. The heading would be a link back to the article and the category(sub-category) could be left as is or translated to the description. What do others think? Bill Oversixty ( talk) 11:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I've just added some years/events pairs to Grantham railway station (rather a lot like the example on the documentation page) - it already had a 'start' entry - and we have ended up with two 'history' headers. What's occuring? Have I done something wrong? or is it a bug?-- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 08:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
|start=
, as you mention; the second is before |starting=
, and the third is given if any one of |years=
, |original=
, |pregroup=
or |postgroup=
is present.|start=
parameter and move its date into the years/events group. Strictly speaking, when doing this it should be contained within a {{
start date}}
in order to emit the same metadata that |start=
emits. That is,
|start=1 August 1852
|years={{start date|1 August 1852}}
|events=Station opened
|years={{start date|1852|08|01|df=yes}}
{{
Infobox GB station}}
so that only one "History" header is given. If people agree, I'll take it on. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)The use of multiple annual ORR station usage statistics in this template, together with indications as to whether the figures are up or down on the previous year, implies that these figures are comparable with each other over time. This is misleading, as the method used to calculate these figures changes year-on-year. For example, looking at the infobox for Birmingham New Street railway station, you would think that the usage of the station dramatically increased between 2007/08 (17.007 million entries and exits) and 2008/09 (25.192 million). In fact, if you read page 21 of the document explaining this year's figures, you can see that 08-09 was the first year that the report included passengers travelling on tickets sold by the PTE, a huge proportion of the daily commuters using the station. In fact the two years' figures are completely incomparable. On the basis that misleading information is worse than no information, would this template be better just showing the most recent year's figures, and not trying to show trends over time? JimmyGuano ( talk) 14:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The Rail symbol, added by the symbol parameter, works as a link to Transport in London. While this is fine for London stations, it doesnt make sense for Dalmeny railway station, where I noticed it. Can the symbol be made to link to British Railways or rail transport in Great Britain, or something more appropriate instead? Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
|symbol=rail
, the link is to
National Rail and is relatively harmless: the link goes somewhere suitable, and at worst it fouls
WP:ICONDECORATION. However, it has sometimes been added by tailing extra code to the |name=
parameter, something like
|name=Dartford <big>{{
rail-interchange|london|rail}}
</big>
{{
Infobox London station}}
, not {{
Infobox GB station}}
). Those matching the latter format should be either amended to the first form (
like this) or removed entirely. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Would it be helpful if this template were to be modified to facilitate the (optional) inclusion of a
NaPTAN reference? There could be some encyclopedic benefit in doing so. Is sSuch information appears to be
[6] publicly available andbut could it be included without being contested as
original research for each station? Thanks. --
Trevj (
talk) 11:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather we did publish NaPTAN and NLC codes, as much as anything to make more people aware that such coding schemes exist. They are, for me, encyclopaedic in that they're de facto standards, in the NaPTANs case ones employed by the largest UK funder of public transport. I don't think the availability of web services associated with the codes should be a key determinant for their inclusion. As to an immediate use case, I hazard the view that a user who works with either coding system might at some point find it useful that wikipedia carries the codes; sure, that's a very minority use, but we have enough time and space to cater for these. Per Mddkpp's test if we are aiming solely at the average user, we should set about dumbing down much of wikipedia since it clearly contains much that the average user will not wish for. That's not a test I can support. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. The more we add such widely-used unique identifiers (UIDs), the better. See {{ Authority control}} for an equivalent for people & more. UIDs improve access to our content for machines, and people, and disambiguate ambiguous items. for example, OpenStreetMap also uses NaPTAN codes to identify railway station (and tram stops, bus station,, etc), and so someone would be able to verify that we and OSM are referring to the same thing. Similarly, UK government open data for public transport uses them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It did occur to me, on the train north this evening, that we might think about providing NaPTANs redirects to our articles, so as to make wikipedia UK station articles accessible by third party NaPTANs systems. I don't know if we do this for other things - we do have a lot of articles which have UIDs associated with them. Have we ever thought about the utility using the UIDs as redirects to the articles? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
It has been suggested in this merger proposal that the navbox-like links should be removed. Users of this template may wish to be aware of the proposal. - David Biddulph ( talk) 14:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The parameters usage* and lowusage* aren't defined in the documentation. An important point to discuss include at what number lowusage* becomes usage*: we currently have articles such as March railway station where the 2007/8 statistics are expressed in millions but the larger 2008/9 statistics are expressed in plain numbers. Kevin Steinhardt ( talk) 16:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
|intxxyy=
and |lowintxxyy=
are for interchange passengers. This probably includes several counts, such as the number of passengers changing from one train to another on the same system, and the number of passengers changing from one system to another, for example between National Rail and London Underground. I expect this includes the "
Plusbus" scheme, because otherwise I can't explain why
King's Lynn,
Penzance or
Uckfield (non-junction terminal stations with no nearby light rail) are shown as having 52, 22 and 7562 interchanges in 2010-11. Much more puzzling is
Altrincham, a National Rail station which is also a terminus of the Manchester tram system, which shows just 10 interchanges. The many with zero should probably be interpreted as "information not available". --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)I've created a template called Template:Infobox_GB_station_simple. It's a wrapper around this one intended to make it easier to add annual passenger counts with a consistent format.
Rather than writing (say)
|usage0506 = {{increase}} 0.291
on a page, you could write
|usage0506 = 291054
.
The template works out whether the total has gone up or down based on the previous year's figures (it doesn't show a change if the previous year's total is missing). The choice of whether to display the total as 291,054 or 0.291 million is based on a flag called 'million' (there's a million_int one for interchanges, if you're counting those).
I haven't provided a means to have some years shown as millions and some not, but I think the trends are clearer if each year uses the same format.
One thing I don't quite understand is why the image size property doesn't work quite as I intended. At first, I had
| imagesize = {{{imagesize|}}}
but it didn't pick the default size up from this template, but rather showed the image at full size. Changing it to
| imagesize = {{{imagesize|265px}}}
worked, but I don't know why I need it.
I couldn't change the existing template to work like this immediately, as the data isn't in this format. I have changed Bury St Edmunds railway station to use this template, however, largely because there were no arrows on its display. What does anyone think? Aoeuidhtns ( talk) 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
Infobox GB station}}
, which has only recently survived a
TFD; and that was a close call. Creating yet another as has been done with {{
Infobox GB station simple}}
will provide more material for those who would wish deletion upon all station infoboxes. A compromise was reached: please, let's not jeopardise it. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
{{ Infobox NI station}} and {{ Infobox Ireland station}} have both been nominated for deletion. One of the suggestions is that both be merged to this template, which would likely result in this template being moved back to {{ Infobox UK station}}. Comments on any aspect of the nomination would be appreciated. Both deleion discussions may be found here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, is it worth considering some wizardry to collapse all of the usage statistics with the exception of the most recent, or the two most recent at most? Including all of this data makes the infobox extremely long and overwhelming, and it's only going to get worse each year! Jeni ( talk) 16:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
[Reset indent] So I believe that we are agreed that [at least the historical] usage stats should be collapsed with a 'show' button - no-one has objected. Would someone who speaks templateish (looking at User:Simply south, for example), please do the needful? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It appears that there is a consensus in favour of hiding the older data (> 2 or 3 years) so if anyone knows how to edit infobox templates then they can use Template:Collapsed infobox section begin to collapse the section. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 10:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok so now I've redone the template to show the most recent two years first and then the rest of the data is collapsed. It also reads from newest to oldest. What I haven't worked out are
You can see how it looks at Template:Infobox GB station/testcases without sorting #1 out it does give odd results for places like Norton Bridge where there is no recent usage. Nthep ( talk) 15:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Here is the discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways - what are everyone's thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 18:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It would be useful to have some additional fields to record the architect and construction company for each station. Could this be considered? Andrewrabbott ( talk) 07:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that the infobox for London Underground stations contains a header (if such is the correct term, have not had much experience editing here) named "Accessible" often with a note for restrictions (e.g. in the case of Waterloo underground station); this is not present in this template. The information to cite this is available from National Rail, and some train operators who produce detailed enough documents.
I'm thinking it would be useful for this to be included here; accessibility of non London Underground stations is not consistent, in the same manner as such is not consistent for those stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inequalaccess ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
Infobox London station}}
, this data is passed in through two parameters, |access=
and |access_note=
. If |access=
is non-blank, the word "Yes" is displayed in the data cell; if |access_note=
is non-blank, its value is displayed in the data cell. Either may be omitted. If both are blank, the label "Accessible" is not displayed, and so the row is absent.{{
Infobox GB station}}
- indeed, I've made
the appropriate edit to the sandbox. But before putting it live, perhaps it should be discussed. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)The 15/16 usage statistics are now out, can someone add the parameters to this template (and the London station templates) please? Ideally if they could also add a 16/17 usage parameter then that would avoid us having this problem next year as well... Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 09:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
Infobox GB station}}
and {{
Infobox London station}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
To restart an old discussion, @ Redrose64: has said that there is generally a convention to include interchange statistics for all years. The particular station was Carnforth, which has around 10,000 interchanges a year. The infobox there is pretty messy and frankly unreadable. In the previous discussion, it was suggested to include the interchange statistics only in a collapsible form, and not by default, but no one knew how to do this and the discussion petered out. If we can't find anyone to do this, should we keep all the interchange stats or only the last year's? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 19:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox dog breed}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 19:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I see value in having interchange figures displayed for the same number of years that entry and exit figures are displayed for. Especially for stations were a significant proportion of passengers interchange (e.g. Clapham Junction railway station, Dovey Junction railway station, Newark North Gate railway station, etc) not including them would be misleading. I think interleaving is slightly preferable to having a separate group as it keeps the figures which relate to the same period together. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I suggest a compromise, where stations with fewer than (say) 10,000 interchanges do not have the figures listed, stations with between 10,000 and 100,000 only have the last year listed and those with more than 100,000 interchanges have the full figures listed (ideally as a collapsible or separate list). Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 19:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so looks like most people are happy with interchange stats under 10% of passenger numbers to not be included. I'll start removing some of the stats which fall into this category (for all years). If some years are and some aren't, I'm happy for them all to be included if the majority are over 10%. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 23:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Redrose64:, you managed to create the page Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics 1718 which was very useful for seeing which stations still needed updated usage statistics. However, the remaining articles in that list are all either proposed stations or user talk pages or other articles which don't actually require updated usage statistics. Is it possible to have a category defined by stations without usage stats for 17/18, but which do have stats for 16/17? This would then give a list of only those stations which needed to be updated. Of course, as far as I can see, there are none left to update, so this would only be useful next year. Merry Christmas by the way! Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 22:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
After seeing this edit I found my way to WikiProject UK Railways and then to this talk page in the hope of starting a discussion about the practice of commenting out old station usage figures. I can see from further up that the topic has come up before. The issue is that as station usage figures are released each year and added to infoboxes, these infoboxes grow ever longer. We can comment out all but the last few years but this seems an odd thing to do: it makes the figures totally invisible to readers, as if we have changed our minds about them being encyclopaedic, but leaves them in for editors, as if we are not quite convinced we should get rid of them. Surely the answer is a collapsible [show] link in the infobox. It looks like this was proposed but never implemented. Is there a way it could be implemented now? Beorhtwulf ( talk) 20:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
MOS:YEARRANGE specifies the use of a dash between years in a range (e.g. 1993–94), but this template uses a slash (e.g. 1993/94). Is there a reason that a slash is used here instead of following MOS? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
A change on 28 September has apparently deleted some of the functionality, such as the links to "Live arrivals/departures, station information and onward connections from National Rail Enquiries". The change doesn't seem to have been discussed here, so I'll revert yesterday's change until it is explained or corrected. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 08:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
user|ProcrastinatingReader}}
makes a link to a user page, and since it was in a new post that I also signed, it also sent a notification. Two,
my question was placed directly below a comment made by yourself, and since you were the principal contributor to that whole section I naturally assumed that you were watching that page and no notification on that page should have been necessary. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The new wrapper version of this template displays "United Kingdom" as part of the location, which I think is helpful, but it does so only if one or both of |locale=
or |borough=
are populated. Since this template is only for stations in the UK, I don't know that there should be an if statement that governs that country name display. Someone who knows more about the edge case uses of this template may be able to determine whether the infobox should simply show "United Kingdom" in all articles.
In any event, given this new de facto requirement, I have added a tracking category,
Category:UK stations with missing location, for articles with neither |locale=
nor |borough=
defined. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2020 July 22. The result of the discussion was "merge". |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2006 April 20. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
![]() | This template ( UK + GB station infoboxes) was considered for deletion on 2 March 2012. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
|
|||
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)
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)
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)
(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
I'll do that on Perry Barr railway station for illustration. Andy Mabbett 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
Thank you :) Worley-d 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Perhaps it would be more useful to link to live arrivals/departures (e.g. [2]) than to just live departures (e.g. [3]). What do others think? -- RFBailey ( talk) 11:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently, Thumperward ( talk · contribs) made some changed to this template, with the edit summary "overhauling of template code in preparation of migration to {{ infobox}}". I'm not sure of the technical aspect of what was going on here, or whether this is part of some more widespread infobox-standardisation scheme, but as far as the reader goes, all it did was to mangle the formatting making it a lot less readable. (See also this discussion.) I've therefore reverted it to the more readable version, until such time that the "overhaul" is actually an improvement to the 2000+ articles that this template appears on. -- RFBailey ( talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
headerstyle = background-color: #efefef
, and where to put it. If I have attempted to change it I would have tried to add backgound colours to each of the header lines. Without copying the template into a sandbox and experimenting for quite some time (and probably getting it wrong - probably by making an error in the data labelling renumbering).(unindent) I'm still concerned about the text size--if one compares the old version [4] to the new one [5] side-by-side, the text in the new one (e.g. in the "Place", "Local authority" fields) has clearly shrunk when compared to the old one. I'd like this to be fixed, please...... -- RFBailey ( talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is national rail linked in this template if it is only a regional service? Fasach Nua ( talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
User Fasach Nua ( talk · contribs) has moved the template to the new name of {{ Infobox GB station}} ( log entry). This now means that all 2000+ instances will now have to redirect here. Presumably if this needs to be fixed a bot should do it. Also, the documentation subpage wasn't moved (or updated to reflect the new template name): I've now fixed this. -- RFBailey ( talk) 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
"This template is intended for currently-open stations that are part of the National Rail network". Is there any reason for this? A lot of stations on preserved lines, private lines etc. use this template, and I cannot find any alternative for them. As this template seems to work perfectly well (other than categorising them into the hidden category UK stations without latest usage statistics) I suggest changing this to "This template is intended for currently-open stations that within Great Britain". Any thoughts? — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 18:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Where are the correct contents of |locale=
and |borough=
documented? There is an IP user
90.205.32.99 who is methodically altering values in |borough=
to be the county; and in several cases, also altering values in |locale=
as well, but in different fashion - I've not yet worked out the basis. I've not reverted any, just in case he's correct. When I do, I'd like to point him at the relevant doc. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the category page
Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics and noticed a few things which I think we should sort out. No major rush; just a few things that seem a bit odd. I'm guessing that this category is based on the lack of information in the {{{usage0708}}}
or something, from {{
Infobox GB station}}. But what about stations at which passenger numbers are not freely available?: for example, stations like
Barmouth Ferry; one of those that caught my eye when looking through the category above. Another that did the same was
Ballabeg (IoMR) railway station: also a heritage station, but this time one on the Isle of Man (which may be within Great Britain as a mindset, but it is not within the United Kingdom as the category, and template contents suggest). I'm not saying that the IoM should have their own railway station infobox, nor am I asking for support in developing one for UK heritage railway stations; in fact, I'm sure there's probably one out there.
Kevin Steinhardt (
talk) 11:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
My recent changes in this are intended to handle errors which may occur when the data in the fields doesn't correctly parse as a date and an error is generated. Without error handling, this produces a nasty notice at the top of these articles. Now, the template will add any such articles to a temporary maintenance category, Category:British railway stations opened in Invalid Time. Examples of when errors can occur is when the field includes a reference for the opening date as in Honley railway station.
My intention would be to leave it a few days for this category to be populated as the server updates and then assess how big an issue this might be. An option could be to move the refs from the infobox field to within the article text though I think it is wise to leave it a few days before changing anything. Adambro ( talk) 14:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
|years=1853
/|events=Opened
pair as well as a |start=4 June 1853
, or is it that one is a year only and the other a full date? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I've found where the 2010 problem comes from. In the case of Hanborough railway station, in years the year is specified as "1853". The time function {{#time:Y|{{{years}}}}} treats that as hours and changes it to 2010. (See here). I'm coming to the conclusion that it might be easier to add categories to the relevent articles directly rather than via the template. The problem is that the years and start fields may contain more than just a year or a full date, citations for example, and that means that the template would need to try to format the parameter as a year and not add the category if that fails. However, in the case of the year field, the value cannot be checked by trying to format it as a year because of how the time function treats four digit numbers so potentially the page could be categorised very strangely in a non-existent category depending on what is in the years field. Does any of this make sense to anyone? Adambro ( talk) 15:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox UK disused station}}
. I think that Beeching closed well over 2000, and a good number had been closed before then, so 5 or 6 thousand altogether? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox London station}}
, {{
Infobox Closed London station}}
and {{
Infobox UK heritage station}}
to consider. A challenge - which station holds the record for most re-openings? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)For the 2010 category I've temporarily sorted the problem by reverting to a version in August. Feel free to rollback\revert me if you have solved the problem. Simply south ( talk) 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
From my talk page:
On a related issue regarding Category:British railway stations opened in 1829 as an example, it might be better to use the format Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom opened in 1829 for consistency with Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom. British railway stations is a bit awkward and doesn't really fit nicely within the existing category structure. In the fomat Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom opened in 1829, each category could go in a new Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by year of establishment (for consistency with Category:Railway stations by year of establishment) and Category:Railway stations opened in 1829. I would welcome your thoughts on this, and I'd be happy to work with you to change this if you agreed. Adambro ( talk) 14:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed three parameters from the documentation which are unrecognised by the template as it stands; these are |years9=
, |events9=
and |tfl=
.
I've also added a (nearly) complete blank template for copy-and-paste purposes. I say nearly, because the template recognises five parameters which are undocumented; it may be that these are still in development. These five are: |logo=
, |services=
, |style=
, |style2=
and |noclear=
. The last three are ignored unless |services=
is also specified. Should these five be documented? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
As currently implemented, it is possible for up to three separate "History" headers to appear in this infobox, depending on which parameters are supplied. Shouldn't they be merged into a single section?
In any case, I feel that if you choose to use the multiple "events" and "years" parameters, it's better to specify the opening as one of the events instead of using the "start" parameter. The layout looks more consistent. So could the "start" and "starting" parameters be reformatted to look cosmetically like any other event?
Finally, any changes here should also be reflected in {{
Infobox UK disused station}}
and {{
Infobox NI station}}
. --
Dr Greg
talk 16:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It occurs to me that this template, {{
Infobox NI station}}
and {{
Infobox UK disused station}}
have a lot of similarities between them. Would it be technically possible to make all three use a common, shared sub-template to handle those elements that exist within all three infoboxes? This would make template maintenance easier, as for many changes only one sub-template will need changing instead of all three main templates. --
Dr Greg
talk 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Would it be worth adding NLC's to this template? CrossHouses ( talk) 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
|code=
parameter. These codes are useful because they may be used to construct the
Live arrivals/departures and
station information links. In what way would the NLCs be useful? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I came across an article on United Kingdom railway station categories on the categorisation of railway stations by the DfT. It gives the opportunity to identify the many unstaffed stations which I think would be useful. This could be achieved by a new optional heading under Operations - DfT Category. The heading would be a link back to the article and the category(sub-category) could be left as is or translated to the description. What do others think? Bill Oversixty ( talk) 11:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I've just added some years/events pairs to Grantham railway station (rather a lot like the example on the documentation page) - it already had a 'start' entry - and we have ended up with two 'history' headers. What's occuring? Have I done something wrong? or is it a bug?-- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 08:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
|start=
, as you mention; the second is before |starting=
, and the third is given if any one of |years=
, |original=
, |pregroup=
or |postgroup=
is present.|start=
parameter and move its date into the years/events group. Strictly speaking, when doing this it should be contained within a {{
start date}}
in order to emit the same metadata that |start=
emits. That is,
|start=1 August 1852
|years={{start date|1 August 1852}}
|events=Station opened
|years={{start date|1852|08|01|df=yes}}
{{
Infobox GB station}}
so that only one "History" header is given. If people agree, I'll take it on. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)The use of multiple annual ORR station usage statistics in this template, together with indications as to whether the figures are up or down on the previous year, implies that these figures are comparable with each other over time. This is misleading, as the method used to calculate these figures changes year-on-year. For example, looking at the infobox for Birmingham New Street railway station, you would think that the usage of the station dramatically increased between 2007/08 (17.007 million entries and exits) and 2008/09 (25.192 million). In fact, if you read page 21 of the document explaining this year's figures, you can see that 08-09 was the first year that the report included passengers travelling on tickets sold by the PTE, a huge proportion of the daily commuters using the station. In fact the two years' figures are completely incomparable. On the basis that misleading information is worse than no information, would this template be better just showing the most recent year's figures, and not trying to show trends over time? JimmyGuano ( talk) 14:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The Rail symbol, added by the symbol parameter, works as a link to Transport in London. While this is fine for London stations, it doesnt make sense for Dalmeny railway station, where I noticed it. Can the symbol be made to link to British Railways or rail transport in Great Britain, or something more appropriate instead? Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
|symbol=rail
, the link is to
National Rail and is relatively harmless: the link goes somewhere suitable, and at worst it fouls
WP:ICONDECORATION. However, it has sometimes been added by tailing extra code to the |name=
parameter, something like
|name=Dartford <big>{{
rail-interchange|london|rail}}
</big>
{{
Infobox London station}}
, not {{
Infobox GB station}}
). Those matching the latter format should be either amended to the first form (
like this) or removed entirely. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Would it be helpful if this template were to be modified to facilitate the (optional) inclusion of a
NaPTAN reference? There could be some encyclopedic benefit in doing so. Is sSuch information appears to be
[6] publicly available andbut could it be included without being contested as
original research for each station? Thanks. --
Trevj (
talk) 11:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather we did publish NaPTAN and NLC codes, as much as anything to make more people aware that such coding schemes exist. They are, for me, encyclopaedic in that they're de facto standards, in the NaPTANs case ones employed by the largest UK funder of public transport. I don't think the availability of web services associated with the codes should be a key determinant for their inclusion. As to an immediate use case, I hazard the view that a user who works with either coding system might at some point find it useful that wikipedia carries the codes; sure, that's a very minority use, but we have enough time and space to cater for these. Per Mddkpp's test if we are aiming solely at the average user, we should set about dumbing down much of wikipedia since it clearly contains much that the average user will not wish for. That's not a test I can support. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. The more we add such widely-used unique identifiers (UIDs), the better. See {{ Authority control}} for an equivalent for people & more. UIDs improve access to our content for machines, and people, and disambiguate ambiguous items. for example, OpenStreetMap also uses NaPTAN codes to identify railway station (and tram stops, bus station,, etc), and so someone would be able to verify that we and OSM are referring to the same thing. Similarly, UK government open data for public transport uses them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It did occur to me, on the train north this evening, that we might think about providing NaPTANs redirects to our articles, so as to make wikipedia UK station articles accessible by third party NaPTANs systems. I don't know if we do this for other things - we do have a lot of articles which have UIDs associated with them. Have we ever thought about the utility using the UIDs as redirects to the articles? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
It has been suggested in this merger proposal that the navbox-like links should be removed. Users of this template may wish to be aware of the proposal. - David Biddulph ( talk) 14:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The parameters usage* and lowusage* aren't defined in the documentation. An important point to discuss include at what number lowusage* becomes usage*: we currently have articles such as March railway station where the 2007/8 statistics are expressed in millions but the larger 2008/9 statistics are expressed in plain numbers. Kevin Steinhardt ( talk) 16:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
|intxxyy=
and |lowintxxyy=
are for interchange passengers. This probably includes several counts, such as the number of passengers changing from one train to another on the same system, and the number of passengers changing from one system to another, for example between National Rail and London Underground. I expect this includes the "
Plusbus" scheme, because otherwise I can't explain why
King's Lynn,
Penzance or
Uckfield (non-junction terminal stations with no nearby light rail) are shown as having 52, 22 and 7562 interchanges in 2010-11. Much more puzzling is
Altrincham, a National Rail station which is also a terminus of the Manchester tram system, which shows just 10 interchanges. The many with zero should probably be interpreted as "information not available". --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)I've created a template called Template:Infobox_GB_station_simple. It's a wrapper around this one intended to make it easier to add annual passenger counts with a consistent format.
Rather than writing (say)
|usage0506 = {{increase}} 0.291
on a page, you could write
|usage0506 = 291054
.
The template works out whether the total has gone up or down based on the previous year's figures (it doesn't show a change if the previous year's total is missing). The choice of whether to display the total as 291,054 or 0.291 million is based on a flag called 'million' (there's a million_int one for interchanges, if you're counting those).
I haven't provided a means to have some years shown as millions and some not, but I think the trends are clearer if each year uses the same format.
One thing I don't quite understand is why the image size property doesn't work quite as I intended. At first, I had
| imagesize = {{{imagesize|}}}
but it didn't pick the default size up from this template, but rather showed the image at full size. Changing it to
| imagesize = {{{imagesize|265px}}}
worked, but I don't know why I need it.
I couldn't change the existing template to work like this immediately, as the data isn't in this format. I have changed Bury St Edmunds railway station to use this template, however, largely because there were no arrows on its display. What does anyone think? Aoeuidhtns ( talk) 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
Infobox GB station}}
, which has only recently survived a
TFD; and that was a close call. Creating yet another as has been done with {{
Infobox GB station simple}}
will provide more material for those who would wish deletion upon all station infoboxes. A compromise was reached: please, let's not jeopardise it. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
{{ Infobox NI station}} and {{ Infobox Ireland station}} have both been nominated for deletion. One of the suggestions is that both be merged to this template, which would likely result in this template being moved back to {{ Infobox UK station}}. Comments on any aspect of the nomination would be appreciated. Both deleion discussions may be found here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, is it worth considering some wizardry to collapse all of the usage statistics with the exception of the most recent, or the two most recent at most? Including all of this data makes the infobox extremely long and overwhelming, and it's only going to get worse each year! Jeni ( talk) 16:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
[Reset indent] So I believe that we are agreed that [at least the historical] usage stats should be collapsed with a 'show' button - no-one has objected. Would someone who speaks templateish (looking at User:Simply south, for example), please do the needful? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It appears that there is a consensus in favour of hiding the older data (> 2 or 3 years) so if anyone knows how to edit infobox templates then they can use Template:Collapsed infobox section begin to collapse the section. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 10:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok so now I've redone the template to show the most recent two years first and then the rest of the data is collapsed. It also reads from newest to oldest. What I haven't worked out are
You can see how it looks at Template:Infobox GB station/testcases without sorting #1 out it does give odd results for places like Norton Bridge where there is no recent usage. Nthep ( talk) 15:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Here is the discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways - what are everyone's thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 18:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It would be useful to have some additional fields to record the architect and construction company for each station. Could this be considered? Andrewrabbott ( talk) 07:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that the infobox for London Underground stations contains a header (if such is the correct term, have not had much experience editing here) named "Accessible" often with a note for restrictions (e.g. in the case of Waterloo underground station); this is not present in this template. The information to cite this is available from National Rail, and some train operators who produce detailed enough documents.
I'm thinking it would be useful for this to be included here; accessibility of non London Underground stations is not consistent, in the same manner as such is not consistent for those stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inequalaccess ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
Infobox London station}}
, this data is passed in through two parameters, |access=
and |access_note=
. If |access=
is non-blank, the word "Yes" is displayed in the data cell; if |access_note=
is non-blank, its value is displayed in the data cell. Either may be omitted. If both are blank, the label "Accessible" is not displayed, and so the row is absent.{{
Infobox GB station}}
- indeed, I've made
the appropriate edit to the sandbox. But before putting it live, perhaps it should be discussed. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)The 15/16 usage statistics are now out, can someone add the parameters to this template (and the London station templates) please? Ideally if they could also add a 16/17 usage parameter then that would avoid us having this problem next year as well... Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 09:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
Infobox GB station}}
and {{
Infobox London station}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
To restart an old discussion, @ Redrose64: has said that there is generally a convention to include interchange statistics for all years. The particular station was Carnforth, which has around 10,000 interchanges a year. The infobox there is pretty messy and frankly unreadable. In the previous discussion, it was suggested to include the interchange statistics only in a collapsible form, and not by default, but no one knew how to do this and the discussion petered out. If we can't find anyone to do this, should we keep all the interchange stats or only the last year's? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 19:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox dog breed}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 19:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I see value in having interchange figures displayed for the same number of years that entry and exit figures are displayed for. Especially for stations were a significant proportion of passengers interchange (e.g. Clapham Junction railway station, Dovey Junction railway station, Newark North Gate railway station, etc) not including them would be misleading. I think interleaving is slightly preferable to having a separate group as it keeps the figures which relate to the same period together. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I suggest a compromise, where stations with fewer than (say) 10,000 interchanges do not have the figures listed, stations with between 10,000 and 100,000 only have the last year listed and those with more than 100,000 interchanges have the full figures listed (ideally as a collapsible or separate list). Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 19:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so looks like most people are happy with interchange stats under 10% of passenger numbers to not be included. I'll start removing some of the stats which fall into this category (for all years). If some years are and some aren't, I'm happy for them all to be included if the majority are over 10%. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 23:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Redrose64:, you managed to create the page Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics 1718 which was very useful for seeing which stations still needed updated usage statistics. However, the remaining articles in that list are all either proposed stations or user talk pages or other articles which don't actually require updated usage statistics. Is it possible to have a category defined by stations without usage stats for 17/18, but which do have stats for 16/17? This would then give a list of only those stations which needed to be updated. Of course, as far as I can see, there are none left to update, so this would only be useful next year. Merry Christmas by the way! Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 22:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
After seeing this edit I found my way to WikiProject UK Railways and then to this talk page in the hope of starting a discussion about the practice of commenting out old station usage figures. I can see from further up that the topic has come up before. The issue is that as station usage figures are released each year and added to infoboxes, these infoboxes grow ever longer. We can comment out all but the last few years but this seems an odd thing to do: it makes the figures totally invisible to readers, as if we have changed our minds about them being encyclopaedic, but leaves them in for editors, as if we are not quite convinced we should get rid of them. Surely the answer is a collapsible [show] link in the infobox. It looks like this was proposed but never implemented. Is there a way it could be implemented now? Beorhtwulf ( talk) 20:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
MOS:YEARRANGE specifies the use of a dash between years in a range (e.g. 1993–94), but this template uses a slash (e.g. 1993/94). Is there a reason that a slash is used here instead of following MOS? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
A change on 28 September has apparently deleted some of the functionality, such as the links to "Live arrivals/departures, station information and onward connections from National Rail Enquiries". The change doesn't seem to have been discussed here, so I'll revert yesterday's change until it is explained or corrected. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 08:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
user|ProcrastinatingReader}}
makes a link to a user page, and since it was in a new post that I also signed, it also sent a notification. Two,
my question was placed directly below a comment made by yourself, and since you were the principal contributor to that whole section I naturally assumed that you were watching that page and no notification on that page should have been necessary. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The new wrapper version of this template displays "United Kingdom" as part of the location, which I think is helpful, but it does so only if one or both of |locale=
or |borough=
are populated. Since this template is only for stations in the UK, I don't know that there should be an if statement that governs that country name display. Someone who knows more about the edge case uses of this template may be able to determine whether the infobox should simply show "United Kingdom" in all articles.
In any event, given this new de facto requirement, I have added a tracking category,
Category:UK stations with missing location, for articles with neither |locale=
nor |borough=
defined. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)