This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm not sure that the station code needs to be included so prominently. The three-letter station codes are nowhere near as widely used as the IATA airport codes. Perhaps an alternative place in the infobox could be found for them. -- RFBailey 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Found three infoboxes that supercede this as a better (in my opinion) version these are Template:Infobox UK medium railway station Template:Infobox UK minor railway station and Template:Infobox UK major railway station. Your thoughts would be appreciated thanks. Danny 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC).
Three points. First, I presume that the annual entry/exit statistics are drawn from this document (an Excel spreadsheet). Is the correct usage to add together the figures in the entry and exit columns?
Second, I still think that uniformly presenting the annual usage in the millions is fine for busy stations, but absurd for quieter stations. (For instance, Gainsborough Central railway station would have an entry of 0.000008 million if the statistics are to be believed!) For, say, less than 100,000, I suggest we should just put in the figure.
Third, these statistics do carry a number of flaws with them, such as:
I appreciate that it would be hard to find a better set of statistics, but perhaps we should find some way of linking (internally or externally) to some sort of disclaimer. -- RFBailey 11:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
e.g. 300,000 [2], Is this against the rules? I think as regards disclaimer for stats this is a good idea as not all station have the infobox, so for all stations except those with the i/box the disclaimer would be irrelevant if added as per Mrsteviec's suggestion, DannyM 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we progress the issue about the disclaimer please? I have just had to explain the reason for the distorted numbers to a user at Talk:Manchester Victoria station, and I am sure if one person asks there must be plenty more who have thought the question but haven't asked it. I would insert the disclaimer myself, but I would like your input on how to proceed before I make a hash of things. Thanks. Road Wizard 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The two templates - the infobox and the alpha-index - are valid on exactly the same pages. Wouldn't it make sense to add the alpha-index to the infobox? The same would go for Template:UK stations PTE.
I'm not suggesting deleting the index - it would still be valid on pages which don't yet have an infobox. Mtpt 17:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
{{{image}}} | |
---|---|
Management | |
Managed by | {{{manager}}} |
Location | |
Place | {{{locale}}} |
Local authority | {{{borough}}} |
Statistics | |
Annual entry/exit | {{{exits}}} million * |
Platforms in use | {{{platforms}}} |
History | |
Key dates | Opened {{{start}}} |
* based on sales of tickets in 2002/03 financial year which end or originate at {{{name}}}. Disclaimer (PDF) | |
National Rail | |
UK railway stations | |
Building on what MRSC has done by way of optional elements, I've bashed together this template which suppresses any empty field or unused element - such as the footnote disclaimer - and includes an optional Transport for London link (as this is the only really distinct element of Template:London_stations). It allows all the functionality of the existing three templates in one. Two examples below based on Liverpool Lime Street. Comments? Mtpt 12:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Location | |
---|---|
Place | Liverpool |
Local authority | Liverpool |
Operations | |
Managed by | Network Rail |
Owned by | Network Rail |
Platforms in use | 9 + 1 underground |
Annual entry/exit | 11.141 million * |
* based on sales of tickets in 2002/03 financial year which end or originate at Liverpool Lime Street. Disclaimer (PDF) | |
Passenger Transport Executive | |
PTE | Merseytravel |
Zone | C/E |
History | |
1833 1836 1849 1959 |
Begun Opened Current building First electrified |
National Rail - UK railway stations | |
Location | |
---|---|
Place | {{{locale}}} |
Local authority | Liverpool |
Operations | |
Managed by | Network Rail |
Owned by | Network Rail |
Platforms in use | 9 + 1 underground |
Passenger Transport Executive | |
PTE | Merseytravel |
History | |
Key dates | Opened 1836 |
National Rail - UK railway stations | |
I've made a small change to Mtpt's new version: I've moved the heading back outside of the "box". I think it looks better there.
I'd prefer it if the station code and number of platforms came after the location description: I think they deserve precedence. Incidentally, if the station code is to remain, we should take it out of the {{ stn art lnk}} template. -- RFBailey 19:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Comment above about removing station code from {{ stn art lnk}}. See here for a revision of the infobox which incorporates the National Rail and Multimap Links. Mtpt 16:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
On a different subject, the "Owned by" field doesn't seem necessary: Network Rail own practically all the stations in Great Britain (save for a few run by London Underground). -- RFBailey 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There is now an update to the usage stats for the 2004-2005 period. Station usage 2004-05. Simply south 21:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think this document on the notes of 2004-05 should be used as disclaimer? Simply south 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Copied from Mrsteviec's page
Its good that there is an update now. Anyway there is a slight problem in that when people are updating the stats, they are now coming out at for example 7.123 people or 18.958 people etc, without the million part. This happen only at some stations before corrected. Simply south 11:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorted by Mrsteviec. Simply south 13:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Recent comment from Erath to my reversion of the image at Partick station has led to me to play with a copy of the template. I had added the thumb parameter to the image to get the caption as there were links in the caption.
I have had a go see what you think at User:Pencefn/Sandbox2 with a copy of the template modified at Template:Pencefn/Sandbox1.
I have also underlined the two in-box headings to differentiate them from the caption.
Comments please - Pencefn 22:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm not sure that the station code needs to be included so prominently. The three-letter station codes are nowhere near as widely used as the IATA airport codes. Perhaps an alternative place in the infobox could be found for them. -- RFBailey 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Found three infoboxes that supercede this as a better (in my opinion) version these are Template:Infobox UK medium railway station Template:Infobox UK minor railway station and Template:Infobox UK major railway station. Your thoughts would be appreciated thanks. Danny 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC).
Three points. First, I presume that the annual entry/exit statistics are drawn from this document (an Excel spreadsheet). Is the correct usage to add together the figures in the entry and exit columns?
Second, I still think that uniformly presenting the annual usage in the millions is fine for busy stations, but absurd for quieter stations. (For instance, Gainsborough Central railway station would have an entry of 0.000008 million if the statistics are to be believed!) For, say, less than 100,000, I suggest we should just put in the figure.
Third, these statistics do carry a number of flaws with them, such as:
I appreciate that it would be hard to find a better set of statistics, but perhaps we should find some way of linking (internally or externally) to some sort of disclaimer. -- RFBailey 11:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
e.g. 300,000 [2], Is this against the rules? I think as regards disclaimer for stats this is a good idea as not all station have the infobox, so for all stations except those with the i/box the disclaimer would be irrelevant if added as per Mrsteviec's suggestion, DannyM 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we progress the issue about the disclaimer please? I have just had to explain the reason for the distorted numbers to a user at Talk:Manchester Victoria station, and I am sure if one person asks there must be plenty more who have thought the question but haven't asked it. I would insert the disclaimer myself, but I would like your input on how to proceed before I make a hash of things. Thanks. Road Wizard 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The two templates - the infobox and the alpha-index - are valid on exactly the same pages. Wouldn't it make sense to add the alpha-index to the infobox? The same would go for Template:UK stations PTE.
I'm not suggesting deleting the index - it would still be valid on pages which don't yet have an infobox. Mtpt 17:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
{{{image}}} | |
---|---|
Management | |
Managed by | {{{manager}}} |
Location | |
Place | {{{locale}}} |
Local authority | {{{borough}}} |
Statistics | |
Annual entry/exit | {{{exits}}} million * |
Platforms in use | {{{platforms}}} |
History | |
Key dates | Opened {{{start}}} |
* based on sales of tickets in 2002/03 financial year which end or originate at {{{name}}}. Disclaimer (PDF) | |
National Rail | |
UK railway stations | |
Building on what MRSC has done by way of optional elements, I've bashed together this template which suppresses any empty field or unused element - such as the footnote disclaimer - and includes an optional Transport for London link (as this is the only really distinct element of Template:London_stations). It allows all the functionality of the existing three templates in one. Two examples below based on Liverpool Lime Street. Comments? Mtpt 12:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Location | |
---|---|
Place | Liverpool |
Local authority | Liverpool |
Operations | |
Managed by | Network Rail |
Owned by | Network Rail |
Platforms in use | 9 + 1 underground |
Annual entry/exit | 11.141 million * |
* based on sales of tickets in 2002/03 financial year which end or originate at Liverpool Lime Street. Disclaimer (PDF) | |
Passenger Transport Executive | |
PTE | Merseytravel |
Zone | C/E |
History | |
1833 1836 1849 1959 |
Begun Opened Current building First electrified |
National Rail - UK railway stations | |
Location | |
---|---|
Place | {{{locale}}} |
Local authority | Liverpool |
Operations | |
Managed by | Network Rail |
Owned by | Network Rail |
Platforms in use | 9 + 1 underground |
Passenger Transport Executive | |
PTE | Merseytravel |
History | |
Key dates | Opened 1836 |
National Rail - UK railway stations | |
I've made a small change to Mtpt's new version: I've moved the heading back outside of the "box". I think it looks better there.
I'd prefer it if the station code and number of platforms came after the location description: I think they deserve precedence. Incidentally, if the station code is to remain, we should take it out of the {{ stn art lnk}} template. -- RFBailey 19:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Comment above about removing station code from {{ stn art lnk}}. See here for a revision of the infobox which incorporates the National Rail and Multimap Links. Mtpt 16:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
On a different subject, the "Owned by" field doesn't seem necessary: Network Rail own practically all the stations in Great Britain (save for a few run by London Underground). -- RFBailey 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There is now an update to the usage stats for the 2004-2005 period. Station usage 2004-05. Simply south 21:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think this document on the notes of 2004-05 should be used as disclaimer? Simply south 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Copied from Mrsteviec's page
Its good that there is an update now. Anyway there is a slight problem in that when people are updating the stats, they are now coming out at for example 7.123 people or 18.958 people etc, without the million part. This happen only at some stations before corrected. Simply south 11:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorted by Mrsteviec. Simply south 13:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Recent comment from Erath to my reversion of the image at Partick station has led to me to play with a copy of the template. I had added the thumb parameter to the image to get the caption as there were links in the caption.
I have had a go see what you think at User:Pencefn/Sandbox2 with a copy of the template modified at Template:Pencefn/Sandbox1.
I have also underlined the two in-box headings to differentiate them from the caption.
Comments please - Pencefn 22:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)