Template talk:Infobox GB station/Archive 3

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)

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, 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.

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   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)

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) -- Armadillo From Hell 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. -- Armadillo From Hell 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)

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)

'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)

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)

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

Also the hCard microformat (see 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 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 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  to
 * Change




 * to




 * Change:




 * to:




 * Add  to the , 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 go better in the infobox?

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


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

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)

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)