Template talk:Infobox station/Archive 2

Edit request on 26 January 2015
Add this to the bottom, above :




 * data311    =


 * header321  =


 * data331    =

These changes have been tested in the sandbox and include the miscellaneous links from Infobox Ireland station. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 13:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Per the TfM for that infobox, we don need to include these. They're what navboxes are for. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per AussieLegend, since we didn't have a prior discussion on including the links we should include them unless there is consensus not to include them. Personally I oppose them because the links clutter the infobox code and are just an invitation to add a lot of other region-specific links; and the links should be somewhere else. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 11:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, while the proposal was that these could "probably" be deleted, there was nor further mention of that beyound the nomination. We can't take it upon ourselves to arbitrarily decide that such links not be merged since it received no support. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There were no objections to that suggestion in the TfD; the action is therefore not "arbitrary". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no support for the proposal either. It was ignored. My suggestion that Infobox Ireland station be merged with Infobox GB station, was supported by one other editor, and the closer noted that wasn't sufficient to justify merging to that template. Your proposal did not even receive that much support. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's ask the TfM closer, Martijn Hoekstra, to confirm his finding that "merging as proposed is indeed the outcome of the discussion". Meanwhile, please stop abusing edit template-protected by marking it as unanswered; and please stop edit warring on Infobox Ireland station. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reactivating the request is not abuse of the template. You are an involved editor who clearly does not want the links included and you shouldn't be using you own preferences to justify not implementing valid requests. Claiming consensus, when there is no evidence of that consensus, which you've done before, is disruptive and reversion of such editing is warranted. The result of the discussion was merge, not turn a template into a wrapper, so there is no need for the template to be a wrapper. When it is eventually merged fully, then the template can be redirected. are collaborating to carry that task out properly. Please don't be dirsuptive. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "edit template-protected" template's documentation clearly specifies "consensus should be obtained before the template is added". Whether I'm "Involved" or not is immaterial. It has already been explained above, that the wrapper is a temporary measure to facilitate substitution as part of merging; a merge which you are currently preventing. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus has already been obtained at the TfM for a full conversion. Your proposal was The navbox-style links at the foot of the Ireland template should probably be discarded, but otherwise can be displayed through the use of a switch detecting the country parameter. Since there was no support or even discussion about removing paramaters, we have to go by default which is the otherwise can be displayed through the use of a switch detecting the country parameter part of the proposal. The wrapper is not yet ready to be used, as conversion of the template is not yet complete. Using it removes content from 189 infoboxes. That's not acceptable, and very amateurish. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we just merge (or not merge) the links in, complete the change from Ireland station infoboxes Infobox Ireland station (the disused station template might have a few problems as it doesn't use symbols and doesn't show the country or ISO code) to Infobox station, and if someone complains about the links being there (or not there) revert the change? Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 09:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be the simplest resolution and definitely in-line with otherwise can be displayed through the use of a switch detecting the country parameter. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, rather than adding the Ireland links to the infobox, couldn't we just use  for them and embed infoboxes containing nothing but links? Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 12:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. It looks like there have been a few changes to the proposal here, and I am unclear about which ones should or should not be implemented. Please clarify your request (update the sandbox as well) and show there was a consensus for it and I'll happily apply the changes. —   18:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The code is in the collapsed part of this section. However, as you can see, there is no consensus to implement it since it ic contrary to the consensus reached at the recent TfD. We await comment from the TfM closer, Martijn Hoekstra. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note I've seen this now (the previous ping didn't ping me for some reason), and I'll get to it first thing, which might not be before this evening CET. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy, you're clearly misrepresenting consensus. You proposed two things as the relevant part of your merge proposal, (a)The navbox-style links at the foot of the Ireland template should probably be discarded, (b) but otherwise can be displayed through the use of a switch detecting the country parameter. Nobody supported removing the links, so consensus is for (b), the full merge. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the sake of apparently-needed clarity, I disagree, and believe you are misrepresenting consensus (not least, since nobody supported "b" over "a"). Which is why I've asked Martin, who closed the TfD to comment. And he has kindly indicated that he will do so soon. Whatever his view, there is clearly no consensus to implement the requested change, at least until the matter is clarified. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody supported removal of parameters in their votes. Nobody even mentioned removal of parameters. The people who supported a merge, simply supported a merge, and by any language a merge is a merge is a merge. It's not adding extra functionality, it's not removing functionality, it's just merging the functionality of one into another. That's simple English Andy. Consensus was to merge, not merge except for the parameters that Andy doesn't like. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that the TfM closer has clarified his close, and further suggested that My own guess of what consensus of such a discussion would show at this point is to include those links, I'm reactivating this request. Let's get this over and done with and if Pigsonthewing wants to start a discussion about removing the links down the track, he can do so then. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have implemented this request. However my own personal view is that these links probably do not belong in an infobox, so I hope you can reach an agreement to remove them in time. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it seems that code doesn't implement the links properly. It's significantly different from the sandbox code that does work. Over to . -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've created Template:Infobox station/Iarnród Éireann as an example for embedding in the infobox so an edit request isn't needed each time someone wants to change the links or remove them. I've put a demo on the right. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 14:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When is somebody likely to want to change the links? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For example, if a new station with a name beginning with the letter U is opened (and the very short list of stations in Ireland in section U has to be linked), or (probably more importantly) if anyone wants to add links for another system or geographical area.
 * Furthermore, it would be difficult to automatically show a different set of links for a closed station, especially if the year/event format is followed. (And closed stations in Ireland don't have system symbols so we would have to use something other than symbols to define what the links are. This would basically mean having to make a separate parameter for choosing links displayed to avoid lots of confusing syntax, and having the links embedded avoids this problem.) Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 15:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you were working on Template:Infobox station/Iarnród Éireann. My thinking was similiar to yours and the current code in the infobox uses Template:Railway stations in Ireland. Please let me know what other changes are needed, if any. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No more changes are needed for Infobox Ireland station but something still has to be made for Infobox Ireland disused station. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ireland station infoboxes
Please compare the two infoboxes shown above. The latter is the equivalent of redirecting Infobox Ireland station to Infobox station, which I just did, but had to revert. As you can see, some date is lost, and " " shows. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I created User:Jc86035/Infobox Ireland station for assistance in substing all instances. (The code should be copied over to both infoboxes, temporarily displaying both as a wrapper; and then all instances should be checked, comments removed and parser functions replaced with text before substing.) Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 11:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have that in hand? Do you need assistance from a TemplateEditor rights holder? I do think it would be better if the original templates could just be redireted. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think—unless there is bot assistance—the templates can't just be redirected, as a few parameter names are different (platform, platforms; et cetera). It would help immensely if a bot could subst and clean up all the instances though.
 * I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "do you have that in hand"; can you please clarify? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 11:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By "do you have that in hand", I mean are you doing it, do you plan to, or is someone else about to help you? Have you asked (or are you about to ask) for bot assiatance? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. I'm probably going to ask for bot assistance now; there are still 187 infoboxes that need to be replaced like this. It would be quite tedious to do all of this manually. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 12:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The result of the TfD was merge, not turn into a wrapper for Infobox station. Merge means exactly that. You need to include all parameters, you can't just arbitrarily decide not to include parameters. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm turning it into a wrapper before merging the templates, as not all the parameters match. (The wrapper serves as just a temporary measure until all of them are replaced.) Which parameters have I excluded? (I substed it before cleaning up the parameters.) If I did that's my error and I'll fix it. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 12:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to test the wrapper do it in the sandbox, not the live template, and test it on the testcases page. I've moved your wrapper into the sandbox and you can see here how your changes have affected articles. This shows the issues with Infobox station in the same articles. If you wish to see all of the issues, dummy up an infobox using all of the parameters. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean the links at the bottom of the infobox. I neglected to implement those when merging parameters into Infobox station; that will require another edit request. Sorry. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 12:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The slightly-above-footer links have been added to the sandbox of Infobox station. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 13:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just added an infobox with all (I think) parameters used to the testcases page. When you've got everything right with infobox station and a working wrapper, let me know and I can probably update all articles with AWB. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * [ec] If you mean the navbox-style links, please get rid of them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. If so that pretty much solves everything (except for the services, because Ireland uses non-standard S-line tables for some reason uses Rail line instead of S-line templates) and the edit request is unneeded. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 13:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with the "navbox-style links". I know Andy hates them, but a lot of people find them useful and, if Infobox GB station is ever merged in, they'll have to be merged then. "Merge" means "merge all", not "merge only what I feel like merging". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't presume to speak for me. And that's not what the proposal said. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't speak for you, but it's clear that you don't like them from your comments at TfD. The proposal was to merge, not merge only some parameters. If you meant only some parameters, then you should have included that in your nomination. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read the rpoosal. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you did propose that the links "should probably be discarded", but I forgot because nobody commented on that. "Should" is only a suggestion and since nobody specifically said to delete the links, we can't assume that was an outcome of the TfD, especially as it was not mentioned by the closer. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you use AWB to update all the articles with the Infobox Ireland station template? (Infobox Ireland disused station can't be done yet as I need to figure out how to separate the Ireland stations from the Northern Ireland stations.) Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 10:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox station is still missing the "navbox-style links". Removal of these was never agree upon at the TfM, or even discussed after the nomination, so they have to be merged as well. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll re-submit the edit request and request a discussion to find consensus on adding the links. I don't think the links should be there though, since they should be in a navbox at the bottom of the article or someplace else. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 11:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion to add the links is not really necessary, since they're a part of the template that was supposed to be merged. If the links shouldn't be there, then that would have been discussed at the TfM. When we undertake to merge something we shouldn't decide that something isn't necessary without asking the end users if that's OK. That's something I've learned in 40 years of writing code. That said, I don't have a problem with discussion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I amended the closure about the removal of the links. While there is no quorum in the discussion itself to say something definitive, it at least seems to me there would be no consensus for the change if a a discussion about whether or not to include those links would be had. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The sandbox of Infobox Ireland station has been updated with the code for embedding Infobox station/Iarnród Éireann and Infobox station/NI Railways. It should be possible to update this infobox's transclusions with AWB now. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;&#125;&#125; to reply to me 13:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2015
Remove the changes made in this edit as they don't work and links can be embedded using the  parameter. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now:, have you tried asking to undo their edit backed by consensus directly?  You should probably do that before opening a PER.  Thanks. —   13:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Sorry. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you put your proposed code on the /sandbox and I'll take a look? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. It's essentially Special:Diff/645210475 though, but I removed some of the UK-specific code that was in comments as well. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 15:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have deployed. So your plan is to convert Template:Infobox Ireland station to a wrapper for this template, and then somehow merge them later on? What's your timescale for this? Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've converted Infobox Ireland station into a wrapper and might finish merging that template sometime next week. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've finished substituting all the mainspace transclusions of Infobox Ireland station. Most of them still need to be cleaned up though (I'll do it tomorrow with AWB), but from the perspective of the reader they look fine. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 15:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2015
Change

to

This is a pretty minor change and just makes the name microformat span not include the various symbols. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ – Paine EllsworthC LIMAX ! 06:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2015
Change


 * above =

to


 * above    =

See Gare du Nord (which currently has its three symbols as part of the  parameter). Some stations need more than two symbols. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I realize it's kind of difficult to read here so I've added the code to the sandbox and an example on the testcases page. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: The only objection I have to this is once we get past two or three repetitions of something, the quality of code goes downhill fast and I think that this should probably be adjusted to use Lua instead. I won't flat out decline the request as Jackmcbarn, MJGS, Mr. S, or another capable person may choose to do it anyways, but I think the alternative should be considered first. —   16:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure how a module for it would work but Sameboat showed me his test module (test page) which if modified could work well for the symbols, as well as the year/event pairs and the station usage figures. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems with DMS coordinates
See Downshire railway station. For some reason DMS coordinates don't work with this template Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 10:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2015
Code is in the sandbox (see also testcases). This change fixes that bug where DMS coordinates wouldn't display and adds an error message if both DMS and decimal coordinates are used. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for image format on Infobox
I see in Korean Wikipedia pages, there are info boxes with two images on the top. I tried doing this on the English Wikipedia (since I have several pages that I'd like to edit that way), but it's impossible! Can somebody please program the Infobox so that it could work that way? Greatly appreciated! If you'd like to talk privately, come to my talk page. HanSangYoon (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not have this done. One image for the infobox is all and any others are for explaining what is in articles subjects. Martin Morin (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2015
Change in line 4 the redirect &#123;&#123;R-I}} to the actual template rail-interchange.

From 

to

Useddenim (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Please check your code samples, which appear mismatched. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Better? I didn't think it was necessary to include the entire block of code when only two words were to be changed. Useddenim (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes. When using edit template-protected, you don't know how much the person who responds knows about the template concerned, and need to provide something they can copy'n'paste with ease. For more complex cases, you should update the template's sandbox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Collapse option for services parameter?
There are cases where there are so many services listed in the infobox that it becomes down-right ridiculous. Examples of which this occurs include Grand Central Terminal and Central railway station, Sydney. Is it possible that we can add code that allows for the services to be collapsed, and be collapsed as default? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 11:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I second that! Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they should simply be taken out of the infobox and put in their rightful place? "A succession box is the box you see at the bottom of articles ..." Alakzi (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Functionality added to sandbox (toggled on using =  or   or  ; autocollapse toggled off with  =  or  ); default is non-collapsible. See testcases § Gare Montparnasse for example. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 04:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2015
Merge the contents of sandbox2 over to the live template. This does absolutely nothing other than update the tracking categories, for checking for


 * markup in, to check for R-I symbols and markup in the parameter, and
 * usage of the year-over year traffic parameters, so they can be removed if not actually being used.

For readers, there are no visible changes. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 10:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Alakzi (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Face-smile.svg Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 April 2015
Template:Infobox NYCS has a parameter for reporting how a station ranks in traffic compared to other stations in the system. I request that the same parameter be added to this infobox. I'm not a template expert, but I'm guessing this would involve inserting after data87:

Or something similar so that one could enter the text "12 out of 143" and have that display right underneath the annual ridership figures. Thanks! Altamel (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This change should first be made to Rail pass box. "rank" is ambiguous; pass_rank would be in line with the other passenger traffic parameters. Alakzi (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added a pass_rank parameter to Rail pass box; hopefully I did it correctly as I have little experience with template syntax. I request that after
 * the following be inserted
 * . Thanks, Altamel (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Please update the documentation. Alakzi (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Please update the documentation. Alakzi (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Style parameter
Could someone let me know how to correctly use "thbgcolor" in the "style" part of the infobox to change it's default colour? I'm already using style=BA, I just want to set colours to match individual lines. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanna tell you, but I also really don't want you to do this. Why not just keep the line-neutral grey default? Alakzi (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're probably right there. I wasn't necessarily intending on keeping the changes, but I wanted to see how it would look. Could you let me know nonetheless for future reference in case it becomes useful at some point? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You could expose a #switch in BA style and create wrappers of it for each line, which you'd invoke with BA-1, and so on. Alakzi (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks! As you suggested as well, I might change the default template colour to gray since the current blue is too similar to that of Line C (Buenos Aires Underground). SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, we've got a style2 parameter which can be used for this purpose, so you can skip the wrapper step. Alakzi (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK thanks! SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2015
Merge the contents of the sandbox over to the live template.

Changelog:


 * parameter added (by Alakzi)
 * The "History" header now shows if any  parameter is filled (by Alakzi)
 * (or ) parameter added for assisting with the merge of Infobox Paris metro
 * (or ) parameter added to complement   (or  )
 * A dropdown box for succession boxes (default off) can now be toggled on using  and toggled to not be automatically collapsed using   (suggested by RazorEyeEdits)
 * Route map dropdown now uses the new type of dropdown (see mw:Manual:Collapsible elements) like the succession boxes
 * has been moved to after the native language name
 * Extra  tag removed
 * There are now two tracking categories, mainly for checking if  is being used properly (Alakzi, myself)

Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify on the purpose of entrances - is it for enumerating the entrances or the total number of entrances? Also, how is type2 going to be used? Alakzi (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * will be used for a list of entrances (like in the Paris Metro infoboxes). Since there might be a use case for showing the number of entrances I've added  as well (it may help in resolving ambiguity over what goes in  ).
 * I added  so that the station type doesn't have to be between the English station name and the native name (where   is). This would be useful, for instance, for Infobox MTR, where the Chinese station name is always shown along with the English name.
 * Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 13:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Would there be a downside to simply moving the type parameter down to a subheader? Alakzi (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If  is moved to a subheader then the subheader cell background is split from the above cell background. I've instead removed   and moved   to where   was. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 15:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If is moved to a subheader then the subheader cell background is split from the above cell background. This is a good thing; links are not coloured, so WP:CONTRAST can't be guaranteed. Alakzi (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess that might work, but a few styles which have coloured links as well as a background will need to be changed. It may warrant a tracking category (toggled by the  and   parameters) to check which styles use the parameter properly and which don't. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 15:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Found one: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:YRT style. Alakzi (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:TransLink (BC) SkyTrain style (while no coloured background, has coloured links). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 03:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I don't personally object, but I can see the potential for an objection. As such, I'd prefer if this request was left for a few days to give people that want to object a chance to do so.  I realize they probably won't until after the change is actually made because they won't be aware of it, but there may be one that is watching. —   12:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing I'd call controversial in this ER; the default behaviour of the infobox isn't gonna change. If people object after the fact, the change - or part of it - can always be undone. Alakzi (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While it may be true there's nothing you would call controversial, but I have seen people object to adding unnecessary parameters and merging other templates without a discussion and consensus to merge. It's not going to hurt anything for this request to sit for five days before making the changes to give people a chance to make those objections if they wish. —   16:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus to merge both Infobox Paris metro and Infobox Deutsche Bahn station into this template. Alakzi (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus there. I see one person proposing it on the basis that they don't understand what all the parameters do and one person supporting it that has a tendency to think that all templates should be merged into one mega template. Now that I'm aware of the proposal, I oppose the merge as I feel it will create too much template bloat and adversely affect performance.  This lowers the support rate on both of the proposals to a point that is below the threshold for WP:CONSENSUS.  That said, there are some other changes in this proposal that I don't object to, but think it best to hold off for at least a week to see if there are any more objections. —   21:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , you'll probably find that your argument won't be well-received when accompanied by gratuitous mud-slinging. Would you be able to substantiate your assertion that the merge would "adversely affect performance"? Alakzi (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the merger of the templates (Infobox Paris metro, Infobox Deutsche Bahn station, Infobox China station) I'm not sure that adding a couple of extra parameters to the infobox (which already had about a hundred parameters in the first place) would slow loading by more than a negligible amount, nor that it would cause much template bloat (at maximum about 20 extra lines). In any case Infobox Paris metro is pretty much ready to be merged except for the entrances/accesses parameter. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 04:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Template infobox, while the conversion to Lua has lifted the direct 99 parameter limit still acts funny when you hit 120-150+ parameters. Things get omitted and need to be renumbered in strange ways to make them work and things refuse to format properly.  The template has 151 parameters already, adding more will cause strangeness.  On top of that, you will also have 3,136 uses of those various templates to update to use the new parameters which is busy work that does not need to be done (it's not broke, I'm unclear why you are trying to fix it). —   09:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to fix the parameter problems would simply be to remove all of the year-over-year traffic parameters (and put them in a child infobox if someone actually needs to use them). I merged them along with Infobox Ireland station with the assumption they were actually being used, but they turned out to just have been left there after the Ireland infobox was split from the UK ones. Also, we don't have to update all 3,000 transclusions for the new parameters, since—assuming you're referring to the way  was changed—we just have to fix the ones that are in this category once it's merged into the main template. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could Technical 13 substantiate the claim that anyone "has a tendency to think that all templates should be merged into one mega template"? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: It seems apparent to me there are still some details that need to be worked out. I'm sad I currently don't have time to figure out exactly what needs to be done to what where and when, but those details should be figured out before an edit request is formally made. I'll work on these things next week and carry out this request in a way that doesn't cause direct template bloat and figure out exactly what changes need to be made to what pages with AWB.  Please continue to discuss. —   12:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , we're well-aware that the template's bloated; you're barking up the wrong tree. The underlying cause is not the merge proposals (a train station is a train station, be it in Scotland or North Korea), but the manner in which these mergers were executed. Indeed, there's a large number of parameters which should be merged or deprecated. We could work on sorting out this template together, but your assuming the position of authority is counterproductive. Alakzi (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 April 2015
Merge the contents of /sandbox2 to the live template. The change adds entrances/exits and entrances_number/exits_number (for Infobox Paris metro), and removes the unused pte. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Please update the documentation.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 13:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

What? Is this really about doors? Do we we need the number of windows? We're trying to trim this bloated Infobox and this looks like something we could do without. If these parameters are for ridership, then the doc needs to clarify that, because they are inserted in the wrong place! Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I inquired about these above. They're apparently meant for enumerating the addresses of underground station entrances and exits, e.g. "20 1st Street; 78 2nd Street", like in Infobox Paris metro. The number parameters, which were an afterthought, are probably more useful. Alakzi (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * These are just more location/address parameters. Why four? Why not just merged? The same list could go under address, and we don't need to count them. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that would make more sense. ? Alakzi (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Having the list of entrances in the same place as the city and country—especially when there are sometimes about ten different exits listed (in the Paris Métro station articles)—seems quite odd (in my opinion, anyway). However, in /sandbox and /sandbox1, borough and country are split from the Address section (local) to a Location section (national), which would make the exits list fit better in the address section (or just in address). (It would still be better to have a separate list of entrances above the Address section because different entrances are listed in some Paris Métro station infoboxes for different sides of roads.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 15:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think those could probably use a more general description of "Location", except for country. Ten entrances! That kind of list is a good example of overstuffing and abuse of parameters. An Infobox is a summary, and is not intended for complex detail. If a station structure is as complex as that there should be a small paragraph describing it. I have done that for many metro/subway stations. If we need to preserve the data, what was wrong the original use of a single parameter. Secondarywaltz (talk)
 * I think that having multiple addresses would be generally confusing to most average people (it's confusing to me and I'm of course way above average). If there is a desire to list multiple addresses as such, I would think it would be most appropriate to do so in a sub-template that would go in |address= and collapses so that only the "primary" address is shown by default. Just my thoughts since this template needs trimming. —   22:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit-undo.svg Undone: This request (or the completed portion of it) has been undone. Due to the lack of consensus here to have these additionally bloating parameters added, I've undone this request until a consensus can be achieved. This is something that based on the talk page should have never been done in the first place without a consensus, but instead of worrying about it, let's just come to an agreement of how to move forward. —   22:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how removing one parameter (pte, which was added back for some reason) and adding one or two others would significantly reduce performance.
 * Anyway, should entrances/exits be
 * in their own infobox table row above "Address", with country and borough split from "Address" into "Location" below (/sandbox, /sandbox1),
 * in their own row above "Address", with address, country and borough staying in the "Address" row (/sandbox2,
 * in the "Address" row above address, with country and borough split from "Address" into "Location" below,
 * in the "Address" row above address, with address, country and borough staying in the "Address" row, or
 * just entirely omitted (current live template);
 * and should entrances_number/exits_number be
 * above the "Address" row,
 * under the "Construction" header after "Levels", or
 * just entirely omitted (all sandboxes and live template)?
 * I'd personally prefer (1) (above Address with split to Location) for entrances (or (2) (above Address without split) if "Address" was changed to "Location"), and (3) (omitted) for exits_number. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 1.3, separating location from address - we shouldn't be calling it an "address" if there's not even a street name, which is the majority of cases. The list of entrances would fit under a separate address field just fine, so I see no pressing need for a new entrances/exit parameter. Support 2.2, having an entrances_number/exits_number field under "Construction" - the information's particularly pertinent to underground stations, and it is part of the "brick and mortar" of the station, as has been argued above. Alakzi (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a split. address is mostly used for the "Location" and simply needs retitled, and borough is part of that too. Why do we need four new parameters to accommodate one piece of information from the Paris Metro? Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't; I'm proposing the addition of only one parameter for the number of entrances and exits. "Address" is often used for the actual address (see any Italian station). But I suppose simply retitling it as "Location" would also work. Alakzi (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what I am saying, that "Location" would cover any kind of entry. The point of this discusion is about the four new ones that have been added, and I don't know why. I agree with needing only one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I've restored this edit (which was reverted with a false claim of "no consensus"), since it was the outcome of a TfM, whose consensus was assessed by the uninvolved admin User:Martijn Hoekstra; and since the other template involved has already been redirected here. If you don't like it, use deletion review. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see that in the TfM at all, per The result of the discussion was merge.  I see nothing there that says "Add all parameters from the template being done away with into the more generic template even if those parameters are duplicates of existing parameters (and entrances is a duplicate of addresses as has been agreed on here on the talk page) even if it causes additional disruption (which you should probably be avoiding per The following is enacted as a restriction of this review: If Pigsonthewing behaves disruptively in any discussion; any uninvolved administrator may ban Pigsonthewing from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the main case page of this review. from 🇦🇴 on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review). So, I'll get an admin involved to revert the template to the neutral version before the objected to changes were made and fully protect the template., could one of you please revert the contested change and fully protect this template until an agreement can be made at this page and if appropriate deal with Andy's possible TBAN violation.  Thank you. 13:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC) —   13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note:

Awaiting administrative interaction. —  13:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was merge, as you yourself have noted. The edit concerned carried out that merger. There is nothing requiring "administrative interaction"; and your ad hominem attack is without merit. As I said above, if you don't like it, use deletion review. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The specifics of the merge weren't fleshed out at the TfD; a consensus to merge - as we both know - need not translate into the indiscriminate incorporation of all of the other template's parameters. Several of us have expressed doubt over the inclusion of these four parameters, so T13's revert was not unreasonable., fully protecting the template would be an overreaction; also, please don't trout people unless you're absolutely certain they'd be OK with it. All in all, much ado about nothing - we've been cordially discussing what's to be done about these parameters, and this brief edit war will have no bearing on the actual outcome. Alakzi (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need for admin intervention here. The way I understand it, the majority of uses of the template will be unaffected by the disputed changes, and for the article where it does make a difference, the current version maintains the status quo ante merger. Establish a consensus on whether those parameters are necessary, then implement it. Huon (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Parameter purge
I propose the pruning of: Thoughts? I should add that all of the usage* parameters and map, which were unused, have been removed from the template in the sandbox. Alakzi (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) all of the facilities parameters (parking, bicycle, travelcentre, baggage_check, disabled, smartcardname, smartcardstatus and gates) per WP:NOTDIRECTORY
 * 2) local_authority - unwarranted granularity, collapse into borough (i.e. "Address")
 * 3) all of the Korean name parameters, provided Infobox Korean name can be elegantly embedded
 * 4) Melway - move down to External links
 * 5) tracks - a feature of the rail line
 * 6) station_type - unused and redundant to type
 * I love pruning infoboxes, which should be short overviews anyways. The station infobox really needs it, so I'm in favour of removing all redundant stuff. A breakdown of my personal opinion:
 * Facilities parameters: remove, indeed as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY
 * Local authority: no comment, since I'm not sure what is meant by this
 * Korean name parameters: remove; the Native_name parameter in combination with your suggestion work perfectly fine
 * Melway: complete removal maybe? It's a link to some online maps-system of only Melbourne, which I don't think is needed in a general infobox. Besides, I thought that Wikipedia used openstreetmap as its main maps-software?
 * Tracks: Not sure and I'm more likely to say keep, because especially with large stations the number of tracks can be different from the railway it is situated on. This makes it more of a station-specific feature.
 * Station_type: remove, as per redundancy to 'type'.
 * HyperGaruda (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * tracks invites the kind of WP:FANCRUFT we might wanna avoid, like through tracks, tracks which converge or diverge, and spurs to terminating platforms at through stations. You can usually take a good guess at the number of tracks by looking at the number of platforms. Alakzi (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I can see trimming some of them, but I can see others as having valid uses such as parking, disabled, and maybe gates (not sure what that term means for railways) 2) collapse into another address field, borough is fine 3) please clarify what you mean by embed or remove - I think that if a single non-latin_name was added, then whether it be Korean or Japanese or Russian, then anything that might go in there could go in a child template for whichever specific language 4) I see no reason to keep this separate, it can be shifted to a "misc" or "el" or whatever 5) I also lean on the side of keep here, and depending on the definition of gates, maybe tracks and gates can be merged 6) merge with the more generic type para. Just my thoughts. Good luck! —   21:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a second disabled access parameter, ADA, a little further down; when non-empty, it displays a wheelchair icon. gates's label is "Ticket barriers", the value of it being either "Yes" or "No". I think that if a single non-latin_name was added ... Yes, we could add a parameter for embedding name templates, like with mpassengers (m[odule] passengers). Alakzi (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keeping one disabled access parameter is probably adequate, as long as the yes/no is present in the infobox. Parking and bicycle storage are not "indiscriminate" information per WP:NOTDIRECTORY; they're not merely facilities (as listing restaurants inside a station would be) but a basic part of what the stations are. (In many cases, the parking structure is larger than the station structure). One of the few useful pieces of information gleaned from the ill-fated article feedback trial was that for stations in the US, far and away the #1 reason people looked at the article was for parking information. Taking that parameter out does a massive disservice to that substantial fraction of readers. The travelcentre and gates information can probably be chucked.
 * I disagree with the assumption that tracks is irrelevant; in the US, stations often have to accommodate multiple types of traffic using the line, so tracks and platforms don't correlate as closely as you think. There are a lot of oddball configurations with freight passing tracks and such that need the separate parameter to explain. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But is that not exactly the point of WP:NOTDIRECTORY? People should not be getting their information about parking spaces, disabled access and whatnot from Wikipedia - after all, elevators can go out of service; do we want to have someone on a wheelchair travel to a station they're not gonna be able to use? It'd be safer to replace this information with a link to the station's official website. Alakzi (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what NOTDIRECTORY says at all. You're proposing to take out fundamental information about the station - not things about what services are available, but the actual steel-and-concrete built elements of the station and their consequences. No, Wikipedia should not be an up-to-the-minute listing of parking availability or elevator status - that is what agency websites are for - but total number of parking spots and situation-normal accessibility are fully within the realm of relevant and fully verifiable information appropriate for infoboxes. If making a change to Wikipedia makes it far less useful to users, that is almost certainly a bad change. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, my thoughts on it are they should be kept and used for brick and mortar actually descriptors for the station (not what the current status of those elements may be at any one point in time). That said, if there was enough of a desire for a directory feel to the template, a userscript could probably be made to pull from an rss feed or api website to display up-to-date information for ONLY the people using the script.  I have little time or interest in making such a script or researching exactly what would need to make such a script, but it COULD be done if someone wanted to. —   13:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've made most of these changes to the template in the sandbox. I've also re-sectioned the whole thing in a way that - hopefully - makes more sense. See the demo here. Alakzi (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * SLOW DOWN! You have to leave some time for discussion, and some of the assumptions are wrong. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, first of all, don't shout at me; it's the second time you've done it. I made the changes in the sandbox for people to be able to assess. We can sort out all of the wrong assumptions before going live with it. Alakzi (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It has been a long hard day and I've just got home. I really appreciate what you are doing here, and I will try to give you positive feedback - when I have time. It may take me 24 hours. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not every local authority is a borough, so the "local authority" parameter should be kept. Korean names should not be eliminated, just because they're only used for Korean articles, as with stations in other languages. Tracks should be kept, because rail lines aren't always consistent. Many lines have single tracks, but have two or more at stations, or two tracks but three or four at stations, etcetera. This disproves your WP:Fancruft claims. -User:DanTD (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * borough is just an unfortunate name for it; it all gets collapsed into a single "Address" field regardless. Korean names are not going to be eliminated; the parameters will be replaced with an embedded Infobox Korean name, where necessary, and otherwise placed inside native_name. You've not addressed anything I've said about tracks. Alakzi (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing that is country or system specific should be in a generic infobox. Korean (existing template has these exact parameters) should never have been added in the first place - gone! Country specific Melway - gone! local_authority and borough are both just part of the address, and should not be offered in the future. Disable/ADA should be retained as accessibity is an important feature of all public buildings - except that the acronym ADA is American. parking and tracks are important as to how the station functions. I think that we should make substantial cuts and merges but this discussion is open to comments from people who have no knowledge about the source of recent widespread merges that created this obese Infobox and therefore do not understand the meaning or function of many parameters - but I can help with that, when there are questions. I am going to be patient here, because I know you are going through in pieces and I don't want to jump ahead of you. I am glad to see that you suggest "usage" should be in a module, as it is UK specific along with others like pregroup, postgroup and prenational. I'll be back! Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated the sandbox to reflect the current consensus and kept ADA as an alias of disabled. There's a side-by-side comparison in the testcases. Thank you for your input. Alakzi (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note the recent change, as per the follwoing section. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) I gather that the ADA field has now been replaced by Disabled. Previously by populating, the international disabled symbol appeared, thought this was better than a straight yes.
 * 1) IMO the removal of the smartcard field is a retrograde step.
 * 4) Melway is the Melbourne street directory, it is effectively a duplicate of the coordinates field and thus should be deleted entirely. Rb119 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 April 2015
Merge the contents of /sandbox2 to the live template. The change makes the default width of the infobox 310px (the same as when an image is displayed with default size and user preferences) and re-adds image_size (which was removed without making sure all its uses were replaced with image_upright) along with its own tracking category. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The default width should be in ems, so that the box is resized along with the text. There's no particular reason why image_size needs to be tracked; it is very rare that the parameter was used for any other purpose than to satisfy individual editors' stylistic preferences. Alakzi (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you change the default width to 25.2em (about 310px) then? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Alakzi (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

New train frequency parameter
Would there be opposition to the addition of a train_frequency parameter, which is required for the merge of Infobox Deutsche Bahn station? I've very briefly discussed this with on my talk page, who expressed concern that it'd violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE. I'm quoting our conversation in full below. Alakzi (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Got it! You are correct, but train times change. Should non fixed OR like that be in an Infobox that is meant to be a summary? It would serve these articles better if a paragraph describing the service was included, just like the previously discussed entrances. Again, the easy way to preserve this is to create a new parameter. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This might be an unwise addition, exactly because a daily train movement average is a fixed metric. Service patterns vary according to the time of day and day of the week; therefore, train frequency - as it's been presented in DB station infoboxes - is not a very informative metric. A new timetable might be issued annually, or biannualy, but that's besides the point; any transient property should carry a date of applicability. Furthermore, considering that train frequency is not so much a property of the station, as it is a property of the line, it could - even - impede readers' understanding. Alakzi (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see this at the source to understand its usage. Where would the info for train_frequency come from? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the trains field; see, for example, Leipzig Hbf. Alakzi (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the total number of trains daily, which is not the same as frequency. I don't see it for many stations. How often is it used? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The number of daily trains is not a constant. I don't know; I've not been tracking it. Alakzi (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What? If it's not a constant, why do we even need to show it? Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to drop this from all station infoboxes. My initial reaction was that it might be a useful metric that allows is to know that station A is a rural backwater and station B is a busy commuter venue, if both have - say - two platforms and two tracks; but passengers is a better gauge of that (not least because "train" might mean either a half-empty two-car shuttle or a twelve-car commuter cattletruck service. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Body and image size
Before the default image width fitted the width of the box, but now it is smaller. Why would you want to do that? It now looks little, and a little stupid! Why? Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's probably because the default image width (220px) isn't matched with the infobox width (259px); both of them were changed to their defaults at some point. I've changed the ratio in /sandbox2 to 1.15 (253px) so that the image fits better (see /testcases). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's now using, which makes the image size adjustable in your Special:Preferences, like with any other thumbnail. Though changing the ratio of   across the board is not ideal, it's a whole lot better than overriding users' preferences. Alakzi (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know why! I just don't know why it wouldn't be made to match - when it did before. The program elves are so fussy about so many trivial things. Setting a personal default for images in general is not the same thing as this. Geeks overrule! Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All infoboxes which use Module:InfoboxImage without defining sizedefault default to . It would be preferable to seek consensus for ignoring the thumbnail size setting on the module's talk page. Alakzi (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No. It has nothing to do with the module. You removed that default setting for this Infobox. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unwise for this - or any other template - to overrule its parent template's defaults, rather then fixing any issues in that parent template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The template in this case is Template:Infobox station. The defaults here should be the ideal presentation for this Infobox and has nothing to do with how an individual chooses to view images in a general sense, and does not change that. Use is made of the predefined Template:Infobox and Module:InfoboxImage, as tools to create something else. You should not have to enter anything in image_size to give it the best match to the box width. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bingo. There is no point to having an infobox that you have to enter an extra parameter in every single use just to stop it from looking weird. Not only that, but image_size is broken right now due to these wholly inadvised changes. The default should be exactly matching the width of the box; it has been that way for years and looks best that way. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. The fact that it offends your aesthetic sensibilities is not an excuse for having it function unlike regular thumbnails; WP:IMAGESIZE is policy. Alakzi (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a regular thumbnail. This Infobox already expresses the ideas of the people who can input code as to what the layout should be, so why do you think it's a good idea to have a default image size that does not match the framing box? Defaults should make things easier to use, rather than requiring some insider information. I don't even know where I can find that magic number. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the unhelpful tendency of some editors to try to make a template (in this case, Infobox station) override the defaults settings of its parent (in this case, Infobox), usually to suit some arbitrary preference, rather than taking the trouble to gain wider consensus to apply the change to that parent. This inevitably results in pain when a conflicting, but otherwise sensible, change is later made to the parent template. I was not referring to "how an individual chooses to view images in a general sense". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? This non-consensus change to the image sizing is against the style of comparable templates like Taxobox which have full-box-width images as their default. I'd hardly call Taxobox arbitrary. Not only is the 300px default something that has been settled for years - including in several discussions here - suddenly being changed here, but the image_width parameter is nonfunctional as well. Infobox images are not thumbnails; they do not serve the same function, and they should not be treated as such. Users do not expect to have infobox images changed by their thumbnail settings; that's not what the setting is for. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Where has the 300-pixel width default been established? A cursory search for "300" in the archives revealed this comment by in 2010, and nothing else. According to Chris, "the original styling appears to have been arbitrary, whereas the infobox defaults have been repeatedly discussed and found to be suitable for most articles." Alakzi (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IMHO the new width (259px) is a little too thin for this infobox, especially if it contains any S-line templates (which are vertically stretched). I've changed /sandbox2 so that it's now, by default, wider (306px). The image, however, does have problems if the default thumbnail size is 300px (making the infobox image 405px). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 10:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The point I'm trying to make here is that this should be fixed in Infobox, and that Infobox station should then inherit its settings from that template. We should not be having this conversation, over time, potentially for literally hundreds of infobox templates. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment appears to bear no relation to the point I was making, and which I've already clarified. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This change looks horrible. Besides not having any consensus for this template, it doesn't conform to the usual 300px for a lead image and lead images generally aren't thumbnails. This change shows no awareness for how this infobox is used. Editors making significant changes to a template are obliged to gain consensus for that change on the talk page of that template. It is not acceptable to make that change without discussion, then blithely insist that we go get consensus to change a different parent template or module. Mackensen (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody has done any such thing, Try reading what was written. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Let me try this again. The default image size should fit the Infobox. That is, it should not be a tiny image and it should not be larger and stretch the width. Previously the box width was defined with a matching default size set for the image. Now there is no matching. The infobox is one width and the image makes it bulge. I think the point being made by Andy, is that this basic concept should be in Template:Infobox, and everything that is based on it would then have those qualities. But we are faced with fixing it here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since we have to fix it here, can we please go back to some method (like what was in place before this month) that does not set the width using thumbnail parameters? I keep thumbnails set to 300px for other purposes, but that's making the infoboxes obnoxiously large with the current setup. I'm willing to compromise on how exactly it's done, but I think four things should be definite:
 * The default image width is 300px (plus or minus a couple pixels is okay)
 * The image width should always match the infobox width (as closely as possible without breaking things)
 * The image width should be the same for all users regardless of thumbnail preferences
 * There should be the ability to manually change the image size in certain cases (for example, if a template doesn't display correctly at 300px, sometimes it may be necessary to make the infobox a little wider. I use that feature for rail lines when RDTs are slightly too wide) but that souldn't be necessary for basic use
 * Is that a reasonable set of things to ask for? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * MOS:IMAGE specifically advises that 'lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px").' In addition, WP:THUMBSIZE suggests the use of a combination of  and   in infoboxes. This idea that infobox images must have a set width is completely foreign to me, and is not found in any policy or guideline I've looked. Alakzi (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's common sense that the default size of a picture should match the frame. You've looked for policy, but you just need to see with your own eyes. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I must be lacking in common sense. Can it be acquired? Alakzi (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you have a picture hanging on your wall? Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 April 2015
Merge the contents of /sandbox1 to the live template. This changes the name field to be as wide as possible when symbols are added and changes "Levels" (the row title, not the parameter) to "Platform levels" to remove ambiguity (it could be interpreted as "number of station levels in the entire station"). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 12:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done after having slightly simplified the markup. Alakzi (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 April 2015
Can you put the symbol, e.g., back to right next to the title of the station? It moved to the far right during the merge.

 Rcsprinter123    (vent)  @ 10:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see above regarding the intended effect. Alakzi (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything above to (explicitly) explain it. I don't understand why it needs to be out to the right.  Rcsprinter123    (spiel)  @ 23:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Jc86035. Alakzi (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2015
Merge the contents of /sandbox2 to the template. This change adds two more symbol fields (total 4) for the articles where more than two symbols are needed such as Gare Montparnasse and Gare du Nord. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 06:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The change also adds the ability to change the symbol size from a style template. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 06:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There are also more tracking categories (rint in name, files/links in name, files in type) for more accurate tracking of incorrect usage. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any discussion about this? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet, so would it be a good idea to remove edit protected and reformat this section as a proposal to add the features? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do that. Alakzi (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

name and type not centered
I understand from user:Alakzi its consensus not to center the name and type text in the infobox, e.g. Gentofte_station ("Gentofte" and S-train section" are out of sync) - it looks really strange. I suggest to revert the change Christian75 (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There isn't a consensus not to centre the name; it is a technical limitation. The name was not centre-aligned previously, either. Alakzi (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the text was not centered before but the image was close to the text so including the image it was centered. Christian75 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC) New and old version can be seen here: User:Christian75/sandbox-template:trainbox Christian75 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The icons were moved because they became misaligned whenever a second (local language) name was added; they now act like a separate table cell. If you (or anyone else) has a solution for keeping the icons vertically centred while also keeping the text horizontally centred (without any text line-wrapping errors), it would be very welcome. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We could duplicate the icons on the left corner and hide them using . And then hang our heads in shame for having done that. Alakzi (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're being disingenuous. Alakzi made no such claim; the edit summary to which your diff links said "Discuss at Template:Infobox station rather than apply your own style to individual articles"; made when Alakzi quite rightly reverted your esoteric styling. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Tracking categories
I've added some new tracking categories to /sandbox related to images inside name and type, and extended tracking to native_name; they don't change the appearance of the template in any way. Can a template editor or admin add the categories to the template if there aren't any problems with them? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Alakzi (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 May 2015
Merge the code of /sandbox into the live template. The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AComparePages&page1=Template%3AInfobox+station&page2=Template%3AInfobox+station%2Fsandbox change] modifies the symbols to use the module Module:Rail-interchange multi and adds the option to use four more symbols from rint. (Additionally, the class of the subheader is fixed.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. There are no comments from other editors, and I'm assuming you have tested this thoroughly. So ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 12:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Disappointed with parameter purge
A lot of the facilities information has been removed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_station/Archive_2#Parameter_purge particularly the removal of smartcardname, smartcardstatus and gates. This information is not that easy to find online and it makes a big difference to me as a commuter knowing this. For example, there were private operators that did not accept the local smartcard, even though they were considered part of the public transport service. The same goes for gates; depending on whether they are present determines which ticket is best to use. What is the downside of including this information? --110.174.62.73 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a travel guide; such content belongs at Wikivoyage. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 12:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Station name
What constitutes the station name in the name parameter? Both the [name itself] and [station] as in King's Cross station or just the [name itself], i.e. King's Cross? I've checked a couple of UK, Irish and US stations, which usually only use the [name itself], so I'm attempted do apply that to the Indonesian station infoboxes I'm working on. On the other hand, Malaysian and Singaporean (both former English countries and neighbours to Indonesia) often use [name itself + station]. Of course, if it were a French station, [name itself + station] would be needed linguistically (Gare du Nord is a possessive construct). For Indonesian stations however, [station] is not needed necessarily like in Anglophone countries. So, with or without [station] at name? - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If, as appears to be the case, station signage normally just uses the name itself (without "station"), then I would say it is best to just use that name in the article infobox (as at Gambir railway station). That's also how all of the thousands of Japanese station articles are formatted (e.g. Tokyo Station). --DAJF (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing boldface for Native name
Would it be possible for someone to change the source code for this template so that the native_name parameter is not displayed in boldface? Boldface does not work well with Japanese (and presumably Chinese) fonts, so it would be preferable to have just the English name in boldface and the native name beneath it in a standard font. Now that the former "Template:Infobox Japan station" is being merged into the universal station infobox template, this is going to become a problem. For comparison, have a look at Ochanomizu Station and Ikebukuro Station. The latter includes a work-around using " " to de-bold the Japanese name, but it would be presumably be better to set the font within the infobox template itself. --DAJF (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is fixed now, via native_name_lang. —  Earwig   talk 10:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Request/Suggestion : Add Length parameter in infobox
Since there is no header for "Length" in the infobox, I suggest an administrator to add it. It would be useful in displaying the length of the railway platform. I think this is an important parameter as it would be easier to add the length of the platforms, more specifically for the longest platforms in the world.--Rizwanmahai (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree - In most cases platform length is trivial information. If it is an important feature of the station it should be detailed in the body of the article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Secondarywaltz. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 June 2016
Could someone with the appropriate permissions copy /sandbox2 into the main template (except for the template sandbox notice at the bottom of the page)? This change adds a new parameter name_lang to add XML language data to the station name for stations with a name in Latin script that has not been anglicised (e.g. stations in most of Europe and Latin America). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 04:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Partially synced. It looks like you have also been updating the documentation page with changes. Please make updates there where appropriate. Ping/re-open if there are issues. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 05:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata image (P18)
I've updated Template:Infobox station/sandbox, please sync the template. People are working on getting more images for the stations via reports at wiki-needs-pictures/ but articles like Bisceglie (Milan Metro) still don't fetch the image from Wikidata as they should. Nemo 07:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 September 2016
Could the contents of Template:Infobox station/sandbox2 (except the template sandbox notice at the end) be moved into the main template? This change reflects the consensus of an RfC to deprecate almost all coordinates-related infobox parameters except coordinates (and similar); for more information, see Help:Coordinates in infoboxes. Transclusions using those parameters will be placed in Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format, and coordinates will be used instead of those parameters if both are present. In addition,  and   (if value given for country) will automatically be added to coordinates, and it will be possible to use coordinates for the location map. —Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 16:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Electrified
Could |electrified = be linked to Railway electrification system? Peter Horn User talk 17:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this parameter even necessary? Electrification is a function of the rail line, and should be in that infobox. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The info on this parameter is included in the infobox of most stations where there are any electrified tracks such as is the case with Central Station (Montreal) and others which I won't track down. It is a feature of a station. Let us leave well enough alone. Peter Horn User talk 20:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Coordinates format
Tracking has been added per Help:Coordinates in infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Restroom
A glaring omission seems to be the 'Restroom' entry, meaning public toilets. I have tried adding it to no avail. Grateful if someone could add it for me. Akld guy (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 11:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 12:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added this to the template's sandbox (as I do not have template editor user rights), although I don't know how important this is considered to be. Many parameters were removed last year after being deemed unnecessary. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Thank you. Unfortunately it still doesn't work at the article where I want to use it - Smales Farm Busway Station. Akld guy (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually edited the real template, because I can't; and I don't know if it should be added. is this a good idea? Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Probably not, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. But feel free to solicit more opinions. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Error message and tracking category for unsupported parameters
I have added error tracking for unsupported parameters to this template. See. A red error message appears when you Preview the article, between the edit screen and the rendered preview. In the category, the articles are sorted by the name of the parameter that is unsupported.

I have added this error-checking to a number of heavily used infoboxes, and it usually goes smoothly, highlighting errors that improve the articles that end up in the category. Every once in a while, parameters are missed or something goes wrong. If that happens, don't panic, just post here and I will be happy to fix it. Revert the change if you feel that you must.

If I have made any mistakes in coding, or if template changes are desired, please let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Popular unsupported parameters appear to include _trains, baggage_check, image_size, and smartcard.... It looks like these parameters were removed from the template in 2015 (see Talk archive) but were not scrubbed from transclusions of the infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Another common unsupported parameter is location map. It looks like this replacement works:
 * location map =

Replace with: This replacement assumes that coordinates are already present elsewhere in the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * map_type=Italy
 * map_dot_label =Capece

Vohwinkel Schwebebahn
The station Vohwinkel Schwebebahn has a badly broken infobox. It is using Infobox station and including the route map Wuppertaler Schwebebahn, the inclusion is not generating errors but is badly broken, but I can’t see anything wrong with either of them. Can someone please have a look at them.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The route map was included without passing it through . There were also non-existent s-line templates, which I simply removed. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Center title
Title is not centered in Grand Central Terminal. --Obsuser (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 09:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 10:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right. This is because it has the parameter MNRR, and Template:MNRR style includes the declaration . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think infobox title should be centered. --Obsuser (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The styling hasn't been changed since 2008, so I suppose you could just edit the template yourself (although it might be best to ask at WT:NYCS first). Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Template is protected, so someone with proper rights could do it. I've asked on WT:NYCS too. --Obsuser (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The template containing the CSS to be changed is Template:MNRR style, which isn't protected. (The CSS is transcluded into the infobox because of the aforementioned parameter.) Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;

The reason it is not centered is because the style is meant to emulate the actual station signs at MNR stations. Those signed are left aligned, not centered. I think the template should be left alone, as it doesn't exactly what it is intended to do. oknazevad (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The template should not be changed - centering has no real value here, but replicating station signs is a nice stylistic polish. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The template matches the way signs are formatted in real life - which is to say, left-aligned. This falls under WP:DONTFIX. epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't know about that. In real life they are not italicized either (and infobox title italics for usually-not-italicized terms is not common) – I might be missing something again, but let's clear this too... Example: https://knittedyarns.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/img_0138.jpg. --Obsuser (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The italics are also added by Template:MNRR style where the full declaration list is  (newlines, which are insignificant, added for clarity). The declaration in question is  . The template  is not protected. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They are italicized, here → is an example. The previous example was from the NYC Subway, not from MNR. Vcohen (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Map location errors
I've been fixing errors in the category Category:Location maps with different longitude and latitude precisions. This is a maintenance category of "errors". I have cleaned-up all the errors in articles, and a few in Draft/User space too. The category is now mostly empty except for four remaining errors that are related to this Template. While not causing any "problems", I'd like to get rid of these also just to have an empty category, which I will monitor for new errors. Can someone look into this? Editing this template is beyond my skill level. MB 22:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report; fixed it. Mackensen (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"map_state" parameter
This might be a silly question with an obvious answer, but I'm at a loss to answering it myself - how does one go about using the "map_state" parameter? The only inputs I thought would make sense, "collapsible" and "collapsed" both don't work. I found only one instance in the template itself where the "map_state" parameter is placed,

| data65  = {{#if:{{{route_map|}}}| 

I see it's part of a, but unsure of what would possibly go after "collapsible" in the class parameter that would actually enable a collapsible box. I'm trying to work this out so I can collapse the map used on the Newcastle Interchange article. --Philip Terry Graham 16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you want to set the value to "collapsed" or "expanded", as in {{para|map_state|collapsed}}. (You also need {{para|route_map}} defined; confusingly, map_state applies to route_map, not to the location map.) See 102 Street LRT Station. Click on the TemplateData monthly error report and search for "map_state" to see other parameter values that are used. Not all of them work as the editor intended, I suspect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * {{reply to|Jonesey95}} Very confusing indeed. I honestly thought it was for the location map, since all the parameters for the route map were prefixed with "route" and all those for the location map were prefixed with "map". This seems to be an exception, however. Any chance that we can modify this template so that the location map can be collapsed as well, or would that require a discussion from other editors as well? Philip Terry Graham 10:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The documentation seems pretty clear: "Determines route map state".


 * I do not see a collapse option at Template:Location map, so it's not trivial to add one. There is probably a way, but I have not seen it done in other infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Country and division in coordinates
Bunbury railway station is in Category:Wikipedia page with obscure country, because its Infobox station has country=Western Australia, which Module:Country extract quite rightly fails to convert to an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. Changing this to country=Australia would give the coordinates a valid region:AU but might make the displayed text less helpful. Changing to country=Australia | borough=Western Australia makes the coordinates even better (region:AU-WA) at the expense of patronising the reader by explaining which country Western Australia is in. (WA is also a bit bigger than most boroughs.) Is there a cleverer way of making both the displayed text and the coordinates correct, or a recommended compromise? I'm not restricting the question to Australian stations; Bunbury is just an example. Thanks, Certes (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Certes, does [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bunbury_railway_station&type=revision&diff=797067506&oldid=792679053 this fix the problem]? Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, that works. For other types of infobox I've been working out what inputs would cause the complex pre-processing to produce the correct region= output, but your suggestion looks like the best way forward for stations. Certes (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Restored
I'd personally love to see a "Restored" option added to the History section. It would be applicable to many many station buildings and quite informative. Kether83 (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Location map outside parameter not supported here
New article Lukhmanovskaya is currently in Category:Location maps with marks outside map and outside parameter not set and the location is close enough to the map boundary that I think it is acceptable to leave the map as it is. I would like to suppress the map warning, but the outside=1 parameter does not seem to be supported by this template (at least according to the documentation). MB</b> 00:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * added pushpin_outside to match the syntax of other infobox templates. better would be to replace the map with a map that includes this particular (future) line. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Use for ferries?
I'm considering using this template for ferry stations. For example:

It's actually already used by the Sydney Ferries, i.e. Template:Sydney_Ferries_stations. The only change I would want to make to this template would be to add ferry_berths to platforms, tracks, bus_stands (so as not to have it say "tracks").

Doodle77 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Services header
Can you also add a parameter that lists more than one services header, as shown here? This can be used as disambiguation for all stations and track owners along the NEC. <b style="background:#0000ff; font-family:Helvetica; padding:0.4em; font-size:80%; border-radius:2em; margin:0.25em; color:white;">Cards84664</b> (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I oppose this proposal - the last thing we need is to make station infoboxes any longer. At all except four locations on the NEC (Perryville and Newark, and Wickford Junction and Kingston), the next station is linked by the s-rail services anyway. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case, this could go to the footer, away from the services. <b style="background:#0000ff; font-family:Helvetica; padding:0.4em; font-size:80%; border-radius:2em; margin:0.25em; color:white;">Cards84664</b> (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But what use does it serve? It still just has links that are already present elsewhere in the infobox and/or lede. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, where did you get the 006E55 color from? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From the NEC website. The template is just disambiguation for all of the stations along the route, as there is no service that connects all of the stations. All of the interlockings/junctions can be listed as well. <b style="background:#0000ff; font-family:Helvetica; padding:0.4em; font-size:80%; border-radius:2em; margin:0.25em; color:white;">Cards84664</b> (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm very disappointed to see that you implemented a modified version of this across dozens of articles when you've only had one other editor take notice (my negative reactions above). It adds no real value to the articles - merely duplicating links that are already in the s-rail templates - and instead takes away the header that introduces the services section. In addition, many stations - like New Haven State Street station, Rahway station, and Pennsylvania Station (New York City) - are served by services that are off the NEC by the next stop, making the NEC heading even more confusing. I urge you to remove these and allow other editors to offer their inputs before making such a bold page across this many pages. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the infobox is fine without adding more parameters. It's cumbersome enough as is. James (talk/contribs) 17:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your earlier edit as it appears not to have consensus. --Izno (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Moving type below image to facilitate preview photos in beta hover popup
Example from Renforth station

Because the images used in the type field are before the first image in the infobox, the hover popup will pull only one of the logos from the type when multiple are listed. I think it would be preferable if type could be moved below image.

Aquahelper (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The hovercard/page preview I get for Renforth station is the picture of the platform. Are you referring to a different article or a different beta feature? Jc86035 (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah I had the wrong hovercard enabled, I was using the gadget navigation popup. But as I understand they're not official extensions, so nevermind my request Aquahelper (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd actually like to revive this request. "Type" - if it belongs at all in this infobox - should be below the main image, not above it. Currently, the field is used to cram in all sorts of information like logos and line information that is usually detailed elsewhere in the infobox. If a second line above the image is desired for useful functionality, it should be different from the type of station, which should be next to the line and operator information. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At present this infobox accepts a parameter called "type" which it describes as Transit system name and type of rail station (rapid transit, light rail, tram, commuter rail and/or regional rail); e.g. SEPTA rapid transit and tram station; Metrolink commuter rail station; San Diego Transit light rail station; RTA rapid transit station
 * I am assuming that the intention is to provide a simple textual description of the type of station. The infobox displays that information in the 'subheader' position, i.e. a data cell just below the main header cell.
 * What I am assuming you're concerned about is that the 'type' field has been converted for a somewhat different use: to display the logos of the "Transit system name / type of rail station". I should say, by the way that I'm very unhappy about how they are used in Renforth station, since a visually impaired visitor using assistive technology would hear "GO Transit logo.svg", "MiWay logo Aug2010.png", "TTC.svg"" which is a long way from being informative.
 * My view on the edit request is that this isn't a straightforward request. We could add a new field for 'Transit system name logos' that would render below the lead image and insist on text only for the 'type', which I think would meet your concerns. But that really needs discussion and a consensus obtained. I recommend you start that debate in a new section below and let this request lapse.
 * this is your bailiwick – do you have thoughts to add? --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Per comment above &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My own view of images such as those in the infobox of Renforth station (File:GO Transit logo.svg; File:MiWay logo Aug2010.png; File:TTC.svg; and File:GO bus symbol.svg, the first three of which occur twice each) is that they are WP:ICONDECORATION and only one step from MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. I didn't like it when started putting icons into the infoboxes of UK stations about six and a half years ago, but they were clearly on a mission. Can we be sure that all of these icons are free-use? I'd just get rid of the lot. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Per comment above &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My own view of images such as those in the infobox of Renforth station (File:GO Transit logo.svg; File:MiWay logo Aug2010.png; File:TTC.svg; and File:GO bus symbol.svg, the first three of which occur twice each) is that they are WP:ICONDECORATION and only one step from MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. I didn't like it when started putting icons into the infoboxes of UK stations about six and a half years ago, but they were clearly on a mission. Can we be sure that all of these icons are free-use? I'd just get rid of the lot. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)