Template talk:Infobox station

Services header

@Train2104: 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. Cards84664 (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. Cards84664 (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. Cards84664 (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cards84664: 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)

@Train2104: 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)

@Aquahelper: 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)

@Jc86035: 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)

@Pi.1415926535: 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.

@Redrose64: this is your bailiwick – do you have thoughts to add? --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Per comment above — 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 Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) started putting icons into the infoboxes of UK stations about six and a half years ago (example early edit), 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. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Optional separation of former and future services

I'd like to have two additional optional sets of services, services_collapsible, and services_state; with the headers set as "Former services" and "Future services". The intention is that for busy stations like North Station, the current services could be left expanded, but long lists of former services and/or future services could be collapsed to reduce the height of the infobox. For stations where this is not needed, the new parameters could be omitted and thus nothing would change from current usage. I am willing to sandbox this first if desired. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I support this proposal as well, adding the extra parameter will significantly declutter articles like Shaker Square. Cards84664 (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now: there are a few important stages to follow before using the edit-template protected template. Discussion -> detailed proposal -> code in sandbox -> consensus for change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think that past or future services belong in the infobox - they should be described in prose in a section within the main article body, perhaps with an accompanying routebox in the same section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh no! The Infobox can already become overstuffed with many parameters being co-opted from their original purpose. If the information is important enough, then it should be detailed in the body of the article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64 and Secondarywaltz: Let me clarify why I am asking for this. The purpose is absolutely ot to allow stuffing more information in infoboxes than currently exists, but to declutter the information that is already there. (Note that I've been putting in a lot of effort recently to declutter infoboxes to reduce scrolling.) I would fully support having a discussion within the project of how what former services are acceptable to include in a given infobox, in order to establish policy to prevent these parameters from being abused. I'm not sure what your objections are to future services in the infobox - if they are actually happening (i.e, in the formal design or construction phase), that's pretty important to include. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say remove services from the infobox and put them in the body instead. Then you can have some lovely massive succession boxes. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(For examples of my preference, see Bedminster railway station - current services are qualitatively different to future or past services, and they should not be represented together IMO, it leads to confusion -mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

Based on your first comment, I figured you were being sarcastic. Having a table take up the whole screen looks cluttered to me. Cards84664 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It may not be ideal, but it allows you to put the boxes by the text they're illustrating. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

U̶s̶e̶r̶:̶C̶a̶r̶d̶s̶8̶4̶6̶6̶4̶/̶s̶a̶n̶d̶b̶o̶x̶1̶1 Template:Infobox station/sandbox

@Pi.1415926535: This is what Union Station in Pittsburgh can look like. The secondary header can be customized to read as "former", "future", or both. Does anyone else agree that this looks better than the way it is now? Cards84664 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Union Station
Amtrak inter-city rail station
Services
Preceding station   Amtrak   Following station Template:Amtrak stations toward Template:Amtrak stations Template:Amtrak lines Template:Amtrak stations toward Template:Amtrak stations Terminus Template:Amtrak lines Template:Amtrak stations toward Template:Amtrak stations
Former services Preceding station   Amtrak   Following station Template:Amtrak stations toward Template:Amtrak stations Template:Amtrak lines 1998-2003 Template:Amtrak stations toward Template:Amtrak stations Template:Amtrak stations toward Template:Amtrak stations Template:Amtrak lines 1995-2005 Template:Amtrak stations toward Template:Amtrak stations Template:Amtrak stations toward Template:Amtrak stations Template:Amtrak lines 1971-1995 Template:Amtrak stations toward Template:Amtrak stations Template:Amtrak stations toward Template:Amtrak stations Template:Amtrak lines 1971-1979 Template:Amtrak stations toward Template:Amtrak stations Conrail Terminus Template:Conrail lines Template:Conrail stations toward Template:Conrail stations PRR Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Terminus Template:PRR lines Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines Terminus Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines Template:PRR stations toward Template:PRR stations Template:PRR lines

{{Infobox station/sandbox
| name          = Pittsburgh Union Station
| style         = Amtrak
| type          = [[Amtrak]] [[inter-city rail]] station
| services_collapsible =
| services = 
{{s-rail|title=Amtrak}}
{{s-line|system=Amtrak|line=Capitol Limited|previous=Alliance|next=Connellsville}}
{{s-line|system=Amtrak|line=Pennsylvanian|next=Greensburg}}
|other_services_header = Former services
|other_services_collapsible = yes
|other_services =
{{S-rail|title=Amtrak}}
{{S-line|system=Amtrak|line=Pennsylvanian|previous=Alliance|next=Greensburg|branch=''1998-2003''|type=Chicago|type2=Philadelphia}}
{{s-line|system=Amtrak|line=Three Rivers|previous=Youngstown|next=Greensburg|branch=''1995-2005''}}
{{s-line|system=Amtrak|line=Broadway Limited|previous=Canton|next=Greensburg|branch=''1971-1995''}}
{{s-line|system=Amtrak|line=National Limited|previous=Columbus, OH|next=Wilkinsburg|branch=''1971-1979''}}
{{s-rail-next|title=Conrail}}
{{s-line|system=Conrail|line=Parkway Limited|previous=|next=Wilkinsburg}}
{{s-rail-next|title=PRR}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Broadway Limited|previous=Crestline|next=Greensburg}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=General|previous=Canton|next=Altoona}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Spirit of St. Louis|previous=Steubenville|next=Altoona}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Pittsburgh-Oil City|next=Shadyside|rows1=2}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Pittsburgh-Torrance|next=Shadyside|hide1=yes}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Toledo-Pittsburgh|previous=Federal Street|next=|rows2=8}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Erie-Pittsburgh|previous=Federal Street|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Enon-Pittsburgh|previous=Federal Street|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Cleveland-Pittsburgh|previous=Federal Street|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Columbus-Pittsburgh|previous=Fourth Avenue|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Chartiers Branch|previous=Fourth Avenue|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Wheeling-Pittsburgh|previous=Fourth Avenue|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=PRR|line=Monongahela Division|previous=Fourth Avenue|hide2=yes}}
}}

@Cards84664: I think the parameters should have underscores instead of spaces for consistency, but aside from that, this is probably the best solution, unless the WMF decides to get someone to write JavaScript allowing parts of a table to be collapsed. Jc86035 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035:  Done Added underscores. Cards84664 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: What do you think of this? Cards84664 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The template looks great - that's exactly the functionality I'm looking for. (Even with the collapsible section, though, all the PRR routes are probably more detail than is really useful to readers. That might better belong as a collapsed box in the article text. But that's a separate discussion). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Finalized request

Addition of parameters other_services_header, other_services_collapsible and other_services, as shown in User:Cards84664/sandbox11 and above. Cards84664 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Cards84664, the {{Edit template-protected}} template contains hooks to the template's sandbox to make responding to your request straightforward. They don't connect to your sandbox, so I can't check your changes with the testcases and as a consequence -  Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES.. Cabayi (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Added. Cards84664 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)