Template talk:Infobox GB station/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Station codes
I'm not sure that the station code needs to be included so prominently. The three-letter station codes are nowhere near as widely used as the IATA airport codes. Perhaps an alternative place in the infobox could be found for them. --RFBailey 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've removed it and amended Template:Stn art lnk so that it displays the code as part of the links footer. As this has already been populated for many stations it will save having to re-add this to again for the infobox. MRSC 06:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, as kind of the designer of this template, I can see where you are coming from, Thanks for putting it into the other i/bx. Djm1279 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
TFD
Found three infoboxes that supercede this as a better (in my opinion) version these are Template:Infobox UK medium railway station Template:Infobox UK minor railway station and Template:Infobox UK major railway station. Your thoughts would be appreciated thanks. Danny 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC).
- As this template is only used in a few places, and there are other suitable templates available, this one can probably go. However, some of it could be salvaged to be incorporated into the templates above, mainly the ability to include an image. For this reason, I have kept a copy of it in my user space, at User:RFBailey/UK stations. --RFBailey 20:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support RFBailey, It doesn't seem to be a lot of resounding favour for my proposal, I think if this was to go we would have to reformat the other templates, maybe even just keeping Template:Infobox UK medium railway station (and incorporating some data), though I don't know, we'll wait and see how the debate goes! Danny 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I can't say I support using the other templates as they are more suited to a travel guide than an encyclopedia. I see no reason why we can't add more info, where needed, to the existing template. MRSC 10:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, you're right: there is the problem of "too much information". Is the presence of baby-changing facilities or bicycle lockers notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia? Probably not. Besides, all that sort of information is available from the National Rail Station Information pages, which are automatically linked via the {{stn art lnk}} and {{stn art lrnk}} templates.
- There are changes that could be made to this template though. For instance, measuring the number of passengers in millions probably not a good idea for the smaller stations (I would imagine somewhere like Hopton Heath railway station would have something like 0.0001 million users per year.) The other thing is just a personal preference, but I like the colour scheme of the "Infobox" templates better. --RFBailey 19:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I really like the alternative colour scheme and think it should be copied to the three templates (London, PTE and UK). My gut instinct is when presenting like-for-like data is to keep it all in the same units for comparison. MRSC 06:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Does anyone else think that the 'History' bit needs changing? Surely it should be changed to 'Key dates' and 'Opened' be moved to the former column. That way, other events could be listed including extensions, redevelopments etc. Just my two cents. Samluke777 22:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- See above for how to add the info you desire. MRSC 06:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Usage statistics
Three points. First, I presume that the annual entry/exit statistics are drawn from this document (an Excel spreadsheet). Is the correct usage to add together the figures in the entry and exit columns?
Second, I still think that uniformly presenting the annual usage in the millions is fine for busy stations, but absurd for quieter stations. (For instance, Gainsborough Central railway station would have an entry of 0.000008 million if the statistics are to be believed!) For, say, less than 100,000, I suggest we should just put in the figure.
Third, these statistics do carry a number of flaws with them, such as:
- in "group station" areas, e.g. Birmingham, tickets sold to "Birmingham Stations" are mostly counted towards the main station, leaving the secondary ones (e.g. Snow Hill, Moor Street) looking suspiciously quiet (this might account for the Gainsborough Central figure above);
- passengers using certain TfL or PTE-issued tickets/passes are not counted at all.
I appreciate that it would be hard to find a better set of statistics, but perhaps we should find some way of linking (internally or externally) to some sort of disclaimer. --RFBailey 11:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, unfortunately as you've said stats are difficult to come by, and this is the best Ive found (admittedly with help), Ive noticed this with my tickets, my most frequent journey (Warrington Central-Birchwood) states from Warrington Stations to Birchwood, so these stats as far as I know go to Bank Quay as this is the mainline station, rather than central, so its flawed but its the best up to now. DannyM 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Point here is that data is flawed, the rest is just a bit of proof for what you are discussng DannyM 20:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes they are drawn from that doc and yes add the two together to get the figure. LU station data comes from here: [1]
- Given that we have to add together the "entry" and "exit" figures, just calling the field {{{exits}}} has confused a few people, and has resulting in just the number of exits being included (this was the case at Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury, for instance) rather than the total. Maybe this should be renamed {{{usage}}} or something. --RFBailey 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right for stations of less that 1,000 (0.001 million) it does look a bit daft. There are 70 (of 2495) that fall into that category so for these few I would suggest using an amended template.
- Yes. No reason why not to put something in. I would be inclined to say they are only supposed to be generally indicative of how busy a station is. MRSC 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I think a disclaimer is good, but also a change in template DannyM 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Change in template=what you were discussing above, maybe a straight out figure e.g. 120,167 would be better instead of 0.120 million, sorry seemed to struggle to make my point above DannyM 20:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Errr...could you clarify what you mean by that last remark?
- Also, does anyone have a suggestion as to where the disclaimer should go? Some articles (e.g. here) already include one, but as written it's rather a lot of information and should probably live somewhere else. I'm not sure where though. --RFBailey 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by clarify but doesn't matter atm, the data did come with usage notes, but I can't remember where they came from DannyM 20:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was slightly worried by what you might mean by a "change in template": I didn't want to start the TfD confusion again! --RFBailey 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- read above for my "definition" of change in template (If not done so already), sorry, I regret suggesting deletion of this DannyM 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think I found the usage notes (.pdf file) though whether they are for the version of the spreadsheet given above, I am not sure. The statistics are found on the Office of Rail Regulation web page. Road Wizard 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, those are the usage notes. I meant to put in a link to them this morning (sorry). --RFBailey 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- This may be a real stupid suggestion as I am new here and don't know all the rules yet, but would it be possible to place a disclaimer in an archive of this talk page and include a link from the template to the archived page. This would have the benefit of retaining the disclaimer in a sub-page of the template itself, but separate it out from the day-to-day chit chat of the main talk page. However, I await your declarations of my stupidity. :) Road Wizard 20:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- An ingenious idea, but I don't think the wiki-perfectionists would go for it. It should probably go somewhere in the article space, rather than on a talk page. I'll wait for what the experts say! --RFBailey 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- How about we add Usage notes for entry and exit statistics (PDF file) as a new line to the template at the bottom of the page that has live departures on it? MRSC 05:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- What do people think of doing this:
e.g. 300,000[2], Is this against the rules? I think as regards disclaimer for stats this is a good idea as not all station have the infobox, so for all stations except those with the i/box the disclaimer would be irrelevant if added as per Mrsteviec's suggestion, DannyM 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- As most of the busiest stations are in London or in one of the metroplitan counties and they have their own infoboxes I think it would be best to remove the million from this template and leave the style up to the editor. Someone will have to go through and update the articles that use this template of course. MRSC 11:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with removing 'millions' from this template (but leaving it in the London/PTE ones). As for the disclaimer, I would suggest putting a link like that but immediately after Annual entry/exit rather than by the number. However, we might be better off with an internal link to a version of the disclaimer (like the one on the Shrewsbury railway station article), but I'm not sure where it could go. --RFBailey 12:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've added the disclaimer. Articles for major stations need a minor tweak to remove the logo from the name field but this is not a problem as the logo is reapeated at the start of these articles. MRSC 16:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Disclaimer
Can we progress the issue about the disclaimer please? I have just had to explain the reason for the distorted numbers to a user at Talk:Manchester Victoria station, and I am sure if one person asks there must be plenty more who have thought the question but haven't asked it. I would insert the disclaimer myself, but I would like your input on how to proceed before I make a hash of things. Thanks. Road Wizard 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- As no one has responded, I am going ahead and implementing it. Road Wizard 00:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The two templates - the infobox and the alpha-index - are valid on exactly the same pages. Wouldn't it make sense to add the alpha-index to the infobox? The same would go for Template:UK stations PTE.
I'm not suggesting deleting the index - it would still be valid on pages which don't yet have an infobox. Mtpt 17:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
| {{{image}}} | |
|---|---|
| Management | |
| Managed by | {{{manager}}} |
| Location | |
| Place | {{{locale}}} |
| Local authority | {{{borough}}} |
| Statistics | |
| Annual entry/exit | {{{exits}}} million * |
| Platforms in use | {{{platforms}}} |
| History | |
| Key dates | Opened {{{start}}} |
| * based on sales of tickets in 2002/03 financial year which end or originate at {{{name}}}. Disclaimer (PDF) | |
| National Rail | |
| UK railway stations | |
- I would disagree: the {{UK stations}} template is an infobox (which goes at the top of an article), giving a précis of details about the station in question, while the {{UKrailwaystations}} template is a navigational template (which should go at the bottom). It's just an unfortunate accident that the two templates have such similar names! --RFBailey 11:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- That clean distinction simply doesn't exist in practice. Many navigational templates are actually sidebars placed at the right top side of articles, and there are plenty of primarily navigational templates which double as infoboxes - either at top right or at the foot. (The similarity of the names is not a factor in the suggestion). This suggestion would just declutter articles where an infobox has been implemented (where it hasn't been, there would still be the standalone index).Mtpt 12:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Single Station Template
Building on what MRSC has done by way of optional elements, I've bashed together this template which suppresses any empty field or unused element - such as the footnote disclaimer - and includes an optional Transport for London link (as this is the only really distinct element of Template:London_stations). It allows all the functionality of the existing three templates in one. Two examples below based on Liverpool Lime Street. Comments? Mtpt 12:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
| |
|---|---|
| Location | |
| Place | Liverpool |
| Local authority | Liverpool |
| Operations | |
| Managed by | Network Rail |
| Owned by | Network Rail |
| Platforms in use | 9 + 1 underground |
| Annual entry/exit | 11.141 million * |
| * based on sales of tickets in 2002/03 financial year which end or originate at Liverpool Lime Street. Disclaimer (PDF) | |
| Passenger Transport Executive | |
| PTE | Merseytravel |
| Zone | C/E |
| History | |
| 1833 1836 1849 1959 |
Begun Opened Current building First electrified |
| National Rail - UK railway stations | |
| Location | |
|---|---|
| Place | {{{locale}}} |
| Local authority | Liverpool |
| Operations | |
| Managed by | Network Rail |
| Owned by | Network Rail |
| Platforms in use | 9 + 1 underground |
| Passenger Transport Executive | |
| PTE | Merseytravel |
| History | |
| Key dates | Opened 1836 |
| National Rail - UK railway stations | |
- Looks like a good idea. Some fields don't need to be optional: name, manager, locale and borough should always be included, so I think it would be better to have those as compulsory. It would certainly get round the problem of people using the wrong one: recently I've been having to remove the {{UK stations PTE}} template from various Lancashire articles (which had had a local rail users' association entered as the PTE!) and putting the PTE version into some West Yorkshire articles. Also, it would be helpful if we got somebody with a bot to do the substiting (and removing the {{UKrailwaystations}} templates). --RFBailey 12:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The disclaimer would not apply to London Underground stations so I'm not 100% sure its the best path to combine the London one in. What would be better would be to build in some optional elements to that template so it could better handle the large stations like London Bridge which have tube and mainline sections. However, I fully support combining the PTE template into this one. One major concern is that there needs to be some non-conditional elements as RFBailey describes. MRSC 13:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Current fields and my personal view on optionality:
- Name - Non-optional
- Image - Optional
- Manager - Non-optional
- Locale - Non-optional
- Borough - Optional
- PTE - Optional
- Zone - Optional
- Exits - Optional
- Lowexits - Optional
- Code - Optional
- Platforms - Optional
- Start - Optional
- Years - Optional
- Events - Optional
- London - Optional (allows London specific features)
- Using the London field and creating new exit fields (LondonExits; LondonLowexits) would allow the disclaimer to be suppressed for London stations, without getting involved in anything more complicated than if statements.
- With regard to London Bridge, I think we need a WikiProject UK Railways consensus on how to treat conjoined stations and associated metro stations. Euston has two seperate pages, Waterloo has one page with four seperate info-boxes, and Liverpool Lime Street and Partick both treatg the low-level metro platform as part of the main station, with no seperate infobox. It would be trivially easy to insert fields for an associated station, but it might be more consistent to have a seperate page, and an optional link to it within the infobox. Mtpt 14:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- On reflection I definitely do not support combining the London stations in. Conditionals are great but it is getting too elaborate and a simple solution already exists. MRSC 15:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't the core issue whether or not stations in London actually need a seperate template? So far the only concrete reason for this is that London Underground stations may not require a disclaimer on their usage figures (the Transport for London link doesn't count - the PTE infobox template already implements a PTE link). I can see an argument could be made for Template:London Underground Stations, albeit that this would logically support the creation of templates such as Template:Merseyrail Stations and Template:Northern Ireland Stations, but can't see how one can be made for a seperate template for normal mainline stations that just happen to be in London. Doesn't the query about London Bridge arise because a number of stations are conjoined, not because the stations in question happen to be in London? Mtpt 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to look to implement this next weekend for {{UK stations PTE}} and {{UK stations}} (but given the comments above, not {{London stations}} at this time). Any views on addition/optionality of fields welcomed! One possibility that crossed my mind was to include optional fields for the original railway company and the architect (the latter since these articles are also about the physical building). Mtpt 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Mtpt's new version
I've made a small change to Mtpt's new version: I've moved the heading back outside of the "box". I think it looks better there.
I'd prefer it if the station code and number of platforms came after the location description: I think they deserve precedence. Incidentally, if the station code is to remain, we should take it out of the {{stn art lnk}} template. --RFBailey 19:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've put them first because they don't need a heading - otherwise you get a general mish-mash lower down and/or multiple headings. I didn't want to put in a complicated conditional to try and prevent that. Mtpt 19:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Platforms could go under "statistics", where it was before. If we could think of an alternative heading for that section, the station code could go there as well. I can't think of a suitable header right now, but will sleep on it. It needn't be something complicated. --RFBailey 22:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't making myself clear - If you had both {{platforms}} and {{exits}} trigger a Statistics heading, and both were present, you would get two headings (the same will now happen if you put both exits and lowexits in, but you can assume this wouldn't happen). There is a way around this, but it involves putting a complicated conditional statement in, which is far more prone to being messed by accident.
- I was trying to say that as a comprimise I put platforms (and Station Code) into the top, where no heading was needed.
- All of that said, I think Station Code should stay with managed by at the top. Mtpt 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Far too many fields are conditional now. Every place in the UK is located in one local authority or another so there is no reason to make that conditional. Also, some fields are ok to leave blank to point readers to the fact the data needs to be added still. MRSC 10:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's a matter of opinion, and assumes that someone will eventually fill those blanks (wishes, horses, etc.). Some of the information - things like station code and manager - are listed for every station on the National Rail site, and so can be required. I'm not aware of a similar authoritative list of stations giving the number of platforms in use, for example. Mtpt 13:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- All stations have platforms so it is pretty basic data. Anyone with limited knowledge of a station will know how many it has and will add it if the field is empty. However, how will they know if it is concealed? Wikipedia isn't a completed collection of articles. There is nothing to be gained from trying hide where data is missing. If anything contribution should be encouraged. Conditionals should be used to hide data that isn't apt for a particular article, not conceal every item that has yet to be populated. MRSC 13:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- There are specific ways of flagging data which could be added. I wonder whether a new editor would see {{{platforms}}} as an invitation to edit, or a software error. If you see this as such a problem, I'm surprised you didn't raise these objections in response to the original list above. Mtpt 14:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Links
Re: Comment above about removing station code from {{stn art lnk}}. See here for a revision of the infobox which incorporates the National Rail and Multimap Links. Mtpt 16:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to incorporate the external links from {{stn art lnk}} into the infobox. They are, after all, external links, which should go under that heading (as per WP:EL#How to link). --RFBailey 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree its best to leave those as links at the bottom. MRSC 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with that - may have misunderstood what you were suggesting about about removing the template? Mtpt 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like it: all I was suggesting (and have actually implemented in this edit) was to remove the station code from that template. --RFBailey 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Owned
On a different subject, the "Owned by" field doesn't seem necessary: Network Rail own practically all the stations in Great Britain (save for a few run by London Underground). --RFBailey 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- But is this obvious? One might assume a station is owned by the local train operator as their name is plastered all over it. MRSC 20:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's not obvious. But I thought the infobox was to show information that was specific to the station in question, rather than something that applies to (almost) all of them? --RFBailey 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Also query what's meant by owned. Some stations are leased to PTEs, and many aren't owned by Network Rail at all - they either have licences for the duration of railway use, or a lease from the owner. It could be more relevant if the Government ever regains its nerve and starts implementing local operation, or if some of the plans for new - privately owned - railways move on. Perhaps comment it out for the time being? Mtpt 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll remove the default to Network Rail so it only appears if the data has been entered, as on the London template. MRSC 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Usage stats update
There is now an update to the usage stats for the 2004-2005 period. Station usage 2004-05. Simply south 21:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is great! The list is also organised much better with county, region and the managing TOC listed. I have added an extra field of "exits0405" to be used for this data and it generates an updated disclaimer. MRSC 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think this document on the notes of 2004-05 should be used as disclaimer? Simply south 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I've added that. MRSC 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Funny problem
Copied from Mrsteviec's page
Its good that there is an update now. Anyway there is a slight problem in that when people are updating the stats, they are now coming out at for example 7.123 people or 18.958 people etc, without the million part. This happen only at some stations before corrected. Simply south 11:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorted by Mrsteviec. Simply south 13:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Adding a caption to the Image
Recent comment from Erath to my reversion of the image at Partick station has led to me to play with a copy of the template. I had added the thumb parameter to the image to get the caption as there were links in the caption.
I have had a go see what you think at User:Pencefn/Sandbox2 with a copy of the template modified at Template:Pencefn/Sandbox1.
I have also underlined the two in-box headings to differentiate them from the caption.
Comments please - Pencefn 22:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The style changes are unneccasary, especially underlining things that are not links. The caption is ok but should not be in bold. MRSC 16:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Underlines removed, however getting rid of the bold for the caption is defeating me. Can anyone help? Pencefn 19:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- The initial " ! " at the beginning of the line gives it the bold style. It needed replacing with a " | " (which has to be written as " {{!}} " as it is part of a parser function). I've added it to the original template. MRSC 14:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)