Template talk:Infobox GB station

message: What about entries for the building - and subsequent - companies? Perry Barr railway station, for example, went GJR- LNWR - LMS. Andy Mabbett 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather this was discussed in the "history" section of an article, rather than summarised in the infobox: it might be quite long for some stations.  I'm also concerned about the amount of historical information in some cases of the use of this infobox: see Dorking railway station for a rather extreme example.  --RFBailey 20:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not bothered by that (the Dorking example), but what about just "former Big Four allegiance" or some such? Or a small logo indicating the same? Andy Mabbett 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We went this way for Cambuslang and Rutherglen. The latter has now been simplified with information being moved into the text, following message of dissent from a third party. Some of the Scottish Historic Stations have long lists. --Stewart 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see what you're referring to, on either of those pages. Andy Mabbett 08:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  On reflection, I now think there should be just one or two entries; original owner and big four owner; so for my Perry Barr example we would list GJR and LMS. For Tyseley railway station, just GWR. Andy Mabbett 08:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should respect that many editors will want to include a some what long list of past station owners, and further consultation would be needed. This will of course depend on the station article, many are stubs, with just infoboxes and rail line/s-line infoboxes, others are really good article where this will be needed. Pickle 12:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference would be to keep this as prose in the article text, otherwise, we risk devaluing the infobox by overwhelming the reader with information. Adambro 13:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 1838  Opened by Grand Junction Railway
I'll do that on Perry Barr railway station for illustration. Andy Mabbett 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That looks fine, maybe I misunderstood the proposal. I was suggesting that we don't list every company that has owned the station in the infobox to avoid it getting too lengthy. Adambro 13:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you were on a break?!? ;-)  I suggested "just one or two entries; original owner and big four owner", which Id still prefer as discrete taxobox options. Andy Mabbett 14:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Former companies

message: We've now got two links to National Rail in the template, one with the "live departures" link and one above the A-Z index (example: Perry Barr railway station). Andy Mabbett 10:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is still an issue. Andy Mabbett 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how much of a problem it is myself but I think if we were to remove one it should be the one with the station info links. I suppose it could be unlinked as opposed to completely removed. Adambro 21:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the National Rail link on the live departures/station information line.  --RFBailey 11:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate links

message: I tried using this template on Dudley railway station, but it doesn't really fit. Is there an alternative, for disused stations, or should this template be amended to fit them? Andy Mabbett 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is  which looks like it could be expanded to cover the United Kingdom. I've asked the creator about doing this (see User talk:Dreamer84) and they seem to welcome the idea so I'd suggest you participate in the discussion there. As I understand it, there isn't much that would need to be changed. Adambro 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disused stations

message: I'm wondering whether we actually need the links to the usage notes for the station usage figures as both years are linked from the source link. Adambro 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage notes links 

message: Recent changes have introduced features that I do not understand, for example Classes "vcard", "fn", "org" and "label" are used by the hCard microformat. Can I suggest that some user notes are added, for those of us who are not up to speed with this syntax. --Stewart 21:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that; how does it read? Andy Mabbett 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Template Modifications

message: I've moved the documentation to  and included that in the template itself, as done elsewhere. Andy Mabbett 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved documentation

message: I see that Geoking66 has added code to the template to allow both "rail line" and "s-rail" navigation boxes to be moved to the infobox.
a) personally style wise i don't like it but the Americans have been doing it for ages so what the hell... I would ask Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways first though for a style POV. Especailly considering the the trend on longer article to move the nav box with the "services" part of the article.
b) may i recommend you be very careful in "rolling out" "s-rail" like you have done on Stoke-on-Trent railway station. when it was first rolled out int he UK, place like the tube, dlr, tyne and wear, Manchester metro link, etc all adopted it but UK railways didn't. a certain individual objected significantly resulting in several mini edit wars. after some talk (on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways) consensus was not achieved, thus "rail line" was maintained and s-rail not allowed on to UK railways.... - don't say i didn't warn you.
Pickle 12:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  S-rail 

message: Using the new events system, no distinction is made between the PTE section by adding a "History" sub-heading as was the previous case.
See Bescot Stadium railway station to see what I mean. Worley-d 21:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the problem: 'years' and 'events' must be used for the first event to make the History sub-header appear, rather than 'years1' and 'events1'. --Dreamer84 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue with the template

message: User:Mark999 has added tfl and zone fields to the template. There is an existing zone field, which is now resulting in double displays - see Tipton railway station --Stewart (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted his changes so that the matter can be discussed: I suspect this is something to do with his rather enigmatic comment here.  --RFBailey 15:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am slowly working towards merging the London infobox into this one but will try to ensure that any disruption is kept to a minimum. It is a significant task and not something which can be rushed into. I hope that taking a more considered approach to this is welcomed. Adambro (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport for London 

message: I have noticed that there are a number of different widths being applied to images. A number of us within WP:TIS have been using 265px as the optimum width that uses the maximum width without rescaling (widdening) the infobox. Recent discussion with User:Nick who had been been setting these to 250px has made me realise that there is not really a standard width. User:Nick has suggested that a width could be hardcoded into the infobox. This would make life easier and all the infoboxes look the same;  a medium border - with a 250px width; or a minimum border - with a 265px. Then there is the decision of a suitable width for the few portrait images that exist, and those that are not a standard aspect ratio. Thoughts? --Stewart (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardcoding the width into the infobox is a good idea (although I'm not entirely sure how to go about it, I'm sure there must be more to it that just adding 'width=265px' to the image line). As one of the fellow "265ers" I'd opt for that size. I'd probably suggest that one width be used for everything, the portrait photos aren't too bad, for all the handful that there are. --Dreamer84 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be quite happy to go along with the 265px for all the boxes too. I wasn't actually aware there was an agreed upon size for the Scottish stations. We would need a bot (or a few volunteers, which might be the best option) to swap from the present image syntax of image= to something simple like image=Image:Example.png or image=example.png, with the template having the size hard coded in. There's a couple of ways to do this, it should be possible to have the template compatible with both formats of image at the moment, we can gradually swap them over and then when the bulk of the templates are done, simply remove the old code from the template, leaving the new streamlined code to do all of the work. Given that nobody has objected and we're not seeing a mass reversion of image sizes on the template, it looks like the image size of 265px isn't going to upset or annoy anybody, and on that basis, I'll give it a few more days, but will make some changes towards the end of the week. Nick (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A fixed width is fine (and 265px seems a sensible one), provided that all images used are that width or wider, otherwise the image gets stretched and looks messy.  On the off-chance that there is such an image used, perhaps a "narrowimage" field should be implemented to allow for this situation.  I think there are templates with such a field, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.  --RFBailey (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 265px seems a sensible size but is this such a big problem as to justify changing the template. Every instance where this is used on articles will have to be changed. Seems a load of edits for not a great deal of gain. Whether it's 250px, 265px, 300px, or whatever, I don't think it matters too much. Consistency is great but I'm not sure a few pixels difference here and there really justifies the thousands of edits which would be required. Don't get me wrong, this is a better way of doing things though. Perhaps rather than replacing image= with a new format, add a image_name= option so that this can begin to be used whilst maintaining backwards compatibility until such time  as some other changes related to this template are required to justify the large number of edits. Adambro (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been bold and added a new field, as suggested by Adambro, called 'image_name', hard coded to 265px. It seems to work as seen at Saltcoats railway station. This new code only requires "Imagename.jpg" to work, without any square brackets or the "Image:" prefix. --Dreamer84 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably a dumb question but will it also work with images that are not .jpg ? Simply south (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep shouldn't be a problem, I just used jpg as an example. ;) --Dreamer84 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Width 

message: This may be a useful addition. Adding status to the infobox so to show Whther it is open, closed, proposed, being planned, under construction etc. What do others think? Simply south (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, we should only be using this for open stations.  There is already  which could perhaps be adapted to provide  or some such thing.  --RFBailey (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There has already been a  infobox for that purpose for some time now. --- Dreamer 84 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I forgot about that one..... --RFBailey (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree though that since this template should only be used for open stations, a 'status' field is really redundant. If the template is used for proposed/under construction stations, I think the History section would be the best place to note the station's current status. --- Dreamer 84 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just a thought. Probably events and years will suffice. Simply south (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you could have "|years=2009 |events=Proposed opening date", for instance.  --RFBailey (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: Should the template also take account of the presence of Regional Transport Partnerships in Scotland, including the readdressing of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport from a PTE to a RTP? Jacqueline2008 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional Transport Partnerships (Scotland) 

message: Perhaps it would be more useful to link to live arrivals/departures (e.g. ) than to just live departures (e.g. ).  What do others think?  --RFBailey (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem. Go for it. Simply south (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, I think that sounds like a very useful improvement. DrFrench (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  --RFBailey (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live departures 

message: User  has moved the template to the new name of  (log entry).  This now means that all 2000+ instances will now have to redirect here.  Presumably if this needs to be fixed a bot should do it.  Also, the documentation subpage wasn't moved (or updated to reflect the new template name): I've now fixed this.  --RFBailey (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to update any of the transclusions so long as the redirect works. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This move may have jumped the gun. It is probably revertable to the previous title if other feel that the move is inappropriate. --Stewart (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just moved the three corresponding talk archive pages to keep things in order. -- Trevj (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: "This template is intended for currently-open stations that are part of the National Rail network". Is there any reason for this? A lot of stations on preserved lines, private lines etc. use this template, and I cannot find any alternative for them. As this template seems to work perfectly well (other than categorising them into the hidden category UK stations without latest usage statistics) I suggest changing this to "This template is intended for currently-open stations that within Great Britain". Any thoughts? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As there's no objections, I've updated it. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Where are the correct contents of  and  documented? There is an IP user 90.205.32.99 who is methodically altering values in  to be the county; and in several cases, also altering values in  as well, but in different fashion - I've not yet worked out the basis. I've not reverted any, just in case he's correct. When I do, I'd like to point him at the relevant doc. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all of those have been reverted, only one by myself. Another IP user 90.205.32.108 has been pulling a similar trick, several of the affected stations were the same, and I think all have been reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locale, Borough: meaning of 

message: I stumbled upon the category page :Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics and noticed a few things which I think we should sort out. No major rush; just a few things that seem a bit odd. I'm guessing that this category is based on the lack of information in the  or something, from . But what about stations at which passenger numbers are not freely available?: for example, stations like ; one of those that caught my eye when looking through the category above. Another that did the same was Ballabeg (IoMR) railway station: also a heritage station, but this time one on the Isle of Man (which may be within Great Britain as a mindset, but it is not within the United Kingdom as the category, and template contents suggest). I'm not saying that the IoM should have their own railway station infobox, nor am I asking for support in developing one for UK heritage railway stations; in fact, I'm sure there's probably one out there. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is one: try , as per . --Redrose64 (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we use the template to populate :Category:Low usage railway stations in the United Kingdom rather than the current manual method. This would make all it less of a pain to update when usages change (or the criteria for low usage alters). Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox oddities and the  usage statistics 

message: From my talk page: 
On a related issue regarding :Category:British railway stations opened in 1829 as an example, it might be better to use the format :Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom opened in 1829 for consistency with :Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom. British railway stations is a bit awkward and doesn't really fit nicely within the existing category structure. In the fomat :Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom opened in 1829, each category could go in a new :Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by year of establishment (for consistency with :Category:Railway stations by year of establishment) and :Category:Railway stations opened in 1829.
I would welcome your thoughts on this, and I'd be happy to work with you to change this if you agreed. Adambro (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds liek a good idea to me, but I wanted to see what other people thought before moving 150 categories. Tompw (talk) (review) 14:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon you need a 'bot... but it's a good idea. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll sort out a bot to do this when I get chance then. Adambro (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom opened in (year)? 

message: I've removed three parameters from the documentation which are unrecognised by the template as it stands; these are ,  and .
I've also added a (nearly) complete blank template for copy-and-paste purposes. I say nearly, because the template recognises five parameters which are undocumented; it may be that these are still in development. These five are: , , ,  and . The last three are ignored unless  is also specified. Should these five be documented? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation 

message: As currently implemented, it is possible for up to three separate "History" headers to appear in this infobox, depending on which parameters are supplied. Shouldn't they be merged into a single section?
In any case, I feel that if you choose to use the multiple "events" and "years" parameters, it's better to specify the opening as one of the events instead of using the "start" parameter. The layout looks more consistent. So could the "start" and "starting" parameters be reformatted to look cosmetically like any other event?
Finally, any changes here should also be reflected in  and . -- Dr Greg  talk  16:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History subsections 

message: It occurs to me that this template,  and  have a lot of similarities between them. Would it be technically possible to make all three use a common, shared sub-template to handle those elements that exist within all three infoboxes? This would make template maintenance easier, as for many changes only one sub-template will need changing instead of all three main templates. -- Dr Greg  talk  16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three similar templates 

message: Would it be worth adding NLC's to this template? CrossHouses (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: NLC's? Non Linear Controls? WatcherZero (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  National Location Codes, each station has a unique 4-digit code (e.g. 1127 Birmingham New Street; 1243 Crewe; 1444 London Euston; 1823 Derby). CrossHouses (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They also have unique three-letter codes, which we place in the  parameter. These codes are useful because they may be used to construct the Live arrivals/departures and station information links. In what way would the NLCs be useful? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  NLC's can be used when using telephone booking services, purchasing from ticket offices/online, checking engineering works etc. CrossHouses (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NLC's 

message: I came across an article on United Kingdom railway station categories on the categorisation of railway stations by the DfT. It gives the opportunity to identify the many unstaffed stations which I think would be useful. This could be achieved by a new optional heading under Operations - DfT Category. The heading would be a link back to the article and the category(sub-category) could be left as is or translated to the description. What do others think?Bill Oversixty (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had time to look more closely at these categories it is apparent that there are some problems. Usage figures are used in determining the category and there are a large number of inconsistencies. Similarly with staffing. It may be best to leave things as they are.Bill Oversixty (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; the usage figures are known to be unreliable, for several reasons: these include variation in the method of data collection, the existence of season tickets/passes which are valid between more than two stations (the London Travelcard is best example) and the plurality of stations in certain areas. Consider Liverpool: tickets are sold as to/from Liverpool, and take no account of whether the station be Central, James Street, Lime Street or Moorfields. Consider Wakefield: the suspiciously low figures for  between 2004 and 2007 may be due to the real figures being misattributed to . --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railway station category 

message: The use of multiple annual ORR station usage statistics in this template, together with indications as to whether the figures are up or down on the previous year, implies that these figures are comparable with each other over time. This is misleading, as the method used to calculate these figures changes year-on-year. For example, looking at the infobox for Birmingham New Street railway station, you would think that the usage of the station dramatically increased between 2007/08 (17.007 million entries and exits) and 2008/09 (25.192 million). In fact, if you read page 21 of the document explaining this year's figures, you can see that 08-09 was the first year that the report included passengers travelling on tickets sold by the PTE, a huge proportion of the daily commuters using the station. In fact the two years' figures are completely incomparable. On the basis that misleading information is worse than no information, would this template be better just showing the most recent year's figures, and not trying to show trends over time? JimmyGuano (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't apply to all stations though, so I'd say for the time being it should be kept as is. Sgreen93 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage statistics

message: It has been suggested in this merger proposal that the navbox-like links should be removed.  Users of this template may wish to be aware of the proposal. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger, and removal of navbox-like links 

message: The parameters usage* and lowusage* aren't defined in the documentation. An important point to discuss include at what number lowusage* becomes usage*: we currently have articles such as March railway station where the 2007/8 statistics are expressed in millions but the larger 2008/9 statistics are expressed in plain numbers. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I use as a rule of thumb anything under 100,000 lowusage and above usage so an example 99,524 would be (99,524) and 112,954 would be (0.113 Million). Mark999 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it is only a rough guide, there is a link to the exact numbers if people wish to look it up, I think for numbers over 100,000 usage is appropriate. Mark999 (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: int and lowint aren't defined, either. At a guess, I'd say they refer to the "YEAR interchanges" field, but I don't recall this ever being used, even for a station like Thorpe-le-Soken, which is mostly used to change train. Does anyone actually know, though? Aoeuidhtns (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  and  are for interchange passengers. This probably includes several counts, such as the number of passengers changing from one train to another on the same system, and the number of passengers changing from one system to another, for example between National Rail and London Underground. I expect this includes the "Plusbus" scheme, because otherwise I can't explain why ,  or  (non-junction terminal stations with no nearby light rail) are shown as having 52, 22 and 7562 interchanges in 2010-11. Much more puzzling is , a National Rail station which is also a terminus of the Manchester tram system, which shows just 10 interchanges. The many with zero should probably be interpreted as "information not available". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  usage/lowusage parameters 

message: I've created a template called Template:Infobox_GB_station_simple. It's a wrapper around this one intended to make it easier to add annual passenger counts with a consistent format.
Rather than writing (say)
|usage0506 =  0.291
on a page, you could write
|usage0506 = 291054.
The template works out whether the total has gone up or down based on the previous year's figures (it doesn't show a change if the previous year's total is missing). The choice of whether to display the total as 291,054 or 0.291 million is based on a flag called 'million' (there's a million_int one for interchanges, if you're counting those).
I haven't provided a means to have some years shown as millions and some not, but I think the trends are clearer if each year uses the same format.
One thing I don't quite understand is why the image size property doesn't work quite as I intended. At first, I had
| imagesize    = 
but it didn't pick the default size up from this template, but rather showed the image at full size. Changing it to
| imagesize    = 265px
worked, but I don't know why I need it.
I couldn't change the existing template to work like this immediately, as the data isn't in this format. I have changed Bury St Edmunds railway station to use this template, however, largely because there were no arrows on its display. What does anyone think? Aoeuidhtns (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why another station infobox template is required. We already have five infoboxes for British stations - there are some at WP:TFD who want to eliminate at least two of these, and possibly all five. This new template appears to have a similar purpose to the existing , which has only recently survived a TFD; and that was a close call. Creating yet another as has been done with  will provide more material for those who would wish deletion upon all station infoboxes. A compromise was reached: please, let's not jeopardise it. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that we don't need another station template, but I like the idea of the automatic /. Could this be incorporated into this template? (It would need a bot to remove the existing tags.)  An optimist on the run!  11:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it would great to incorporate this into the existing template Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Simplified" template. 

message: and  have both been nominated for deletion. One of the suggestions is that both be merged to this template, which would likely result in this template being moved back to . Comments on any aspect of the nomination would be appreciated. Both deleion discussions may be found here. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template deletion that may affect this template 

message: Here is the discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways - what are everyone's thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:MULTI, don't have two discussions; you may link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Interchange statistics from here, but discuss it there only. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interchange statistics 

message: It would be useful to have some additional fields to record the architect and construction company for each station. Could this be considered? Andrewrabbott (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Architect

message: The 15/16 usage statistics are now out, can someone add the parameters to this template (and the London station templates) please? Ideally if they could also add a 16/17 usage parameter then that would avoid us having this problem next year as well... Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the 2015-16 ones, both  and . --Redrose64 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Great thanks, I noticed these had come out and will update as many as possible over the next few days Horizon22 (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  15/16 stats 

message: After seeing this edit I found my way to WikiProject UK Railways and then to this talk page in the hope of starting a discussion about the practice of commenting out old station usage figures. I can see from further up that the topic has come up before. The issue is that as station usage figures are released each year and added to infoboxes, these infoboxes grow ever longer. We can comment out all but the last few years but this seems an odd thing to do: it makes the figures totally invisible to readers, as if we have changed our minds about them being encyclopaedic, but leaves them in for editors, as if we are not quite convinced we should get rid of them. Surely the answer is a collapsible [show] link in the infobox. It looks like this was proposed but never implemented. Is there a way it could be implemented now? Beorhtwulf (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you examine the section #Interchange statistics, 2018 above, you will see that this has already been suggested. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I'm suggesting it again. That discussion seemed to mainly concern interchange statistics, but regardless of what is done about those, is it not possible to make the part of the infobox with usage statistics (interchange or otherwise) collapsible? Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: it is possible but really needs a Lua version to make the collapse point dynamic e.g. show the most recent x years data held an collapse anything older. Nthep (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would support a collapsible list, say three or four years by default and ten on the full list. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Thank you, that's helpful to know. While a dynamic template might be optimal, would it be possible to have the collapse point set manually and thereby avoid having to work something up in Lua? At the moment the end of the markup comment is being set manually. If we decide it's desirable to show x years, it seems to me this could either be implemented through automation of the template, or just as a matter of policy. Beorhtwulf (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsible usage stats 

message: MOS:YEARRANGE specifies the use of a dash between years in a range (e.g. 1993–94), but this template uses a slash (e.g. 1993/94). Is there a reason that a slash is used here instead of following MOS? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:DATERANGE does allow for the slash range e.g. 2017/18 for fiscal years or other periods backed by reliable sources. As the DfT data used in the figures uses (last time I looked) slash rather than ndash I guess that is why slashes are used in this template. If there was a proposal to change I wouldn't be opposing but I wouldn't be seeking the change either. Nthep (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Because it is not a year range in the conventional sense. It is precisely the second 'half' of the initial year plus the first 'half' of the second year, beginning and ending on specific dates. Plus it is the notation used in the source, and one widely used in the UK for financial and academic years. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I completely missed the small note about slashes in the section that I linked. My mistake. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for slash instead of dash in year range? 

message: A change on 28 September has apparently deleted some of the functionality, such as the links to "Live arrivals/departures, station information and onward connections from National Rail Enquiries".  The change doesn't seem to have been discussed here, so I'll revert yesterday's change until it is explained or corrected. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and I'm quite annoyed with that. I'm still waiting for  to reply to  at Template talk:Infobox station#Cleaning up GB station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , you could've pinged me. Will respond. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: One, I did - in : the  makes a link to a user page, and since it was in a new post that I also signed, it also sent a notification. Two,  was placed directly below a comment made by yourself, and since you were the principal contributor to that whole section I naturally assumed that you were watching that page and no notification on that page should have been necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What is happening here - where are all the station infobox footers and when are they going to be restored? May be a revert to last clean version is appropriate if there is no action on this. Keith D (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would both revert and protect, because I too, am extremely frustrated about what is going on here, but I can't because it might seem like overreaction. Decisions about this template are being wrested from those who actually use it, see Template talk:Infobox station#UK stations merge (but also some of the other threads on that page), it's been going on for months. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really desire the footers, we can discuss them even further, but it's a bit of a "why weren't you there the first discussion we had on it" kinda thing. Community time was expended on the discussion of that feature, on whether to retain or not, and a consensus was reached; if people missed that, it feels a slight waste of time to just keep revisiting the same points. Do I get to reopen every RfC/discussion in the past that I wasn't around to attend and don't like the outcome of? They're not infobox material anyway, in my eyes. Have you never questioned why no large-scale infobox gives A-Z navigation on a topic? It's about readers, not writers, and there's zero evidence any reader benefits from that.The discussion is now at 105,000 characters and counting. It will likely be 150,000 characters or more by the time we are finished. Reverting because you don't like the removal of functionality removed in process would be inappropriate. If it's undiscussed, unintentional losses of functionality, that's something completely different, but it would certainly be more collaborative to raise it in the discussion first for resolution.ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give specific link to agreement to remove the footer information from the template. Keith D (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , there have been discussed losses of functionality since your implementation of the wrapper, some of which I fixed for you, and one of which (image sizes) currently appears to still be broken. Your hasty conversion of this template into a wrapper continues to cause problems in live encyclopedia articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you meant undiscussed, . Well, yes, but if you look at those three issues it appears less worse than how you put it. Those three are/were: unknown parameter tracking cats, region GB in GeoHack (which, really, is a region.php GeoHack bug), and now upright images being too large because image_upright wasn't previously used. Only the 3rd still remains, and we'll get it fixed. Sooner so if we focus on what the neatest way to fix it is. Keith, I'll reply to your message later this afternoon. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained changes with loss of functionality 

message: The new wrapper version of this template displays "United Kingdom" as part of the location, which I think is helpful, but it does so only if one or both of  or  are populated. Since this template is only for stations in the UK, I don't know that there should be an if statement that governs that country name display. Someone who knows more about the edge case uses of this template may be able to determine whether the infobox should simply show "United Kingdom" in all articles. 
In any event, given this new de facto requirement, I have added a tracking category, , for articles with neither  nor  defined. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This tracking is a good idea. I added that if statement because adding in the country also shows the location header, then it all looks too weird and messed up on those articles if another location field (ie locale/borough) isn't defined. It's visually neatest to just add the locale into the pages that show up in the cat, I thought. In any case, I don't mind if we want to remove the if. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New tracking category for missing locale/borough