Template talk:Infobox GB station/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Station codes 

message: 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)
replies: text: As no one has responded, I am going ahead and implementing it. Road Wizard 00:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclaimer 

message: 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)
replies: text: I would disagree: the  template is an infobox (which goes at the top of an article), giving a précis of details about the station in question, while the  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Template:UKrailwaystations]] to [[Template:UK stations]] 

message: Re: Comment above about removing station code from . See here for a revision of the infobox which incorporates the National Rail and Multimap Links. Mtpt 16:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to incorporate the external links from  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)
replies: text: I agree its best to leave those as links at the bottom. MRSC 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with that - may have misunderstood what you were suggesting about about removing the template? Mtpt 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Owned 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thanks again. I've added that. MRSC 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage stats update 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Funny problem 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Underlines removed, however getting rid of the bold for the caption is defeating me. Can anyone help? Pencefn 19:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adding a caption to the Image