Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:38, 17 February 2011

Template:Infobox station is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Trains: Stations Template‑class

Trains Portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Template This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This template is supported by WikiProject Stations.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

"Route map" request

{{editprotected}} Can somebody copy the code from {{Infobox rail line}} that allows for the route diagram template inclusion? Thanks. — Alex Khristov 07:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I added the code the way it should be added. Please add it between

 | data34={{{map_locator|}}}

and

}}</includeonly><noinclude>

— Alex Khristov 06:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 | belowstyle = vertical-align:middle;
 | below      = {{#if:{{{map<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|
<table style="width:100%; margin:0; background-color:#F9F9F9;" class="collapsible {{{map_state|}}}">
<tr><th style="background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;">{{{map_name|Route map}}}</th></tr>
<tr><td align="center">
{{{map}}}
</td></tr>
</table>
}}

 Done, please let me know if there are any problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think all the spaces to get the HTML code to look better screwed it up a bit... it's not supposed to have the dashed box around it. :-) — Alex Khristov 08:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops,  Fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, discovered another flaw. There's another "map" parameter. Can you change the one you added to "route_map"? Thanks. — Alex Khristov 06:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Accidents

{{editprotected}} Can we have a new area for accidents, it would be used as a digit, so lets say a station had two crashes in it before it would read Accidents 2. Its just a new field and it would be useful thanks. ZStoler (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Amalthea 21:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment If an accident is notable enough to be mentioned, it should have extensive coverage in the article. An Infobox is for things that usually happen - not accidents. Secondarywaltz (talk)

Comment I second the comments of Secondarywaltz above. --DAJF (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree completely with Secondarywaltz. Mackensen (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the other three users who believe that this would be an inappropriate use of the template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate text

Can we add a parameter that will pass alternate text for the image? --Admrboltz (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Milepost

On many lines, stations and other structures are at a known distance from a fixed point; typically the main terminus. Would it be possible to have a field in the statistics section to show this?

Eg:

| milepost      = <!--{{convert|10|mi|km}}-->

Alternatively or additionally, how about some free label/text fields?

As an example, Template:Infobox school provides:

| free_label    = 
| free_text     = 
| free_label1   = 
| free_text1    = 
| free_label2   = 
| free_text2    = 
| free_label3   = 
| free_text3    = 
| free_label4   = 
| free_text4    = 
| free_label5   = 
| free_text5    = 

-Arb. (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit

Please make changes according to this diff. They put in the variables on the template page so it's clearer which parameters go where on the template itself. Thanks - oahiyeel 05:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) - oahiyeel 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

style parameter

I've noticed there's a style parameter that is not mentioned in the documentation but is used often in Amtrak station articles. How does this parameter work? --TorriTorri 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• The parameter is tied in to the {{s-rail}} series of templates; if you put in "Amtrak" it'll call up a set of values from {{Amtrak style}}. Mackensen (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Accessible

We need a proper parameter where we can enter "accessible = yes/no" not just the current USA expression "ADA" which no matter what you enter will display a wheelchair icon. If an entry for ADA exists by all means continue to show the icon, but we also need the ability to say that the station is NOT accessible. This additional parameter would enable those who are in favour of using the image to continue to do so, but also allow a text message instead, when some other situation exists. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Smartcard parameters

I propose adding two parameters called smartcardname and smartcardstatus or similar, which would allow usersto specify whether or not the station is included in any relevant smartcard system. (I'm specfically thinking of the Presto card and TTC subway stations, because not all subway stations are planned to have card readers, and the roll-out for those that are will take place in several stages). Any thoughts/comments/suggestions?

Probably a good idea, and one that I for one never thought about. I ride the Washington Metro, and on Metro, everything takes SmarTrip (the local smart card), and so I never really gave it any thought. But I do think it's a good idea for those systems where smart card implementation is not uniform. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

Given the lack of objections, please add the following two lines of code to just below the fare zone part of the code, and increase the numbering on label23/data23 onwards by one:

| label23={{{smartcardname}}}

| data23={{{smartcardstatus<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}

Tompw (talk) (review) 21:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  22:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit needed

{{Editprotected}} Could someone please add the copy of CTA code for MOSMETRO? Thanks. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 13:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what you actually want changing, please? Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

above parameter. Make a copy with mosmetro_header option in if operator. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you should simply create a "style" for the header. See Template:MNRR New Haven style and what it does. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes

For accessibility and Google-friendliness reasons "title" should be used instead of "above" for {{{name}}}. Also this infobox seem to overwrite the main infobox with "font-size: 90%;" over "font-size: 88%;", unless there a reason for the overwrite, the infobox shouldn't be overwritten. So with theses two reasons I suggest "title" is used and "font-size: 90%;" is removed. Thoughts? d'oh! _talk 15:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That would have a major negative impact on the way that {{{name}}} and {{{type}}} currently display together to form a unified heading within the box, whereas using "title" would display the name parameter above the box. If Google searches on the article title, what would be the problem? Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh! You don't seem to use the {{{type}}} or {{{style}}} parameters. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I don't use {{{type}}}, but I fail to see how the change will negative impact {{{type}}}. The reason why "title" should be used, goes to what HTML code the infobox creates at the end. With "above" a normal row is used but with "title" the infobox uses <caption/> tag which helps accessibility software for disabled people and search engine crawlers. d'oh! _talk 04:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to conflict with the way {{Infobox}} itself is designed--Infobox allows either above or title to be used, without prejudice. Making the change you suggest would place the styling information for the station name outside the infobox, which is not a minor change. I agree with Secondarywaltz; surely Google searches and screen readers depend on the actual title of the article, not a parameter in the infobox? There's nothing obvious in Infobox's documentation suggesting that the one is preferable to the other. Mackensen (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, that's the style adopted by the most common country-specific templates, such as {{infobox UK station}}. Anyway, I've put up a sandbox and test cases which remove the width and font size overrides as a start: if there are no objections I'll sync these in a few days. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks mostly identical (so either I misunderstood the original proposal, this isn't that proposal, or it wasn't explained well). Dropping the image width default will have a negative impact on article formatting. Also, at least on the CTA articles (try State/Lake (CTA), it's representative) we lose the th background color for some reason. Mackensen (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The original proposal contained two suggestions: using a proper HTML caption and not a header row for the title, and using the default {{infobox}} metrics (for font size specifically, but extrapolated to the general case). The sandbox drops the overrides of the width, font size, and header background attributes, along with using frameless (the reader's default thumbnail size) as the image size default rather than hard-coding 300px (which not only results in oversized infoboxes, but also results in images smaller than 300px being stretched). The original styling appears to have been arbitrary, whereas the {{infobox}} defaults have been repeatedly discussed and found to be suitable for most articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold on! These poor examples do not adequately show the impact that changing the current default width has. The box should be wide enough to display information without wrapping major parameters, like coordinates. Try something that only uses this infobox and is not stuffed with things unrelated to the discussion or, as you have pointed out, falsely forces a box width with an image size. This is a hurried response, or I would have shown you what I meant. I'll be back! 74.15.65.161 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the image size but longer information for some parameters in thousands of articles has been formatted to suit the current box width and that will cause unusual breaks in text. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Architect and Artist

Its seems to me that all buildings, not just stations, should have an entry for the architect in the infobox. Many Metros, like Moscow and Paris, are famous for their art, and many new subway systems have a certain portion of their budget given over for art in the stations. I therefore propose two new parameters for "architect" and "artist" to be added after "structure". Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems a good enough idea. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Passenger numbers

It would appear that we need to modify the way the "passengers" parameter displays. Here's what happened to bring me to this request:

• Patriarca12 adds average weekly ridership figures to Addison Road – Seat Pleasant (WMATA station) (diff) using a WMATA source.

• Patriarca12 then self-reverts (diff)

• I inquire regarding the removal (diff), and Patriarca12 responds (diff).

As it turns out, according to Patriarca12, most systems that use this infobox parameter use it to display total ridership for the year, whereas the information that we have is average weekday ridership. Thus it would appear that the "passengers" parameter should be modified in order to allow for us to specify exactly what kind of ridership data we are reporting. In the case of WMATA, I don't believe that we have annual totals available to us, thus we are unable to utilize the parameter as exists.

What I'm thinking is that we add some sort of parameter that allows us to describe in the infobox, next to or nearby to the number, just what kind of information we are using to arrive at the figure that we are giving.

Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with SchuminWeb on this one. A separate parameter to allow for average weekday passenger loads would be helpful. This type of information I know for certain is available for both WMATA and Miami-Dade Transit and would probably be easily available for most systems. It would be nice to be able to add it to the infobox. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this really require a separate parameter to accomplish? It's already possible to specify multiple passenger numbers (using mpassenger); what's wrong with passing a value like "Daily" or "Daily FY2009" in pass_year? Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I just want to be able to delineate it in a way that makes sense when putting it all together. That seems more like a workaround and kind of non-standard. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reopened

Can we add a new parameter for "reopened"? Given that currently there are parameters for "opened" and "closed" I really believe this would be an easy way to provide noteworthy information for stations that have been reopened after a period of being closed (not for something temporary like reconstruction) without resorting to something clumsy like adding breaks and parenthetical comments underneath the "opened" parameter. Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe take inspiration from {{Infobox GB station}} which has nine pairs of |yearsn=/|eventsn= for the purpose of recording opening, renaming, closure, reopening etc. Some stations in the UK have been reopened two or even three times. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the method, can at least something be done? Hint hint, admins. Lost on Belmont (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There should be a little rethink to help make this Infobox become more universally available. There are a lot of custom versions out there, that only exist because of the reticence to add a couple of parameters. Infobox road, a much more complex system, was recently upgraded to accommodate complete worldwide usage. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Coords type parameter

{{editprotected}}I'd like request the following change to the coordinates code: type:landmark

be replaced with

type:railwaystation

per Template:Coord#type:T. Thanks. XLerate (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Plastikspork _―Œ 06:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename proposal

It has been proposed in this section that Template:Infobox station be renamed and moved to Template:Infobox train station. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Template:Infobox station → Template:Infobox train station — Station is ambiguous per that dab page - gas/petrol station, police station, radio station etc.

• Support as nominator. XLerate (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support --AdmrBoltz 05:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would prefer Template:Infobox rail station. "train station" is ... well, it's been discussed before. "rail station" avoids the ugliness and is ENGVAR-neutral between "railroad station" and "railway station". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Train station is the name of our article, keeping the template consistent makes sense. oknazevad (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Template-Class rail transport pages
• NA-importance rail transport pages
• Template-Class Stations pages
• WikiProject Stations articles
• All WikiProject Trains pages
• Requested moves