Template talk:Infobox UK station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. 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
Template	This page is a template and does not require a rating on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
	This article is maintained by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is maintained by WikiProject UK Railways.

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 April 20. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Archived talk 2 Usage notes 2.1 Data sources 2.2 Syntax 3 Discussion 3.1 Birmingham New Street 4 Bilingual station names 5 Redundant template usage

[edit] Archived talk

• /Archive 1 (March - September 2006)
• /Archive 2 (Old talk from PTE template merged into this one)

[edit] Usage notes

[edit] Data sources

• Local authorities are listed here: England, Scotland, Wales (PDF Map)
• Usage stats: Spreadsheet 2004/5 (also gives managing TOC and UK region)

[edit] Syntax

{{UK stations|                         
name        = Crewe |                   
manager     = [[Virgin Trains]] |       
locale      = [[Crewe]] |               
borough     = [[Crewe and Nantwich]] |  
platforms   = 12|                       
}}

OPIONAL FIELDS:

image       = [[Image:Crewe station platform12.jpg|300px|Crewe]] |  
owner       = [[Network Rail]] |         
code        = CRE |                      
exits0405   = 0.764 million |            
years       = 1861 |                      
events      = Opened |                  

OPIONAL FIELDS FOR STATIONS WITHIN A PASSENGER TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE AREA:

pte         = [[West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive|West Midlands]] |   
zone        = 1 |   

OPTIONAL FIELD FOR STATIONS WITH WELSH/GAELIC/ETC NAMES

other_name  = Caerdydd Canolog |         

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Birmingham New Street

What goes wrong on this article? Mrsteviec 22:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The same issue that forced the change in template design for {{infobox country}} and {{infobox city}} occurs for pretty much every template that has a title outside the main box. Due to technical reasons which I don't pretend to understand, the titled text invariably becomes hidden underneath the actual infobox, and worse still if the text wraps onto a second line then half the text is completely lost. Moving the title into the infobox has been used on countless templates now in order to avoid this issue because it is a clean, fast, simple solution. Simple practicalities should always take preference over pinickity style concerns, hence the precendent of infobox country, city, uk county etc. etc. Obviously I am not about to break WP:3RR, but I would ask that you take the opportunity to revert your own edit and save the trouble. DJR (T) 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that this is an ad-hoc and not a systematic change and there are countless UK templates that use the standard style outside the box. The infobox city and country had this problem so it was the right thing to do there, but the other UK templates do not appear to have this restriction. Mrsteviec 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree there are countless other templates using the outside-the-box style, but if there has to be a standard then it has to be a standard that works for all. Putting the title within the box seems, touch wood, to provide a solution that works when a problem arises. All I can say is that every template I see with an exterior title, I try to correct - the way I see it every single one has the potential to go wrong under the old format, so it seems to make sense to use a foolproof-standard rather than one that is liable to cause issues. DJR (T) 11:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed somewhere more general than here so it can be applied generally if there is consensus. There are still countless other templates that use that style and looking at the bigger picture it would be better to have consistency. Furthermore, I am yet to see any evidence that the problem that occurred on the city/country infobox occurs here. Mrsteviec 19:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your two points seem incompatible. The problem has occurred with the city/country infobox, and was rectified. If there is going to be consistency, then consistency is surely going to have to take the rectified form, is it not? Furthermore, even if there is no issue with individual templates, there is always the potential for the issue to arise. When there is a solution already implemented in many templates, in seems senseless to stick to an old format just because other templates still use it. The fact that consensus was reached on all of these templates suggests that there is acceptance that this is the way forward... and by extension the simplest way to resolve this issue once and for all is to change each template one by one. Finally, this particular template (UK station) does have an issue - the Birmingham New Street example has overlapping the same way as "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" did using {{infobox country}}. I really don't think it's fair that some users (such as myself and everyone using common computers at my university) should be penalised just because other users cannot see a problem for themselves. It shouldn't matter whether you can see the problem - the fact that the problem can arise is more than enough reason to change it. DJR (T) 19:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you not think it would be better discuss this somewhere more general, say the UK noticeboard, to get some more input. This could be with a view to further standardisation and user envolvement. I don't understand why you resist this. Mrsteviec 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What/why exactly are you accusing me of resisting? I'd appreciate it if you assumed good faith for once and stopped talking to me as if I'm some sort of subordinate. If you're suggesting I don't support wider involvement then I think you've been reading another discussion. All I'm saying is that a simple solution has already been implemented in several instances, and given that nothing of any importance is actually being changed, WP:BB is quite clear that changes should just be made. It must be borne in mind that nothing is actually being changed - it is simple formatting corrections. DJR (T) 21:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that it would be better to effect a change from the top-down instead of changing only those templates you locate. There are hundreds of them on here. More importantly, Template:Infobox, the generic infobox template many new infoboxes will be based on, uses the style that you are trying to replace. A discussion, say on that template's talk page, could effect a system-wide change that others could participate in and provide a consistent look-and-feel or perhaps find a solution to the technical problem you have encountered. I don't think this is unreasonable to suggest moving this discussion there as this is hardly the forum for discussion on general infobox style changes.

As an aside, I don't understand why you have reacted to my calm and frank comments about content and suggestion for wider discussion with such an emotional and provocative reply. Mrsteviec 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that wider discussions would be better - I have never disagreed. If this is what you meant by "I don't understand why you resist this" then presumably you've made a wrong assumption somewhere. All I would like to say is that all of my edits did not involve significant changes - in fact they were minor edits. All were made in good faith so that users with my browser/settings including myself could benefit from the consistency of the new format on more pages. While I appreciate discussions can happen, they can happen without needlessly reverting several edits that, ultimately, does no good to anyone. DJR (T) 00:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. As far as I can tell, Template talk:Infobox would be a good place for you to suggest your change to the generic standard and generate some discussion with a view to its acceptance. Mrsteviec 06:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bilingual station names

Most stations in Wales, many in Scotland and Southall station in London have names in two languages (Welsh, Gaelic, Punjabi). In most cases these names are shown in the infobox with the English names, but there is no standard formatting - compare Mallaig railway station, Swansea railway station, Cardiff Bay railway station, Severn Tunnel Junction railway station and Southall railway station, and there are probably other formattings as well.

The template's name field is also used in the text at the bottom of the template about usage figures, which can be very messy when there are foreign language names.

What I suggest is that we add a new optional field to the template: "other_name", which using Swansea as an example would give:

|name = Swansea
|other_name = Abertawe

We should agree how we want this formatted. I think it should be slightly smaller (<small>), italicised and on a second line without brackets - i.e. like Mallaig railway station and Cardiff Queen Street railway station articles do it.

I will implement this in about a week if there are no objections. Thryduulf 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I support Thryduulf's suggestion. (Might italics be a bit tricky with the Punjabi one though?) --RFBailey 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this seems like a sensible solution. The English name should always take precedence given that this is an English Wikipedia, but it makes sense to create an optional field for an alternate name. DJR (T) 00:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Simply south 00:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Go with the italics on the template as described. If, after rolling out on a few boxes, it doesn't look right the template can easily be tweaked. MRSC • Talk 06:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re italics for Punjabi, under the proposed formatting it would appear as on the left. An alternative would be to colour the alternate names green, as is done on the signs. The third option makes the altnerate names small and green, but not italicised.

Southall ਸਾਊਥਹਾਲ Swansea Abertawe

Southall ਸਾਊਥਹਾਲ Swansea Abertawe

Southall ਸਾਊਥਹਾਲ Swansea Abertawe

Which style to people prefer? I think my favourite is actually small and green without italics, but I'm not set on this. (note I've made the boxes slightly narrower to fit side-by-side here) Thryduulf 09:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Another example to consider is that of country infoboxes, as you can see on Luxembourg. Three other languages are shown for the subject name on that page (included via one parameter in the infobox and separated by <br> tags); they put the alternate translations in italics above the English name. Looking at the samples here, though, I would prefer small italics in black below the name. Slambo (Speak) 11:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there any UK stations with more than one non-English names? If there are I think putting all of them on the other_name parameter would be fine. The reason for the two parameters is name is used again in a sentence at the bottom of the template. Thryduulf 16:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

They all look fine to me. I'm wary of colour as there may be accessibility issues. MRSC • Talk 07:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the accessibility of colours. I'll implement the field with small black italic formatting. Thryduulf 13:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thryduulf has asked me to come here and check that the Punjabi rendition of Southall is correct. I can confirm that it is. Regards, Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Thryduulf 13:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Small italics black? Whats wrong with bold italics? In Wales, the welsh name is ust as, perhaps even more, common. 13:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant template usage

I noticed that there are a number of stations that have the template:UKrailwaystations and the Template:Infobox UK station templates which seems redundant, since both of them have an alpha directory of stations, I started removing template:UKrailwaystations from those stations that have both templates, but I fear I might have done the wrong thing. Should I continue, leave as is, or revert my changes? I've changed around 20 articles (using AWB) --ArmadilloFromHell 04:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I remember the intention was to replace the UKrailwaystations box with Infobox UK station. So it was the right thing to do. 06:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well its not totally redundant as it is used in the other templates so it can't be got rid of (possibly yet). Simply south 14:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, there are a lot of places where only the smaller template is used, I was not planning on changing any of those, only the ones where both are present. In fact some of the ones I changed looked downright ugly, with the small alpha bar hanging in the middle of the article instead of being at the bottom. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)