Template talk:Infobox London station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Template:Infobox London station:

  • convert all image fields to image_name to ensure maps and photographs match width YesY completed 31/12/09
  • remove access icon from station names to ensure correct map captions (could be recreated as a field on its own) YesY completed 31/12/09
  • remove any use of "exits" or "railexits" fields in favour of fields specific to year & source YesY completed 31/12/09
  • update history section to use consistent format:
    • remove "start" version YesY completed 31/12/09
    • update "years" and "events" to "years1", "years2" etc. YesY completed 07/01/10
  • Some LUL stations not served by NR have the "railcode" field populated causing bad external links; replace with "tubecode" YesY completed 21/01/10
  • update all NR stations to latest usage figures
  • add captions to all images and WP:ALT text
  • add co-ordinates to all articles to generate maps

OS Grid Reference

There is no field suitable for an OS grid reference. This should not be too difficult; it has already been provided on {{Infobox GB station}}, {{Infobox UK disused station}} and {{Infobox UK heritage station}}; in all three cases it is |gridref=. See, for example, Didcot railway station, Steventon railway station and Wallingford railway station respectively.

Consider Herne Hill railway station; there is an OS grid ref in the lede, we might specify that in the infobox as |gridref=TQ319744 to achieve an effect similar to the examples in the above paragraph. There is a similar feature on {{Infobox UK place}}, where it is called |os_grid_reference= and I can give no better example than Herne Hill. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to also have this in {{Infobox Closed London station}} --Redrose64 (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have just added this to the {{Infobox Closed London station}} documentation as it is in the template code. There is still no entry here should it be added? Keith D (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Goodness graciousness - is this thread still open? Nobody seems to have complained, so let's do it. For consistency with {{Infobox GB station}} it would go between {{{borough|}}} and {{{manager|}}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
OK I have bitten the bullet and changed the template. Keith D (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


Why do the empty templates have the pipes at the end of each row instead of the beginning? The natural method for me is to copy and paste one of the empty templates, and just tack values on the row ends. But that doesn't work - you've got to consciously insert before the pipe. Compare Template:Infobox GB station, Template:Infobox UK disused station, Template:Infobox UK heritage station, Template:Infobox UK place and pretty much all of the citation templates in vertical format. Template:Infobox Closed London station is similarly affected. Will anybody mind if I regularise these two? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done it, and cleaned the rest up in the process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Disabled access

The template now supports disabled access. Always add {{citation step free south east rail}} and/or {{citation step free tube map}} as the reference, unless there is a more recent source that has new information. MRSC (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please also be cautious when added "access=yes" if there is not full access to every platform. MRSC (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Might this not be getting a bit beyond an encyclopaedia and closer to a travel guide? I'm not sure that disabled access, or the lack of, is a particularly significant feature of a station in a historical context. Adambro (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
People were adding (and re-adding) it by suffixing {{access icon}} to the station name, which is less than ideal. I checked and they have it for articles in the New York system. It isn't a problem as long as it is not misleading and is properly referenced. Disabled metro access (or lack of it) is an increasingly political issue. MRSC (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


When updating statistics, I think we should limit the output to the last three years of available data. This is because methodologies have changed, rendering some comparisons over time impossible, and because presenting too much data is not helpful to the reader. The older data can be commented out to stop it appearing. It is also possible to use {{increase}} and {{decrease}} to indicate changes. See Upminster Bridge tube station for an example. MRSC (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that it would be helpful to decide on the data we included. Perhaps you could consider moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways since it is probably relevant to all UK stations. Adambro (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Any reason we can't show the coordinates inside the box, like with other station templates? See, for example, Hamstead railway station. I suggest putting them right below the map. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's rather an unnecessary duplication, as the code used puts the coordinates at the top right of the page anyway which is the more common method across wikipedia.--DavidCane (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally I would also like a |gridref= parameter.
Is there a case for making {{Infobox London station}} more like {{Infobox GB station}} - there are many common features. I don't think that a merge is necessary - both these have unique features which IMO should remain unique (the TfL stuff in the London one, the PTE stuff in the non-London one, etc.) - but a feature of one which could be useful in the other should be copied, and, for appearances sake, behave similarly.
Another benefit would be that should a station be redesignated to lie within the TfL area, a change of infobox should mean just changing the template name - provided that all the parameters have similar name and function, little (if anything) will be lost. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Good call. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Whether it's unnecessary is a subjective opinion - it does have the advantage of including the coordinates in the emitted microformat - but it's done in many infoboxes, not only about stations. As noted above, standardisation is a good thing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Station coords belong in the top right corner of the article in conformity with other articles; placing them elsewhere where they are not so visible will only confuse the uninformed reader. The situation which exists for Hamstead is to be avoided as it is not only a duplication but may also lead to a scenario where one value differs from the other. I would however be in favour of standardisation between the {{Infobox London station}} and {{Infobox GB station}} templates, incorporating a gridref parameter in the London template and moving the station name back into the infobox. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Our readers don't seem to be confused by the coordinates included in hundreds of other infoboxes on Wikipedia - can you explain why you think this one is different, please? The proposal at hand is to show the coordinates in both locations, not to remove them from the top right. The two values cannot differ, as they are emitted from the same source data, using a single instance of template {{Coord}}, with the |display= set to inline,title. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem arises when the article has the latitude/longitude as infobox parameters, and also has a {{coord}} anywhere else in the wikicode (usually found just above the categories), and the lat and/or long values in the {{coord}} differ from those in the infobox, either in precision or in actual value, as here. Such problems can affect any infobox which allows lat/long, such as {{Infobox UK place}}; here is an example where such a difference corrupts the display upper right. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a relatively trivial task for a bot to remove (or flag for review) such duplication; again, plenty of other infoboxes manage to work in this way; including {{Infobox GB station}} and the massively used {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I am aware that many infoboxes work this way: my point was that some users put the lat/long into the infobox when it's already in a {{coord}} (or vice versa), and either they do this using values different from those already in the article, or somebody else then comes along and alters one pair, without realising that the other pair must be kept consistent or (better) removed. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see the benefit in having the coords in both the infobox and top-right hand corner. It was mentioned above that they should be "below the map", but there are never any maps in station infoboxes. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox London station}} has a map - look at its documentation. The benefit of having them in the top-right is that, as said above, that's where most people look for them; the benefit of having them on the infobox (as well) are that the infobox summarises key data (which coordinates are) and that they're then included in the emitted hCard microformat. AS I've said, this is already now the majority of infoboxes about places have them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
That functionality is rarely implemented as it's not much use. I still don't see the point of cluttering up the infobox with information found just above it. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The coordinates don't need to be displayed in the infobox to generate microformat data. That's generated by the template because the latitude and longitude parameters are used in the {{coord}} template which, in turn, produces the microformat data. This is also the template which puts the coordinates at the top of the page. --DavidCane (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking abut the data-rich hCard microformat emitted by the infobox; not the much simpler geo microformat emitted by {{Coord}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
From my understanding, if the appropriate data is contained in the template, then it will be part of the generated hcard code. Unless I'm missing something, the coordinates don't actually need to be displayed in the infobox for that to happen.--DavidCane (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the co-ordinates are unnecessary. However I do also feel that a gridref parameter should be added, and don't see why there isn't one already..Sgreen93 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If an infobox places the lat/long coordinates at upper right (whether or not they are also shown in the infobox), and an article using such infobox also has a separate {{coord|display=title}} (e.g., by being in the wikicode just above the categories), the article will be placed on Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing overlapping coordinates (updated 13th of every month), even if the two sets of coordinates are identical. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical companies

Template {{Infobox GB station}} includes provision for adding the Original, Pregroup and Postgroup companies to the template. Can this be added to this template. --Stewart (talk | edits) 09:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to do this, but I think that we'd better resolve the issue below first, since that may need changes to the template. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Documentation II

I've updated the documentation to list the |railexits0910= etc. (and also |railexits0809= etc. which were missing). Whilst doing this, I noticed that three parameters are documented but not implemented:

  • |image_alt=
  • |railexits0304=
  • |tubecode=

Conversely, quite a lot are implemented but not documented:

  • |alt_name1=
  • |events10= to |events15= inclusive
  • |fare_zone_note=
  • |imagesize=
  • |interchange1= to |interchange5= inclusive
  • |label_position=
  • |railcode1=
  • |raillowexits0203= |raillowexits0405= to |raillowexits0910= inclusive
  • |raillowint0203= |raillowint0405= to |raillowint0910= inclusive
  • |tracks=
  • |years10= to |years15= inclusive

Should the template be amended to match the documentation, or the other way around? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rail exits

The rail exits currently display as "2004-05", "2005-06", etc. using hyphens not dashes. Per WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN, they should display as "2004–05" and such. Can someone replace the hyphens with dashes? Thanks. Lincolnite (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also per WP:YEAR, as it goes, so Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Lincolnite (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Formatting snafu?

Version 1

Compare the sections Lists of stations and External links. Why do the links associated with the latter not follow the format of the links associated with the former? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have the form (version 1). The Lists of stations is formatted using the {{,}} template, whereas External links is formatted using the "•" character.
Version 2
I suggest altering both to use the WP:HLIST method; and at the same time, reduce the height a little, see version 2. Comments please? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I like the loss of white space, but the smaller separator is not that good because of the external link maker that tends to overshadow it. Keith D (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If you're concerned about that, please raised the issue on the CSS talk page, so that it can be resolved for all of Wikipedia, if consensus dictates, rather than just one infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Version 3
To the contrary, I think that with those icons you don't need additional separators. [version 3] Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the second of the three examples posted here, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Version 2 is the most accessible; and accords with the MoS. Each of those facts trumps personal aesthetic preferences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised this has not been fixed yet. Be bold! Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
OK then,  Done, see here --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Good! I knew I could rely on you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation step free tube map

I'm finding an odd error that I can't seem to figure out how to fix, that I first cam across on the Gallions Reach station article. The ref for the disabled access icon will not display properly. Minor, but any help? Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 12:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Try this --Redrose64 (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Whoops. There's me making it more complicated than it is. Cheers. Difficultly north (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

entry / exit reference

The default ref for entries and exit totals appears dead. Can someone fix this? The figures (from 2007 to 2011) can be sourced from: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/1592.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talkcontribs) 14:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The automatically generated reference for 2007 to 2010 has been amended to use the same one as for later years.--DavidCane (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Location map

The location map seems to have acquired some extra padding on the left sometime in the past few days. Anyone know what's happened? — lfdder 00:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: can you provide an example and/or screenshot? I don't see any extra padding. Frietjes (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That was then. This is now. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed it now, it was right aligned. — lfdder 19:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Tube exit and entry data

Currently to include tube entry/exit data requires an edit has to be made to each station's article - a laborious task. I have created templates for the years 2010-2013 at {{Tubeexits2010}}, {{Tubeexits2011}}, {{Tubeexits2012}}, {{Tubeexits2013}} which contain all of the usage data for a year in a single place. When transcluded into the infobox, these use switches based on {{PAGENAME}} to display the appropriate data without any direct editing of the article being required. My thinking is that we could just impose the data into all relevant infoboxes and ignore/override any existing entry/exit data in the infobox in the article.

Using 2013 as an example, the code could be modified from:

|data25 = {{#if:{{{tubeexits13|}}}|{{{tubeexits13|}}} million<ref name=infobox_stats_ref_tube_2007>{{Citation LU usage 2007 onwards}}</ref>}}


|data25 = {{#if:{{{symbol|underground}}}{{{symbol2|underground}}}{{{symbol3|underground}}}{{{symbol4|underground}}} | {{Tubeexits2013}}<ref name=infobox_stats_ref_tube_2007>{{Citation LU usage 2007 onwards}}</ref>|}}

This looks at the symbol= (and its related parameters) is see if the article is about a tube station. If it is this will insert the usage statistics from {{Tubeexits2013}}. Any existing data for will be ignored.

Any thoughts on another way to do this? --DavidCane (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Wikidata. It's not just for interlanguage links --Redrose64 (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
so, that would mean just as much work, but for every Wikidata page instead of every article? I suppose the upside is that it would be available in all the corresponding articles on other language projects, but it doesn't seem like it would reduce the effort for keeping this WP up-to-date. another option would be to have a bot do it (either here, or on Wikidata). Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I've now implemented my suggestion from October (though the coding is slightly different). The update also includes adding the 2014 usage data.--DavidCane (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Preparing for TFD merge

Hello, I've started a discussion about the start of a TFD merge, and it affects this template. The discussion is here, and all input is welcome. - X201 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Station name positioning

Would it be possible to align this template with {{Infobox GB station}} by bringing the name of the station within the infobox? Lamberhurst (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

seems like a reasonable request, also matches {{infobox station}}, so I made the change. Frietjes (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Usage figures

This template only goes up to 2013/14 for the usage figures meaning I am unable to update stations with the latest figures. Can someone update it so that I can do this? Thanks! http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Absolutelypuremilk (talkcontribs)

Done. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 14:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_London_station&oldid=695363387"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_London_station
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Template talk:Infobox London station"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA