Template talk:Infobox London station/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inclusion of station lists in infobox

I notice the recent useful addition to the template by Mtpt of the station list but think that, as this is the London Station infobox, it might be more useful to be a bit more selective and include just those on the London Underground and the Docklands Light Railway and those National Rail stations actually in London. These stations are listed at List of London Underground stations and List of London railway stations. I have drafted a modified version of the template incorporating these lists in a similar fashion to Mtpt's edit at my sandbox for comments. DavidCane 00:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Must have read your mind as I put this in last night without even seeing your comment. MRSC 09:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added back the UK railway stations link, but not the index - take the points above about being more selective about the index, but these stations are still part of the national transport network even if they happen to be in London. Mtpt 14:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No need. There is already a link to National Rail info. MRSC 15:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a need. See the comment above. The existing link is to *London* stations, not to the rest of the network. Mtpt 15:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That article has links to wider Uk information. From an article of a station in London it is perfectly reasonable to link to other stations in London first. MRSC 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It didn't - it's just in that category - but before we hit 3rv I've edited it to include one. Mtpt 15:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re tab It would be of some use to put the alpha list back in, in my opinion (subject to it working with a NR station only). It would keep it close to the main UK rail station info template and it would allow us to remove another template, reducing clutter on the pages. Regan123 09:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Tube Portal

I removed the recent addition of the {{tubeportal}} template from this template. This is because it appears below the main template box and has the effect of messing up the formating of many of the articles where secondary images are aligned directly under the template box.

It might be worth putting the tube portal tag into the template so that it appears inside the box but I don't want to attempt this as it is quite a complex template and I don't want to mess it up. - DavidCane 16:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably best to take it out; only insert it into the articles relevant. But not necessarily into the template. Simply south 16:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've worked out a way of including the Tubeportal tag in the template so that it appears only on those stations that have a tube service. I have done this by adding a new row to the bottom of the box that appears only if the "tubeexits" parameter has been used. Obviously this only applies to stations with a tube service. At the moment there are many tube stations where the older "exits" parameter has been used and these will not show the tag, but it's a start, I think, in the right direction and will save tagging every station article individually with the tubeportal template. DavidCane 02:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This addition also causes the wikiproject category to appear in the article space. These usually are attached to talk pages? MRSC • Talk 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Preceding/Following Station template

I wonder if by any chance, the possibility of incorporating the preceding/following station template into this as well? Could be a bit challenging with space but I guess it's better to have one template to contain info for a single station. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst it would be nice to put the information pertaining to a single station in one place the preceding/following box at the foot of the page is a common feature of station articles used for railway and metro stations across Wikipedia, both in the English language version and other languages (see New York's Grand Central Terminal or Gare du Nord on French Wikipedia as other examples). The preceding/following box should be kept for consistency.

The technical and logistical aspects of making the change are also considerable:

• With several hundred tube, DLR and National Rail stations in London using the template, the rewrite from scratch would be considerable and probably not one that could be done by a bot.
• The Infobox template is fixed-width whereas the preceding/following box varies in width to suit the length of the station and line names - this would be difficult to accommodate in a narrow infobox.

DavidCane 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Width of infobox and problems with history display

I have noticed a problem when using the new years and events parameters. If the length of the event text is wider than the width of the second column it wraps to a second line. When there is more than one event to be shown this causes the year of the following event to appear next to the second line of the previous event rather than its own and any subsequent years will also not align with their events.

One solution I initially thought would overcome the problem would be to put a "<br><br>" between the years where this happens to force the infobox to leave blank row in the years column, but the problem is dependent on the reader's selected browser text size and it only happens at certain text sizes so the extra <br>" causes a similar misalignment problem if the events text didn't wrap. I think I now how to solve it but I'm going to have to experiment with the live template for a while to see how it affects different articles DavidCane 02:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

Template:London stations → Template:London stations layout – Not to confuse it with Template:LondonStations which is a completely seperate template. It is confusing to go to the right template. Simply south 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

If it should be moved anywhere it should be to template:Infobox London station. The current naming doesn't actually cause any problems, does it? MRSC 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:London stations live

Could someone merege the unique features of {{London stations live}} into this one, so that the "live" version, which is used on only one page, can be deleted? Andy Mabbett 12:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Two additional optional parameters added - livedepline and livedepstation. For example, adding:

livedepline= victoria

livedepstation= OXC

will cause a link to the Oxford Circus page at [1] to appear. If the livedepline parameter is not used the link will not appear.

Note: not all of the lines or all of the stations on the lines are covered yet. I have changed the Brixton article to use the station Infobox London station format and added the necessary parameters to point to the relevant page. --DavidCane 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Caption syntax described in transclusion does not work

The syntax for putting a caption on the image, eg:

image = [[Image:barkinglongview.jpg|300px|Barking station]]

does not seem to work. See the current St Pancras railway station article; according to the example there should be a caption 'St Pancras Chambers' on the image, but I cannot see it. So how should we caption images in the template?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, answered my own question. There is a caption= parameter that does work. So the template documentation is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris j wood (talk • contribs) 09:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tube usage

For NR rail usage there are ones for different years. Should this also be applied to LU usage? Simply south (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox London station}} colours

Hi, What is it you find unusable about the colourless header format? IMO we should be trying to move the article as close to the default {{infobox}} style as possible so that in future it can be converted across. I don't think that the loss of the white band (which I can barely see on this LCD) really loses that much clarity in the headers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The problem is that the section headers such as "Location", "History" etc., without anything to differentiate them from the standard fields, looked like they were field describers with data that was missing on the articles. I've tried to remove as many of the sections as possible (as to be honest many were not needed). However, some need to be included for clarity. With regards to moving as close to the default {{infobox}}, I am 100% on the same page as you there, so please do not think otherwise. I have a feeling there is a way to split up sections within the usual style of that infobox. I'm also taking the opportunity to revisit what is included in this template and how it is organised. I'm leaving the section titles highlighted with a different colour only whilst I work out what can be removed or reordered. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks for all the heavy lifting on this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Redesign

This redesign; I don't much care for it. And, can someone explain how this new styling is in line with 'modern infoboxen'; and, whilst we're at it, can someone explain what an infoboxen is. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Most London station articles require a "references" section, if they did not have one already, as the template now generates inline referencing for statistics. MRSC • Talk 06:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately. most editors do not seem aware of this. The Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references has a large number of pages about stations because of this. I have therefore added two lines to the documentation page, describing the fact and requesting the editors to make sure the destiny page has a references section. This is the text I added:

Adding the railexits or tubeexits parameter will cause an automatically generated reference to appear. Please make sure the article has a References section.

Debresser (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As of now I should say "had a large number" (over 80). I fixed them all. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Junk HTML in code

I see the code has been converted from wikitable synatx back into raw HTML, including stuff like this in every row:

<tr class="mergedrow"><th style="text-align:right; padding-right:0.75em;">

Is this temporary? There should be no need to manually specify all this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can get the similar output with simpler code, by all means update it. MRSC • Talk 14:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How's that? Sorry for the fallout while I worked on this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. You might want to copy the same style over to the broadly similar {{Infobox UK station}} so they match. MRSC • Talk 06:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Commonscat

Having added loads of {{commonscats}} to the articles using this template it I've realised it would be nicer if this template did it for me. What's needed is a new field, commonscat. Then if commonscat is not populated produce {{commonscat|#PAGENAME}}, and if it is populated with a value other than "none" produce {{commonscat|{{{commonscat}}}}}. if it's populated with none don't produce the commonscat template at all. I've had a look at the template and I think this is a straight forward change... It would be handy to get a robot to go through and remove the duplicates commonscat entries this will create. Comments? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, seems a great idea. Why's nothing happened in well over a year for it though? Sgreen93 (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Documentation

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)

Statistics

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Applause* Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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)

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>}}

to

|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)

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 (talk • contribs)

Done. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 14:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Step-free access

Hi all,

I'm proposing that the access field is used on every page, whether or not the railway station has step-free access. It's an important issue, and London Underground is notorious for how few stations have step-free access. People used to more modern systems may assume every station is step-free, so I think it's important to highlight this information. Thoughts? NemesisAT (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Need to exclude User space uses of template

This template needs changing. When a user places it in their sandbox or other userspace location, the template is automatically adding that user space location to Category:Rail transport stations in London fare zone x, which is contrary to WP:USERNOCAT which states that user articles should not be in article space categories. Can someone fix the code please? Thanks. - X201 (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - X201 (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove lists of stations

I have removed the lists of stations section to keep it concise.Vpab15 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 Tube usage

The 2019 usage figures from TfL are now available, could these be added to the infobox? Here's the citation Template:Citation LU usage 2019 Qazwsx777 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

We need a Template:Tubeexits2019, similar to Template:Tubeexits2018. I've just setup a blank one with No data for now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this something that DavidCane (talk · contribs) usually does? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I do. I've been looking for the data for ages, it's long overdue. I've got a spreadsheet that does all the necessary formatting for the list.--DavidCane (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It's done, along with {{Tubeexits list}} and {{Tubeexits list rank}}--DavidCane (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Listed buildings

I tried to add {{infobox designation list}} to Reading railway station (since it is Grade II listed), and discovered that {{Infobox London station}} does not allow an embedding designation list, unlike {{Infobox station}}. Is there any objection or obstacle to adding this capability? --Verbarson (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It has six parameters:

| listing_grade    = 
| listing_detail   =
| listing_start    = 
| listing_amended  = 
| listing_entry    = 
| listing_reference=

and these are in use on many articles, see for example St. James's Park tube station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the listing.--Verbarson (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)