Template talk:Infobox GB station

Collapsible usage stats

After seeing this edit I found my way to WikiProject UK Railways and then to this talk page in the hope of starting a discussion about the practice of commenting out old station usage figures. I can see from further up that the topic has come up before. The issue is that as station usage figures are released each year and added to infoboxes, these infoboxes grow ever longer. We can comment out all but the last few years but this seems an odd thing to do: it makes the figures totally invisible to readers, as if we have changed our minds about them being encyclopaedic, but leaves them in for editors, as if we are not quite convinced we should get rid of them. Surely the answer is a collapsible [show] link in the infobox. It looks like this was proposed but never implemented. Is there a way it could be implemented now? Beorhtwulf (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the section Template talk:Infobox GB station/Archive 3#Interchange statistics, 2018 above, you will see that this has already been suggested. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I'm suggesting it again. That discussion seemed to mainly concern interchange statistics, but regardless of what is done about those, is it not possible to make the part of the infobox with usage statistics (interchange or otherwise) collapsible? Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it is possible but really needs a Lua version to make the collapse point dynamic e.g. show the most recent x years data held an collapse anything older. Nthep (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a collapsible list, say three or four years by default and ten on the full list. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's helpful to know. While a dynamic template might be optimal, would it be possible to have the collapse point set manually and thereby avoid having to work something up in Lua? At the moment the end of the markup comment is being set manually. If we decide it's desirable to show x years, it seems to me this could either be implemented through automation of the template, or just as a matter of policy. Beorhtwulf (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for slash instead of dash in year range?

MOS:YEARRANGE specifies the use of a dash between years in a range (e.g. 1993–94), but this template uses a slash (e.g. 1993/94). Is there a reason that a slash is used here instead of following MOS? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATERANGE does allow for the slash range e.g. 2017/18 for fiscal years or other periods backed by reliable sources. As the DfT data used in the figures uses (last time I looked) slash rather than ndash I guess that is why slashes are used in this template. If there was a proposal to change I wouldn't be opposing but I wouldn't be seeking the change either. Nthep (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not a year range in the conventional sense. It is precisely the second 'half' of the initial year plus the first 'half' of the second year, beginning and ending on specific dates. Plus it is the notation used in the source, and one widely used in the UK for financial and academic years. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I completely missed the small note about slashes in the section that I linked. My mistake. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained changes with loss of functionality

A change on 28 September has apparently deleted some of the functionality, such as the links to "Live arrivals/departures, station information and onward connections from National Rail Enquiries". The change doesn't seem to have been discussed here, so I'll revert yesterday's change until it is explained or corrected. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I'm quite annoyed with that. I'm still waiting for ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) to reply to this question at Template talk:Infobox station#Cleaning up GB station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose64, you could've pinged me. Will respond. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One, I did - in this edit: the {{user|ProcrastinatingReader}} makes a link to a user page, and since it was in a new post that I also signed, it also sent a notification. Two, my question was placed directly below a comment made by yourself, and since you were the principal contributor to that whole section I naturally assumed that you were watching that page and no notification on that page should have been necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is happening here - where are all the station infobox footers and when are they going to be restored? May be a revert to last clean version is appropriate if there is no action on this. Keith D (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith D: I would both revert and protect, because I too, am extremely frustrated about what is going on here, but I can't because it might seem like overreaction. Decisions about this template are being wrested from those who actually use it, see Template talk:Infobox station#UK stations merge (but also some of the other threads on that page), it's been going on for months. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you really desire the footers, we can discuss them even further, but it's a bit of a "why weren't you there the first discussion we had on it" kinda thing. Community time was expended on the discussion of that feature, on whether to retain or not, and a consensus was reached; if people missed that, it feels a slight waste of time to just keep revisiting the same points. Do I get to reopen every RfC/discussion in the past that I wasn't around to attend and don't like the outcome of? They're not infobox material anyway, in my eyes. Have you never questioned why no large-scale infobox gives A-Z navigation on a topic? It's about readers, not writers, and there's zero evidence any reader benefits from that.
The discussion is now at 105,000 characters and counting. It will likely be 150,000 characters or more by the time we are finished. Reverting because you don't like the removal of functionality removed in process would be inappropriate. If it's undiscussed, unintentional losses of functionality, that's something completely different, but it would certainly be more collaborative to raise it in the discussion first for resolution.ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please give specific link to agreement to remove the footer information from the template. Keith D (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, there have been discussed losses of functionality since your implementation of the wrapper, some of which I fixed for you, and one of which (image sizes) currently appears to still be broken. Your hasty conversion of this template into a wrapper continues to cause problems in live encyclopedia articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you meant undiscussed, Jonesey95. Well, yes, but if you look at those three issues it appears less worse than how you put it. Those three are/were: unknown parameter tracking cats, region GB in GeoHack (which, really, is a region.php GeoHack bug), and now upright images being too large because image_upright wasn't previously used. Only the 3rd still remains, and we'll get it fixed. Sooner so if we focus on what the neatest way to fix it is. Keith, I'll reply to your message later this afternoon. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New tracking category for missing locale/borough

The new wrapper version of this template displays "United Kingdom" as part of the location, which I think is helpful, but it does so only if one or both of |locale= or |borough= are populated. Since this template is only for stations in the UK, I don't know that there should be an if statement that governs that country name display. Someone who knows more about the edge case uses of this template may be able to determine whether the infobox should simply show "United Kingdom" in all articles.

In any event, given this new de facto requirement, I have added a tracking category, Category:UK stations with missing location, for articles with neither |locale= nor |borough= defined. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This tracking is a good idea. I added that if statement because adding in the country also shows the location header, then it all looks too weird and messed up on those articles if another location field (ie locale/borough) isn't defined. It's visually neatest to just add the locale into the pages that show up in the cat, I thought. In any case, I don't mind if we want to remove the if. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_GB_station