Template talk:Infobox station

Merge Infobox London station into Infobox station

 Project Mind the Gap 

See also: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_27 § Template:Infobox_London_station

I propose to merge Infobox London Station into Infobox station. I think that the content in the London station template can easily be replicated in infobox station just like the move of Infobox GB station into Infobox station. Smithr32 (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be merged. The biggest difference is the multiple sets of passenger figures under different headings. I am not sure how to smoothly implement that, whilst retaining generality for use in other stations, and also preventing misuse of the generality. Unless a good proposal to get around that is found, I do not think it's likely to be a good merge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

We should still hold on with London station, it is a situation similar to New York City Subway station. Both should be scrutinized before any mergers are put forward. Cards84664 23:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It would have been better to merge {{Infobox GB station}} into {{Infobox London station}} because the latter is, by and large, a superset of the former - only a few features of GB station are not provided by London station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Smithr32: looked into this more recently, this is probably more feasible than I originally imagined above. Played around with a few demo conversions in my sandbox (the first two), very roughly. I think the key here is on presentation of the passenger information. The data can be carried over given |system= in {{Rail pass box}}, but not sure on the presentation of that data atm. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Returning to this thread - I recently nominated {{Infobox London station}} to be merged with {{Infobox station}} on Templates for discussion. The consensus was general support for the merge as London station only has a transclusion count of 863 vs Infobox station which has 56,966 however there were concerns about legacy data.

I have created a draft infobox using information from Oxford Circus tube station on my sandbox page. I'm also creating an offline list of parameters to compare the two infoboxes together.

@ProcrastinatingReader I created a Module of London Underground passenger data to look at if it can auto-populate the infobox with current data saving having to edit 800+ pages every year and the answer is yes it works which could be a win for historical data and showing the latest data on the page. I personally don't think we need 5+ years of passsengers numbers displayed in the main infobox for each station as this can be summarised further down the article but open to views.

@Zackmann08, @Cards84664 Thank you for your help on the discussion. Smithr32 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Smithr32 I wish you luck with this. I'm going to bow out of the fight though. Don't have the heart for all the debates about what to keep and what not to... If you need any technical help, don't hesitate to drop me a message! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I just tried to add a mapframe to Old Oak Common so that the local context can easily be seen. But no, mapframe=yes is not recognised. So we are left with just a dot on the metropolitan area map. Really useful. Not. So now what? Smithr32 has shown how it can be done and there have been no further comments in the last 30 days, so... "Make it so!" and deal with the fall-out. Worst case: revert, fix, try again. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Moved Sandbox changes to production by changing location map template to maplink template and added TfL styling. Should now see it on Old Oak Common @JMF Smithr32 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

yes, looks good though, for Old Oak Common at least, it would be good to have the option to choose mapframe-zoom to provide a bit more local context at the default level. I tried adding

| mapframe = yes

| mapframe-zoom = 12

| mapframe-point = on

and got a not known at this address. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Changes were reverted by @Redrose64. In the edit notes this was described as a radical change however a new map and colour IMHO is not a radical change. Smithr32 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you add the caption 'Interactive map of the location' to this change please? MRSC (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Also there is an issue with text colour which affects the 'Listed status' section, as on East Ham tube station. The link colour needs to be overided to appear white. MRSC (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I've done both of these myself. MRSC (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Latest update, as of 25th May, @MRSC have been working on parameters and designs for the merge. Here is the latest

•  Done Listed missing parameters from ILS that are not valid on IS (Template_talk:Infobox_London_station#Complete_guide_to_converting_the_template)
• Partly done: Improving the Infobox CSS design/theme for TfL London Underground (and other services) (Module_talk:Adjacent_stations/London_Underground#Design_suggestions)
•  Not done: Added missing parameters to IS template sandbox

Smithr32 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 15 June 2026 Default image size

The default image size is larger than suggested by MOS:IMGSIZE. It should be changed from 1.35 to 1.2.

Diff:

−

| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|{{{image_name|}}}}}}|upright={{if empty|{{{image_upright|}}}|1.35}}|alt={{{alt|{{{image_alt|}}}}}}}}

+

| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|{{{image_name|}}}}}}|upright={{if empty|{{{image_upright|}}}|1.2}}|alt={{{alt|{{{image_alt|}}}}}}}}

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: That guidance dates from a time where the average reader's screen was substantially smaller (in pixels) than now. 1.35x is suitable for infoboxes like this with (usually) landscape-orientation images and lots of relevant image detail. Infobox station also tends to contain lots of information; if the infobox becomes narrower, this will often spill over to additional lines (making the infobox longer than necessary with lots of whitespace) or make the infobox awkwardly wider than the image. I may make a proposal at the MOS page to explicitly allow infobox sizes up to 1.35 (matching non-infobox lead images) when there is relevant consensus. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thr current standard is still useful for many editors, that it doesn't effect some editors doesn't mean it's wrong. Either way this should be 1.2, if you want to change that take it up at MOS talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

also, the default size was increased not long ago.

Most readers visit on mobile, so aren't using a big gaming screen. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That's probably why this is now wrong the default went from 220px to 250px, but noone was interested in discussing MOS:IMGSIZE at the same time (I tried). So lead images stayed at 300px, that meant the upright value went from 1.35 (220*1.35=297) to 1.2 (250*1.2=300). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This shouldn't be closed. If consensus on the image size should be changed it should be done at WT:Manual of Style/Images. This should stick with the consensus until it changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The consensus has been 1.35x for a long time. Why does making the infobox image smaller help readers? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The consensus is 300px, and has been for years (MOS:IMGSIZE). The default change from 220 to 250, so the the upright value change form 1.35 to 1.2 (as I explained above). This needs to be updated to take into account the new default thumb size, as it has caused the image here to increase in size. To correct it back to what it was, and had been for years, the upright value needs to be corrected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

This will not make the image smaller, it will correct a recent increase in image size that was undiscussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The encyclopedia-wise increase in thumbnail size was made because screens have significantly increased in resolution (a great deal more than the small increase in thumbnail size). This infobox should increase proportionally. Maintaining a constant pixel width as screens get bigger is not helpful to our readers. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes but it was only to the default thumb size, it didn't change the size images should be in the infobox. There is no consensus here or anyway to increase that size. If you want a consensus for that change that's fine, but it doesn't yet exist. This is a noncontroversial change to being this template back to how it was. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The template was not set to 300px. It was and is set to 1.35x thumbnail size - so that it would change with changes to thumbnail size. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It was set at 220 * 1.35, or 297px. The change to the default made it to become 250 * 1.35 which is larger. The image as it is displayed has increased in size without any discussion of it being increased. To make it display as it was displayed for many years, and that had consensus, the upright value needs to be corrected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, the consensus was not to a specific pixel size. It was to a specific multiplier of thumbnail size. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes but the display size has materially changed, regardless of the upright figure the image size has increased. There have been no discussions about increasing that image size. The image size should be no larger than 300px or 1.2 upright, if you disagree take it to the appropriate talk page or the village pump. Don't maintain a local consensus against it here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done If the MOS is changed, this can be changed too. Until then, the MOS is the guide here. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Option to make the location map non-collapsible

On pages like Mikułowa railway station, the navbox at the foot of the article is collapsed by default because the location map is collapsible. because we have other collapsible content on that page, the autocollapse feature is the same as collapsed. in order to have the navbox uncollapsed we have to set it to uncollapsed. another option would be to have the location map not collapsible? I was thinking, if the map is not collapsed by default, then does it need to be collapsible? if we made it collapsible only if it is set to be collapsed, then this would allow the navbox at the foot of the article to be uncollapsed if there is only one navbox. I don't know what other people think, so I thought I would check here. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I've never seen the point of having a map or table be collapsible if it is uncollapsed by default. MOS says that we're generally not supposed to hide content in articles, and why give a reader the option to hide something that is visible by default? At articles that use Infobox station, the vast majority of readers are going to scroll or search until they find what they want. They don't get any utility from collapsing a single page element to tweak the layout while they are visiting the article for 30 seconds. What am I missing? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Jonesey95, the problem here is that the navbox at the bottom of articles, such as Mikułowa railway station, is collapsed by default, due to the collapsible map. This shouldn't happen, because the navbox is the only navbox there. And if that's the case, it should be visible by default. Fortek67 (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your description of the problem. Any two collapsible items anywhere on a page will cause all "autocollapse" items to be collapsed. One solution to the problem is to remove the "collapsible" class from the map. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Jonesey95 and Fortek67, how about something like this which only adds collapsible if the state has been specified? Frietjes (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That works for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Whatever fixes the problem Fortek67 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Jonesey95 and Fortek67, okay since there were no objections this is now done. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Back to this discussion again, we're having the same problem with Template:Infobox rail line. See example at Lubań–Leśna railway (navbox collapsed due to map in infobox).

Can anyone with the template editor permission fix this please? Thank you. Fortek67 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Pushpin map cleanup

As part of a larger refactor of Module:Location map, I will be refactoring the way that this Infobox calls the location map code. The only noticeable change for most will be that the parameter names related to the pushpin maps will now all start with |pushpin_...=. This is part of a larger effort to make things consistent across Infoboxes. When this is done, ALL infoboxes using pushpin maps will use the same parameters. For more information about this, please see this post. As part of this cleanup, I am also going to resolving any conflicting parameters that I can find and cleaning up parameter names that fail to conform to MOS:INFOBOXNAME. Note that this follows a long list of similar clean ups that I have done on countless other Infoboxes. The parameters I plan to replace are the following:

Deprecate	Replace with
|cta_header=	|custom_header=
|image_name=	|image=
|image_alt=	|alt=
|image_caption=	|caption=
|gridref=	|grid_position=
|type=	|system=
|owned=	|owner=
|routes=	|bus_routes=
|other=	|connections=
|bicycle=	|cyclepark=
|web=	|website=
|start=	|opened=
|starting=	|opening=
|end=	|closed=
|ending=	|closed=
|map_type=	|pushpin_map=
|map_alt=	|pushpin_alt=
|map_label_position=	|pushpin_label_position=
|map_image_upright=	|image_upright=

Please chime in below with any questions, comments or concerns about this cleanup. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: map_image_upright and image_upright seem to be unrelated parameters - the former is for the map, while the latter is for the main image. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: you are correct! There is a weird bit of {{If empty}} logic that makes those parameters appear to be conflicting, but they are in fact not, just a fallback. Thank you for pointing that out! I have corrected it. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me, thanks. Mackensen (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)