Template:Infobox station is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox station template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 28 days

This template was nominated for deletion or considered for merging. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Merge with Template:Infobox T&W Metro station: The result was merge Template:Infobox T&W Metro station and Template:Infobox Manchester Metrolink station into this template, 2020 November 28, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox GB station: The result was merge Template:Infobox GB station, Template:Infobox UK disused station, and Template:Infobox UK heritage station into this template, 2020 July 22, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox T&W Metro station: The result was no consensus, 2015 June 11, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox Japan station: The result was merge Template:Infobox Japan station into this template, 2015 May 9, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox China station: The result was merge Template:Infobox China station into this template, 2015 February 8, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox Paris metro: The result was merge Template:Infobox Paris metro into this template, 2015 February 8, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox Deutsche Bahn station: The result was merge Template:Infobox Deutsche Bahn station into this template, 2015 February 8, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox Ireland station: The result was merge Template:Infobox Ireland station and Template:Infobox Ireland disused station into this template, 2014 December 29, see discussion.

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Stations Trains Portal This template 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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Associated projects or task forces: /  This template is supported by WikiProject Stations.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I was editing Chinese Garden MRT station and the closest car park is a HDB carpark, which is a short distance from the station. Compared to Eunos MRT station (which has car park directly next to it), should I put in yes if the carpark is a short distance away? And how close should a station be to a parking lot in order to be considered as 'having parking'. Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 03:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed on one station, and I wouldn't be surprised if this confusion spreads to other locations, the parameter "borough" gives the location. At least where I am from a borough is an actual governmental entity/district with a mayor. The infobox should either be changed from "Borough" to "Location" or could someone add that as a separate parameter or something like "settlement"? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 14:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the template-protected template at Template:Infobox station. (edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · test cases · transclusion count · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

See above as the definition of "Borough" is different per country

Diff: I am actually requesting that the parameter "settlement" or "location" be added. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 20:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Restore infobox width limit of 20em and image width limit of 300px, in order to fix display issues on Vector style with small text and Vector 2010 style. This has to be invoked manually now because of a recent WMF change. Diff: these edits. Cards84664 16:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cards84664: This should have been discussed more widely, since this is a pretty major visual change to tens of thousands of articles. Since the defaults for both thumbnail width and text size have been increased encyclopedia-wide, it seems strange to set a limited fixed width for an infobox. @Paine Ellsworth: I request you revert to the previous version until a discussion can take place. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the math at WP:IMGSIZELEAD has been corrected to allow for an image width of up to 337px to match the new calculated value of |upright=1.35. Discussion is ongoing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The MediaWiki software rounds odd sizes up to the next multiple of 4; |upright=1.35 actually emits 340px for those with thumbnail set to 250px and all logged-out users. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I'm not sure how reverting to the infobox size we've had for at least 15 years is causing a major issue. Per the discussion linked above, I am hardly the only person against the size increase. It's too big on 13 inch screens. Cards84664 23:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cards84664: It's not a 1-to-1 reversion. Not only does it prevent the image from scaling with a user's chosen thumbnail size, but the 20em limit causes it to be weirdly narrow on mobile web. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Reverted – these edits have been reversed pending an emerging consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: True, but it also looks too wide on Vector 2010. Cards84664 18:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]