Template talk:Infobox station

Merger proposal

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)

Issue of word useage

Hi, I have been using ADA within the script for a while now, creating railway stations in Greece; however, I have been informed I need to replace them with Disabled... I have issue with this, as while disabled is not a loaded term or indeed derogatory (in of itself), it is, in my view, the wrong usage here. First, the implication that only disabled people need this is incorrect, as station facilities are there for everyone. Moreover, the script can not be read for some literacy support software, so those visually impaired are not included in this description. I understand the D in ADA stands for disabled, and the term appears in the infobox; however, the more I edit and code, the more I have concluded it's just not an appropriate term. As a disabled person myself, we can do better, I feel... and to be more inclusive, maybe a word like facilities or station amenities would work better? This is not an attack on anyone, just a helpful request at changing part of the code in Template:Infobox station. Thank you --✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You make valid points. How about changing the parameter name to |accessible=, and the public display to "Accessible"? I think that term is well-understood now. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! Making a station accessible doesn't just help disabled people, it also helps older people, people with small children or heavy luggage. Accessible would also be more inclusive.

Support changing the parameter name to |accessible=, and the public display to "Accessible". Turini2 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As an example, Template:Infobox London station has the parameter to |access=, which displays as "Accessible" Yes/No. Example at Westminster tube station.

There's also a |accessnote= field which allows for a "description if there is not complete access" Turini2 (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable way to deal with the issue. oknazevad (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Changes visible at Template:Infobox station/sandbox and Template:Infobox station/testcases. I've added |ADA= and |disabled= to the deprecation list. Mackensen (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• I just noticed these changes and felt the need to object to them. While almost everybody knows what "accessible" means in this context, I feel that not quite everyone knows the term and its association with the disabled. I think the previous "Disabled access" works perfectly for this, and would personally rather it be restored. (Yes, "accessible" does mean accessible to everybody, but every station is accessible to the fit and able-bodied unless otherwise stated.) If there's enough objections to the old wording, perhaps the International Symbol of Access can be used instead, maybe in a header or footer.
  FWIW, I do agree that "ADA" is suboptimal if only due to Americentrism, but I think |disabled= should remain supported indefinitely, regardless of the wording in the final product and even if deprecated/not preferred. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Disabled access redirects to accessibility, and has since 2007. Government reports that track this issue tend to talk about accessibility and not disabled access. {{Infobox London station}} has used Accessible as the public-facing text since 2009. I understand your objection, but I think it makes sense to go with more inclusive wording here. Mackensen (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think JMF's thread below has some ideas I would like to address. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  The other reason I pushed for this change - is that accessible stations don't just benefit the disabled, they benefit society as a whole (older people, people with heavy luggage, people with small children / Pushchairs etc). Hence some agencies use the term "step free access" - as in, universal design that ensures things can be used by the maximum number of people possible.

  Accessibility is a much more inclusive term than "disabled access".

  (as a sidenote, I change the term handicapped wherever I find it in transit articles e.g Grove Street station (PATH)- unfortunately some people think it's still an acceptable term to use!) Turini2 (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Accessible=

Could we have a couple of examples? How about these that I've just added to MKC and WOL respectively. Some LU stations have level access to trains so I've speculated on how to write that:

• | accessible = Lifts to platforms, step up to trains
• | accessible = No (steps to platforms, step up to trains)
• | accessible = Lifts to platforms, step-free access to trains

And what about audio guidance for sight-impaired passengers? [Choosing the right platform; more than 30 seconds notice that the train is about to arrive.] Train movement displays for hearing impaired? ["next train time" displays are common but what about "the next train at platform 4 does not stop here, please stand back behind the yellow lines"] 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's just a rename of long-standing existing parameter (see #Issue of word useage above). Typical usage up until now has been yes/no, with further discussion in the text as appropriate. I'm not sure how detailed you want to get in an infobox. Mackensen (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Aargh! I've just worked out what ADA means. Centre of the universe time again.

Yes, I agree that the detail belongs in the body and that the infobox should be a concise summary. I just thought that there should be some guidance in the documentation.

I don't see how yes/no is really helpful to anyone. Accessible to whom? how? where? when? which disabilities? Most people with a disability don't use a wheelchair. So it seems to me that it would be useful to show which enabling facilities are provided. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

All fair points. I think accessibility in the context of railway stations, at least in the United States, tends to focus on physical accessibility. See for example MBTA accessibility or Accessibility of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Plenty of stations here are physically inaccessible. Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the display field (not the parameter itself) to "Accessibility", and then use the File:MUTCD D9-6.svg for the default of "Yes"/physical accesibility (maybe something like |accessible=y), File:No Accessibility - Original Handicapped Symbol.svg for no physical accessibility (|accessible=no), and File:Blind (CoreUI Icons v1.0.0).svg for blind people, etc. A lot of stations in the US have tactile paving but lack elevators, for example, and can maybe be |accessible=no,blind, or could be a separate template. This dovetails a bit with my earlier comments as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• @John Maynard Friedman and Mackensen: I have created the template {{Accessibility}} for such symbols and have tested them out at Damen station (CTA Blue Line) and Western station (CTA Blue Line O'Hare branch). You are free and encouraged to leave feedback and tweak things as necessary! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  @John Maynard Friedman I'm not sure if using symbols is that accessible - given screen readers etc. I personally feel that leaving the accessible field to mean "physical accessibility" is best, and is common across transit / railway agencies and bodies.

  Furthermore - finding out whether a station/stop has a lift, ramp etc can usually be verified with a good quality source, trying to verify further details (does the station/stop have a Hearing loop, does it have tactile paving, is there a Help Point etc) is probably very difficult / hard to verify without Wikipedia:OR)

  Finally - people shouldn't be using wikipedia as a travel or accessibility guide - that's the job of the transit / railway agencies and bodies! Turini2 (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

[covenient edit conflict]

I agree with the principle if the icons are accessible to visitors with visual impairment, to minimise infobox clutter.

Perhaps we might aim to use the {{accessibility}} as a subtemplate so we get |accessible={{accessibility}} where {{Accessibility}} is developed to support more arguments (like |level=yes/no/part |audio=yes/no/part| visual=yes/no/part etc?). Meanwhile maybe we just have to say "see below"? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That's my plan in principle, perhaps better template coders can make such things possible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we start with what you have done and develop from there rather than wait for perfection. People with sight and hearing impairment can generally manage with assistance: mobility-impaired passengers (especially wheel-chair users) can't deal with stairs or escalators. Most metro maps (such as this one, London Underground) show the wheelchair symbol. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. ɱ (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 17 April 2023

Description of suggested change: Because the country entry for almost *all* stations is already available in their wd entities, I just sourced it to pass it with coord as |region: . REEDriler (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)