This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Track gauge. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
N scale source NMRA: "0.353 inch is the preferred dimension" (N fine or RP-3 scale, while N scale is defined in mm-to-ft so metric). [1] Used on two pages only.
Both NMRA and NASG sources define this in imperial units (inch-to-foot). So the metric is not a definition, and should be removed as an entry. Then, the NMRA Proto:64 source mentions "22.43 mm" as a conversion, not 22.42 mm as a 1:64 scale would give for s.g. The conversion should follow the source (change metric size).
Y - in sandbox. id stays "22.42" (because we do not hoinour other party's rounding differences; btw, the id is internal for the template). -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Just deleted from our list because the cat:mentionings for 864mm was empty. Both met and imp. Now it pops up in Porthgain Railway, by imperial units (it was there since 2009 [2]). Probably a page that was not reprocessed in May.
Source states definition is in metric. So imperial entry can go. If a source appears saying that it was originally defined in imperial units (1892), we can re-add that one.
Rule should be: "Cape gauge" is an alt name only when "Cape" is entered. Other aliases (like 1067mm) will not show the "al=on" alternatiuve name. To change: links.
Y Split in sandbox. Now "Cape" has its own entry, with its own links. The other two don't link to alt name page "Cape gauge". -DePiep (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Fixed sp -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Metric definition not used. All are 19th century USA constructions, so imperial. For now, the name "Ohio" can be used to define this gauge (worldwide unique). -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is used local, but the gauge is unique worldwide. So the name "Toronto gauge" can be used universally to point to this gauge. The question remains whether it is ever been defined in metric (our data suggests yes). -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Y In sandbox: "Toronto" is the universal name for this gauge (shows when allk=on for every alias). Both metric and imperial for now. -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
rm "1.52m" from alias list. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC) And "60" and "5". Warning will appear unrecognised. -DePiep (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
5 ft 2+1⁄4 in and 5 ft 2+1⁄2 in (1581 mm, 1588 mm), Pennsylvanian
todo, think about: extra entry; only when "pennsylvania(n)" is entered, allk=on shows Penn troll gauge (page link). -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Historical for India, as "Broad gauge" is a common name in India at present. It is also used in South America nowadays.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Y "Indian gauge" is local only. So to get "Indian gauge" alt name (by allk=on), you must enter "Indian". But the sizes are generic, not local and so do not have an al=on name. In sandbox. (e.g., Buenos Aires and Rosario Railway has the size, but is not Indian gauge). -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
38.25 (6 P max), 26 (6 P max), 500 (28 P max), 900 (41 P max), 7.25 (46 P max), 58.875 (43 P max), 48 (70 P max), 54 (58 P max), 1668 (99 P max), 15 (91 P max), 23.5 (72 P max), Brunel: 84, 84.25 (198 P max), Russian 60, 5 (298 P max), 1600, 750, 600,
Y rm from sandbox. Warning Pages will listed unrecognised; to edit (add unit). That is 1044 P max. Previous sweep: 615 P max, went to be some 30 P really. -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Y And removed 1000, 1, 39.375, 1067, 42: huge after AWB sweep. For these, 70 edits were needed. Left: "1435" and "86.5" numericals only. (If we remove these two, we can wait for these pages to appear in cat:unrecognised. Expect: few hundreds?). -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
To be clear: I have removed from the /data/sandbox all numeric input options (that is: a number without a unit, like "35" not "35 in"). And also, using AWB I have checked all pages that could be affected (and when they had a numerical input indeed, I edited).
Exception: the standard gauge numerics "1435" and "56.5" are still there. They will be handled later on. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Defined double, used few times (to research)
Below are listed gauges that are defined twice (metric and imperial), but are mentioned only a few times (P <=5 in cat:mentionings). This could be an indication of one definition being unsourced. Reseach & proposed changes are listed above. The list is current /sandbox (so the proposed changes are visible, as a preview). As of now, there are 18 double defined (in live {RG} data). -DePiep (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Autodocument: fold the stats. Don't create cat:mentions opt when it exists. Language for "alias not found" (see RG/compare), by option?. -DePiep (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
1. About s.g. mentionings. Non-sg in mainspace: 8952 P, of which 6312 P unique. (Double page mentioning is: page X is categorised in both cat:1234mm and cat:4321mm).
2. RG transclusion count, unique pages: 13744 total. In subject spaces: 13470; in mainspace: 12850. {RG} in mainspace is used on 12850 P (that is: articles. Not talkpage or non-article subject pages).
3. So there are 12850 (unique) article pages with {RG}. Of these, 6312P have a non-s.g. mentioning (and possibly an sg mentioning). That says, 12850 − 6312 = 6538 pages have {RG} s.g. mentioned (without any other RG). That is the minimum figure for s.g. gauge mentioning then. -DePiep (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Requested move into 'Template:Track gauge'
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Proposer wants to do the move themselves for some technical reason reason that flew over my head but I will assume has merit so I will leave it for DePiep. Someone ping me if it turns out I am needed to move things. As a general note, renaming templates is an almost always useless thing to do – redirects exist for a reason and, because only editors see template names, there's no need for them to be perfectly titled like articles. Jenks24 (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:RailGauge → Template:Track gauge – Current name RailGauge is ambiguous, even and especially within the domain of railway engineering. Gauge#In_railway_practice lists three variant concepts of 'gauge': track, load, and infrastructure. All related to a "rail gauge" (said this way: any railway you can point to can have these three gauges.) This proposal is supported by the article and category names in Category:Track gauges (I disclose, recently I moved a few pages into this naming fold -- for the same reason). Not an argument, but a bonus: by this move we can also get rid of the spelling hiccup. "Track gauge" is the intuitive spelling, not "RailGauge" or "TrackGauge". DePiep (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I support this move. But what about the template itself? Can the old template name coexist with the new name or do we need a huge AWB or bot operation to change all affected pages?--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A move would leave behind a Redirect in the old name {{RailGauge}}, so no bot/AWB action is necessary. We could ask for it as a cleanup action, but there is no time pressure nor an argument pro/contra in here. The supporting modules and documentations will eventually follow a move, that could use some synchronisation. I'm thinking plans for that. -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Minor oppose I feel that Rail gauge is less ambiguous, road vehicles have also have a track width. Personally I also prefer camel case to excessive spaces, but then I'm a programmer by training. I'll not be arguing this though, you guys are doing all the good work. Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Support with caveat - I support this move because the template output shows railway track gauge in standard formats. But there is a lot more than just the template name and documentation that will need to be adjusted. For example, the proposed destination is currently a redirect to the navbox about the common track gauges, and Category:Articles that mention a specific rail gauge currently contains 234 subcategories that will also need to be renamed from "Articles that mention rail gauge size ..." to "...track gauge size...". A redirect from RailGauge to TrackGauge will be necessary for a while until all of the other templates that transclude it (like many railway infoboxes) are updated as well, but it will be a relatively simple matter to find most of them through the What links here functions. Slambo(Speak)11:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, these consequences exist, but are not part of this proposal. First and foremost I want a formal decision for the new template name (or not) here. The technical follow ups can be handled after that, there is no need to make it one complicated single action. I have worked extensively with the template and its environment, and I think we can handle these changes. Without disturbances for readers of editors. But I did not pre-empt on this move proposal, so as not to be pushy.
Some points. SOP is that after a Move old {{RailGauge}} will redirect to {{Track gauge}}, probably forever. No page will be disrupted or miss any {RG}/{Track gauge} effect at any moment. This is standard Move practice. Replacing names in article pages is not necesary.
And yes the new name is a redirect already, but is virtually unused (has only one incoming link from an archive apart from this discussion; IMO it can be considered an available name). -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Support, with caveat - I support this move, as it is "cleaner" than the current named, as outlined above. However, I really would like to see this move accompanied by the creation of some "bot" that would look through all of the pages currently using Template:RailGauge and convert them to Template:Track gauge. In other words, if the conversion of the old template to the renamed one in all of the articles in which it is currently used could be automated, then I would support this move without reservations... --IJBall (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
A bot can replace the template name on the pages. But that should not be a precondition for this move, technically it is not required, and surely it is not part of the proposal. It works better the other way around: when we later request a bot operator to do this, they first will check if the move decision was sound (here). Best would be a consensus that says something like: "the new name is better - full stop". From this, many consequences can be implemented on their own merits. -DePiep (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up - Does anyone else have any feelings on this issue?... I've thought about it some more, and I still lean in the direction of preferring that the template be moved to Template:TrackGauge over the currently proposed two-word name. --IJBall (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Your name suggestion is *not* the proposal. So it can not & will not be honored. End of story. Please read & use the nominated reasoning for this proposal. There is also Wikipedia:Requested moves to look at. What do you expect me to reply to your "feelings" and "leaning"? But hold on. Maybe your detraction can make this proposal fail. The you have an excellent time to convince people of your alternative. Because likely I won't be there to oppose it, or do anything at all with this any more. -DePiep (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC).
Switch to Neutral then. I think the general proposal has merit. But I would like more discussion about the details. (The 'Requested move' templates I have used myself in the past had 'Discussion' sections - I think this one would have benefited from that...) This will be my final comment on this proposal. --IJBall (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
IJBall. Sorry, that was not a very helpful or friendly post by me; whatever my question was it should be put different. Your contributions here are appreciated. -DePiep (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. And, like I said - I think your proposal has merit overall - [something-ish:] "Track gauge" is better here than [something-ish:] "Rail gauge" as it is now. The devil is just in the details... --IJBall (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Request to the closing admin. In case the Move is accepted, I propose you close this RM but do not perform the page move itself. (This closure then serves as a consensus reference). The template has multiple related subpages and modules, that may require a code edit internally. Moving anything more that just the template might leave broken (module) code.
@DePiep: Why would code be broken? Moving a template is like moving an article: a redirect is left behind. Templates work perfectly well through redirects, which is why people are able to put, for example, {{cn}} instead of {{citation needed}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
OT, technical (DePiep, my response)
The move itself would cause no problem indeed, Redirect will work ok. Is why I write "Moving anything more that just the template ...". Point is that I want to follow with all these other supporting pages (that do need code change, together). So that would be another 13.5k pages in the JQ. No more, no less.
Now this, R64: I am getting a bit tired of people diving into the technical issues here. Very distracting. It is a move proposal, that is: change the name of the page. Especially from those editing train issues (I informed WP:TRAIN of course), I expected some support/oppose with explanations. I only want to learn: "Is this name better yes/no?", all while we know that the ambiguity is within railway engineering. That is where I seek consensus in. I get a feeling this well-crafted & published move proposal is derailing, and expect the worst of whichever admin closes this (because of, like: "if you rail people give this dispersive responses, there might be something wrong"). -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Minor: primes ( ' " ) are OK as input, and will be read as "in" or "ft". (no changes for the user, this is an internal change)
Also: is an accepted space too. As in: 3ft 6in
Named gauges: full name may be entered.
{RailGauge/sandbox|Pennsylvania trolley gauge|al=on} → 5 ft 2+1⁄2 in (1,588 mm) Pennsylvania trolley gauge.
Fraction: as in "{{RG|4 ft 8 1/2 in}}" writing is accepted as input. That is the (keyboad) slash / and the fraction sign: ⁄.
Parameter option |disp=[] (or |disp=[) displays ssquare brackets: 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in [1,435 mm]
Multiple links (=articles where the track gauge is sourced) were added. Now counting 101.
Error in statistics. I discovered thet the countings for "defined in metric" and "defined in imperial" were swapped. So earlier "Entries defined metric: 131, Entries defined imperial: 155" should be the other way around. Corrected. Today, per sandbox, the numbers are almost equal: 137 vs. 136.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In headers and texts, "rail gauge" is replaced by "track gauge". Rail gauge is ambiguous in railway engineering.
In /data, primed aliases like [[2'6"]] are removed. Istead, primes in the input are replaced by "ft" or "in" before being searched (i.e., input 2'6" will be checked as 2ft6in. Ends up OK then).
In /data, input options (aliases) for imperial fractions are added: "4 ft 4 1/2 in" and "56 1/2 in" are recognised.
Code changes (as opposed to data changes) are to be implemented too, both in the core module as in the (auto)documentation. That means, to be updated from sandboxes: RG, RG/data, RG/extra, RG/autodocument, Template:RG/doc/input options.
Data pages: Module:RailGauge/data, Module:RailGauge/extra
Data
Listed: 3 mm – 9000 mm (234 rows)
Aliases (input options): 661
Entries (gauge by alias): 296
Gauges (gauge by size): 234
Entries defined metric: 139
Entries defined imperial: 157
Gauge sizes defined both metric and imperial: 49
Gauge sizes with multiple entries in one unit: 240 mm (2× total);
914 mm (3× total); 1067 mm (3× total); 1372 mm (3× total);
1588 mm (2× total); 1600 mm (4× total); 1676 mm (3× total);
Entries with an article link: 97
Named gauges (alt names)
Entries with a name (22×): 89: 3 gauge; 760:
Bosnian gauge; 891: Swedish three foot; 1000: metre gauge; 1000: metre gauge;
1009: metre gauge; 1067: Cape gauge; 1372: Scotch gauge;
1435: standard gauge; 1435: standard gauge; 1473: Ohio gauge;
1495: Toronto gauge; 1495: Toronto gauge;
1520: Russian gauge; 1588: Pennsylvania trolley gauge; 1600: Irish gauge;
1600: Victorian broad gauge; 1638: Baltimore streetcar gauge;
1668: Iberian gauge; 1676: Indian gauge; 2134: Brunel gauge; 2140: Brunel gauge
Categories
Content categories: 88
"Article mentions rail gauge" categories: 234
Articles listed in "mentions" categories: 8952 (not unique)
Note: category "mentions standard gauge" is kept empty
Size classes
59 scaled or model gauges (199 mentionings)
30 minimum gauges (397 mentionings)
102 narrow gauges (5827 mentionings)
1 standard gauge (0 mentionings)
42 broad gauges (2527 mentionings)
Notes
The new additions are already in the /extra datapage.
8952 P mentionings; 6312 P unique.
RG transclusion count, unique pages: 13744 total. (in subject spaces: 13470; in mainspace: 12850). Using AWB.
Data pages: Module:RailGauge/data/sandbox, Module:RailGauge/extra/sandbox
Data
Listed: 3 mm – 9000 mm (234 rows)
Aliases (input options): 506
Entries (gauge by alias): 273
Gauges (gauge by size): 234
Entries defined metric: 137
Entries defined imperial: 136
Gauge sizes defined both metric and imperial: 27
Gauge sizes with multiple entries in one unit:
914 mm (3× total); 1067 mm (3× total); 1372 mm (3× total);
1588 mm (2× total); 1600 mm (4× total); 1676 mm (3× total);
Entries with an article link: 101
Named gauges (alt names)
Entries with a name (20×): 89: 3 gauge; 760:
Bosnian gauge; 891: Swedish three foot;
1000: metre gauge; 1009: metre gauge; 1067: Cape gauge; 1372: Scotch gauge;
1435: standard gauge; 1435: standard gauge;
1473: Ohio gauge; 1495: Toronto gauge; 1520: Russian gauge;
1588: Pennsylvania trolley gauge;
1600: Irish gauge; 1600: Victorian broad gauge; 1638: Baltimore streetcar gauge;
1668: Iberian gauge; 1676: Indian gauge; 2134: Brunel gauge; 2140: Brunel gauge
Categories
Content categories: 88
"Article mentions rail gauge" categories: 234
Articles listed in "mentions" categories:
8952 (not unique; standard gauge mentionings are not categorized)
Size classes
59 scaled or model gauges (199 mentionings)
30 minimum gauges (397 mentionings)
102 narrow gauges (5830 mentionings)
1 standard gauge (0 mentionings)
42 broad gauges (2526 mentionings)
Make that eight minutes - some time between 16:41 and 16:46. It was working when I made this edit; and after saving this edit, I noticed the red error message in the infobox where none had been previously. This needs fixing quickly, as it affects hundreds (thousands?) of pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Why was it necessary to move it? What happened to break it at (or just before) 16:46 that necessitated a move to fix it? It was working just fine at 16:41. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It was not moved because of a break. I moved the modules to follow the template name (see earlier #Requested move into 'Template:Track gauge'). Now, the basic module moves required four page changes for mainspace (with 12k transclusions of {Track gauge}). Of course, in the middle of that my browser decided to slow down, so there was an incomplete-status for maybe ten minutes (that was when you noticed the Script error).
At the moment, it looks like all is clean including documentation, autodocumentation, testcases, sandboxes. Archives are not edited, so could show a red link. The whole is now 'Track gauge' not RailGauge', front and back offices. (If you see something weird by now, just tell me). -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
In the original move discussion, the consensus was to rename the template, nothing else. In that thread, the word "module" came up just three times, in two separate comments by yourself: "The supporting modules and documentations will eventually follow a move" (09:06, 8 July 2014); "The template has multiple related subpages and modules, that may require a code edit internally. Moving anything more that just the template might leave broken (module) code." (08:47, 12 July 2014), so you were aware that moving the module was not only unnecessary, it could also break things. There is no requirement that a module name be dictated by the template in which it is invoked; this seems to me like a move for the sake of a move. There are 13895 pages that use Template:Track gauge, and 13901 pages that now use Module:Track gauge, and so the module rename will have put approximately 13900 pages into the job queue unnecessarily. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any problem left. I think I answered your --developing-- questions. I disagree with your opinions, but I don't feel the need to defend myself, nor does it seem useful. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me add, since you promoted this into the editsummary too: I don't like your snotty "so you were aware ..." construction of reasoning. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Request
@Jenks24: - request performing the actual page move. Redirect will cover old name usage, no disruption should occur. (I suggest moving pages master template, talk, and /doc. Any code changes will be done in later edits, after testing. Not preemptive as I originally intended). -DePiep (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep: happy to do it, but I'm not sure if you want the subpages moved or not. Basically when moving I can either tick a box to move all subpages (31 template space and 15 template talk space) or I leave it unticked and only the template and talk page move. Which would you prefer? Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Most documentation adjusted, and useless pages have been deleted. (later: move modules and categories). -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't plan to! ;) – It's there in case I (or others) forget the space, as I suspect I will at some point! Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
As R64 says. When you move a module, the history & talkpage & doc follows, but no Redirect is left behind (the old page is deleted, into a redlink). A bit of a complication to think about, but nothing devastating. For {RailGauge} I could understand & handle this effect without problem. (and: the fact that Peter Horn did not notice a hiccup, is a good indication I'd say). -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
allk=on parameter not functioning in renamed track gauge template
And for those editors using AWB or sweep replacements: today it is safe to remove|wrap=y in {Track gauge}/{RailGauge}, because that is the default behavior anyway, and is cleans up edit code. If you leave there - no problem either. -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
No don't get shy, just keep working as you like including posts like this one. (I had to check it twice myself too). This separation "alt name" and "named gauge" may logically be correct, it can also be confusing into uselessness. -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been going through Category:Unusual parameters of Infobox locomotive template recently to update those template calls to remove deprecated parameters, and while I'm in each article, I've been updating {{RailGauge}} calls to {{track gauge}} calls. In doing so, I noticed a few parameters that were valid on the old template (such as {{RailGauge|63}} or {{RailGauge|1000}}) that have been deprecated recently. It would be helpful to have a Category:Unusual parameters of track gauge template tracking category or something similarly named (which would then be a subcat of Category:Rail transport articles with deprecated template parameters) to find and update those pages. The coding for this template has gone beyond what it was when I created the original template, so if those more familiar with the current code could implement this deprecation procedure, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Slambo(Speak)15:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
So it is OK for you now. At this moment, I do not see that single page listed there.
One question though. You write you had to edit {{RailGauge|63}} into 63 in (that is indeed required). But those number-only inputs were deprecated and corrected (in the articles) last May or so. So your remark surprises me, because such errors would have been listed in the category, for cleanup. Was the template used directly as you wrote it here, or was it indirect? And, another explanation: was it in article pages, or elsewhere (talkpages, userspace)? Because, only mainspace pages were listed and edited when having a wrong numeric "63" input. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I updated the page that was listed in that category when I found the category, so it shouldn't be there any more. On the article where it was using 63 for the parameter instead of 63 in, it was on a userspace page calling the old template name as {{RailGauge|63}}. When I updated it to use the new name (diff), I found it displayed only 63 and not the full gauge specification so I updated it further to include the unit spec (diff). I missed the previous deprecation discussions. Slambo(Speak)20:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, non-article pages are not listed. It was a choice to only check the articles for wrong input. Otherwise, the list would contain numerous userpages and archives that we can not edit at all. So these pages will keep showing "63", not the full name.
Actually, all pages with an "unknown" track gauge are listed here (I won't go in the background for this). There are 619~500 pages at the moment. (Cleaned up the Project pages -DePiep (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC))
btw, there is no need to change {{RailGauge}} into {{Track gauge}}. They are synonyms, for the same template. Of course you can do it freely, but it is without effect. -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Slambo. Let's start from zero. A lot of things mentioned here. Now, is there anything you'd like to ask or clarified or handled, about this template? I'll be glad to respond. -DePiep (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it be wrong to changes this the hard way (no article checks before/after)? My opinion: change it unchecked. -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Todo in code
Add |adj=on following {convert}. (Also: allow input "56.5-in" for effect adj=off, by the hyphen. Is non-{convert}). -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Add |abbr=off following {convert} but swapping default. (Also: allow writing "56.5 inch" for effect abbr=off, by full name. Non-{convert}). -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Documentation: use concepts "name in" and "name out".
Autodocument
Autodocument statistics, add a parameter for template-input (where we can write more stats from the outside, like #of transclusions per date). -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Y
Becasue: arbitrary I guess. Of course, would we have option {{track gauge|Stephenson gauge}}, that would be defined imperial. -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There was some discussion about this several years ago (it's in the archive somewhere). The template was originally set to show standard gauge with imperial units first. Other editors decided that it should show metric first by default, with parameters to show imperial first where appropriate. Personally, I think metric units are just as arbitrary as imperial units and the only advantage of metric is that everything is base 10. Slambo(Speak)15:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oops, it is not indifferent. A track gauge is defined in a certain unit (imperial or metric; or Spanish feet, or Swedish feet) by the railway company. When it is defined in ft,in we should write ft,in etcetera. The metric (converted) value is then added for MOS purposes. Some gauges, like standard gauge, are defined in ft,in in the US and metric in France. We should follow the source. -DePiep (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Better: use a hidden sort value in existing column. I'll try to find some time later on to add this. (this was a 'todo' self-note). -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion:This template is enormously complicated. Would it be possible to create a second simpler version template:railgauge2 that can be used when leading zeros are needed to make wikitable sortable work? I would rather not have to try to make changes to template:railgauge lest it gets damaged through inexperience. Tabletop (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
No. Tabletop, I just started this section to make a note as a 'todo'. The template may be complicated, splitting it would quadruple the complations (especially for the regular editor -- think of the documentations to research). At the moment, I have not time to add this improvement to the template. That is, I think we agree on what to improve, and not about how to improve it. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is not to split the original template, but to create a parallel template. One template for experts and the other for beginners. The second table might also be useful for creating conversion table for other non-railgauge things, not that I can think of any, just now. Tabletop (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe the officially sanctioned solution to such problems is to add a data-sort-value field to the column entry. Unfortunately data-sort-value seems to be incompatible with rowspan. Maybe Track gauge needs to be present as well to trigger the problem. Regardless, in trying various hack-arounds I realized that at least for this table there was a more fundamental problem: it is about minimum curve radii but gauge was the first column. So I rearranged it from Gauge | Radius | Location | Notes to Radius | Location | Gauge | Notes. This seems to make more sense to me in terms of order of importance of information and it avoids trying to combine rowspans with data-sort-values. -- Wikkiwonkk (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
FTR, I don't know if that one is accurate (it was copied from another editor's edits, and for all I know it's a typo...). I definitely don't have a source for it. So I'd probably advise holding off doing anything "official" with it... --IJBall (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
11 inch was added newly to List of ridable miniature railways, showing its uniqueness (two track worldwide). Interesting, this would be a new gauge definition to be added (first since one year). However, I've not found it sourced.
No, I am asking because in the template {{Navbox track gauge}}, the link to 5 ft 6 in railways is not bolded. This gives a redirect loop, wherein someone could click the link and it would lead back to the page that they just left.I would prefer that someone else have a second look at this request. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Unit conversion (calculation): 33.75 inches converts to 857.250 mm
Article:
Defined in source:
Currently in sandbox: 33.75 in
Conclusion:
References
Issue: '16mm' (to one foot) scale gives 32mm track for prototype 2 ft (610 mm). G scale has model track 45 mm (1.772 in) (from prototype 1meter @ 1:22.5). Applied 16mm-scale reversed to 45mm G-scale track, this leads to 33.75in. However, there are no real life/historical tracks. So 1. prototype does not exist, and 2. recalculated by using different scale (19.05 not 22.5) on the 45mm track. Could be simply 3ft prototype. -DePiep (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Add by metric unit, sourced: 655 mm (2 ft 1+25⁄32 in)
Add a dozen source-articles (used when linked, eg 1,445 mm (4 ft 8+7⁄8 in))
Fix errors; like '11/34 in' of course should be '11/32 in'.
Data-tech: add 'full-id' identifier to each entry like '1435-met' (compose from compound key). For future internal use like documentation & maint categories.
This is for sure: You do not have to keep track yourself of the articles that you entered "sp=us". The template does! See Category:Articles using template 'Track gauge' with unrecognized input. That is where all 'parameter issue' pages are listed. So, after I change the template to support "sp=us", I can check that category. After the template improvement, pages either show "sp=us" as expected, or are listed in that category. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, they should be checked indeed. Writing "meter" requires article is written in Engvar=en-US. If that's the case, {{Track gauge}} requires |engvar=en-US, but only when |allk=on is set. -DePiep (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Check: al=lk opt
The option |al=lk seems to be not functioning:
{{Track gauge|Iberian|al=on}} → 1,668 mm (5 ft 5+21⁄32 in) Iberian gauge
What about {{Track gauge|1668mm|al=on}} 1,668 mm (5 ft 5+21⁄32 in) Iberian gauge? Why do {{Track gauge|Iberian|allk=on}} 1,668 mm (5 ft 5+21⁄32 in) Iberian gauge or {{Track gauge|1668mm|allk=on}} 1,668 mm (5 ft 5+21⁄32 in) Iberian gauge both work just fine as do {{Track gauge|1435mm|allk=on}} 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge and {{Track gauge|1000mm|allk=on}} 1,000 mm (3 ft 3+3⁄8 in) metre gauge both work? Peter HornUser talk14:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
"Why do they work just fine" -- because that is the intention! |allk=on works as expected. But |al= is broken. (It's a note to myself). -DePiep (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Scott, Peter (2015). A History of the Cleethorpes Miniature Railway: The Story of the Seaside Miniature Railway, from Opening in 1948 to the Present Day Cleethorpes Coast Light Railway, Including the Railways at Wonderland & Pleasure Island. Reading, Berkshire: P Scott. ISBN190236841X. Minor Railway Histories No.7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Not done. These are not gauge definitions, but tolerances for the standard gauge. Changed to {{Convert}} lengths. -DePiep (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, being sourced. Baxter, Bertran (1966). Stone Blocks and Iron Rails (Tramroads). Industrial Archaeology of the British Isles. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) p. 56. I don't have a copy. Did you find it there, or do you go by this 2007 post?
Yes these are the numbers to use (imperial and metric). But the main point is, before we add this one as a "gauge definition": do we have a source that proves this gauge? For example, can you verify it in the Baxter book (do you have a copy)? -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The full reference is <ref>{{harvp|Baxter|1966|p=56}}.</ref> [1]. I surely don't have the book and I am at the wrong side of the "big pond" so as to be able to consult it in a British public library. May be Google Books can help us. Peter HornUser talk23:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Does not work, make that Baxter, Bertran (1966). Stone Blocks and Iron Rails (Tramroads). Industrial Archaeology of the British Isles. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) p. 56. as above. Question who added the referenc, and at what point of time? Peter HornUser talk23:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you saw that page, that it is sourced. First mentioning of the Baxter book was here (2007). Should we ask the one who posted that, back then? -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Eh, did you notice the Bigges source I added says "5 ft ..." (not "4 ft ...")? The sources in there look serious too.
And this is interesting: these three ~1810 wagonways were the first to use iron tracks instead of wooden ones. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I visited Liverpool University library (UK) today and studied Baxter's interesting book, which I judge to be the result of a lifetime's labour of love. I would put it up there with Croughton, Godfrey; Kidner, R. W.; Young, Alan (1982). Private and Untimetabled Railway Stations, Halts and Stopping Places. The Oakwood Press. ISBN978-0-85361-281-0. OCLC10507501. as a pioneering reference work. Its ref would be Baxter, Bertram (1966). Stone Blocks and Iron Rails. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. ISBN0 715340 04 2. OCLC643482298. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help). He makes two separate mentions of the Kenton and Coxlodge line, which was in what is now Newcastle, N E England. Its purpose was carrying coal, apparently from collieries to the River Tyne. He also mentions a bridge at and line to Bigges Main (colliery) implying that it was an extension or a later join to the K&C, that part was unclear to me. As I read it the line(s) were built over about 1813 with more modern track. That is just background, the key thing for this purpose is that in both mentions he explicitly states the K&C's gauge to be 4ft 7.5in. Those mentions are in the text (p.56) and in the superb gazetteer (pp.147-8.) He makes no mention of 5ft 7.5in, but he implicitly excludes it by listing lines grouped by gauge, with nothing over 5ft mentioned. Hope this does the trick, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Excellent research! Love the "built over about 1813 with more modern track". A gauge it is then. Will process this. -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
They're basically unheard of, except for an American builder, John J. Coit, who used it for a 1:8 scale miniature railroad. Coit died young and his loco (locos?) and stock were sold off and then went through a number of small lines, I think some private and some public. His loco was slightly unusual for using a Vanderbilt boiler, an obscure form of launch-type boiler. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion mentioned above resulted in the deletion of the categories. I haven't investigated it in depth, but it could be helpful if someone with more knowledge of how these categories are populated could make the adjustments needed to depopulate the categories, since they are populated by some action of this template. If I try to figure it out and implement it going in cold, I'm far more likely to break something else. I'd rather use a scalpel here than my sledgehammer, in other words. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Will do. I have protested this Deletion outcome on your talkpage. Could you tell us how to do the maintenance on the 275 track gauges? -DePiep (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
While you are here on this talkpage and its archivces, Good Olfactory, could you talke a look at how the maintenance is actually done? And explain how it should be done in the future, according to the outsiders? Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you tell us how to do the maintenance on the 275 track gauges? ... And explain how it should be done in the future, according to the outsiders? I'm not sure if this is a serious request or a sarcastic or cynical argument being made that deletion is a mistake. In any case, this specifically is not a topic I am conversant with or particularly interested in. (Had I been, I probably would have participated in the discussion rather than closed it.) But in general, there are plenty of ways to track and maintain articles on any particular topic. Some of the users in the discussion thought that there was no real added benefit in these categories over the non-administrative ones, so using the regular categories to keep track of articles would likely be an option. But of course it depends on what you want to do, how much time you have, how many users are involved, what sort of administrative needs exist, the state of the existing articles and categories, the number of "missing" articles about notable topics, the volume of legitimate editing in the articles, the volume of vandalism in the articles, and all sorts of other factors. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
using the regular categories to keep track of articles would likely be an option: exactly that is the ignorance. I already had noted that they werre irreplacable.
Simplest examples. 1: 'use content category to track a gauge'. Well, how would those articles get in there in the first place? How did we actually find those articles missing in the content category? 2: How to track articles that do not belong in a content category (eg, non-defining)? 3: What with gauge definitions that do not have a regular category? 4: Why require that active editors (as opposed to armchair !voters) have to spend loads of extra time on this, by taking away the tool? -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not clear if you are sincerely looking for solutions or just pointing out why the decision was a bad idea/using this as an opportunity to complain. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I just get an overall feeling that these questions are not being sincerely asked in this regard. One reason I say this is that as far as I can see you're not engaging at all about the issue beyond discussion with me. If you are sincerely looking for answers, I suggest bringing this up in forums where there will be a variety of experienced editors who could come up with some ideas. I don't think just being the closer of a CfD means that I do or should have all the answers you are seeking. Sorry! Good Ol’factory(talk)23:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
TL;DR: sure I'll have to go to the venues.
"How to do maintenance from now?" was cynical. But the simple examples of deprived options are to the point. I had expected that was clear from the outset. My main point was and is: those armchair !voters didn't know about the maintenance involved in the track gauges. Then telling me that I have my setup wrong in a CfD. Where are they now? -DePiep (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought I did ask them in the CfD. Anyway, thanks for your replies, pls consider your job done well (for now, stop spending/wasting time on me ;-) ).
FYI, background only: I think at DRV, I'll have to describe that specific maintenance process more in detail. Has to do with: a specific track gauge is defined by an institute like a railway company; we want that source (in a WP-article); add it to list of well-defined and sourced gauges (273); option to wikilink to that article; maybe create & fill a specific content category; or root out (remove) non-defined gauges. I claim that it is nigh impossible and overcomplicated to do that by reverse-search ('find pages that mention gauge 1,234 mm'). Esp. compared to the former automated full admin categorisation, that served us well over 2+1⁄2 years. -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, the solution I want is: I want them back. Without them, I won't spend any time on this topic. Already I've had to fruitlessly spoil hours. My complaints are that the delete-!votes did not grasp the proven irreplacable usefulness, and did not bother to know. For example, just reread the nom's contributions. Apparently CfD is not the right venue to discuss a maintenance strategy. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
So, 1ft11.625in, converting: 23.625 inches (600.1 mm). Note: {{RailGauge}} redirects to {{Track gauge}}, this template.
Willsmith3 The reason is that {{RailGauge}} does not just calculate the conversion, but it only recognises gauges that are defined by some institute (usually the train company, or a law). A definition includes the unit. So far, the 1 ft 11.625 in size has never been defined, and 600 mm is. The template recognises some 270 defined track gauges, listed here, the definitions are boldfaced. In this 600 mm case, the imperial size in ft,in is added just as a calculation. (In some cases, both units are defined, eg standard gauge).
The reason for this check is that we want to be sure a track gauge size is sourced in an article. After all, it is a definition, not just a measurement in the field! This way, we have been able to identify 270 gauges, many of them sourced. On this talkpage are examples of such checks (accepted/rejected gauges).
If you have a source that proves that a 1 ft 11+5⁄8 in was ordered (in imperial units, whichever way written), that size would be added to the list.
If you only want to show the imperial size first befcause of writing style, use |first=imp:
{{Track gauge|600mm|first=imp}} → 1 ft 11+5⁄8 in (600 mm)
Hello again. I've found another!
Two internal quarry lines less than 2km apart near Dyserth in North Wales are documented in Goodall, Stephen P. (2003). The Prestatyn and Dyserth Branch Line. Headington: Oakwood Press. ISBN978-0-85361-313-8. LP 160. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) as being of 2' 7" gauge. One of the lines survived until 1973 and appears in photographs, though none shows it as being anything other than plainly narrow gauge. A second source for this line repeats 2' 7", but it may simply be parroting Goodall without attribution. Nevertheless this later author is reputable and his work was published. I am writing Dyserth branch line as we speak.
I don't have anything more than this I'm afraid, is this enough for you to add it?
The source says so, but there also exists 2 ft 6+1⁄2 in (775 mm) which could be a rounding diff with this one. Cannot research because the categories are deleted. -DePiep (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
In the table at Template:Track gauge. I think it is generated from {{#invoke:Track gauge/autodocument|documentGauge|all|docstate={{{state|uncollapsed}}}|docstats=on}} but have no idea where the source is, I've not played with Lua yet.
Yes, that probably is a mistake. Background: the gauge you refer to is: 783mm. That is a real live ('prototype') gauge. The HOn30 link you see is the target article that is wikilinked in the gauge definition I just wrote (the 783 mm link). That should be an article that defines that '783 mm' gauge, but it clearly is not. Will look into this later.
Found: 783 mm is a theoretical gauge, when doing reverse-calculation: (9 mm track) / (HOn30 scale) = prototype 783 mm. However, model scaling does round & shift numbers in places. Original for 9 mm gauge: (1435 mm standard gauge) × (N scale) = 9 mm model gauge.
So, because this 783 mm is defined with a source in article HOn30 gauge, the link is ok there.
However, I don't know if such a theoretical gauge should be in there. Scales allow for a multitude of theoretical (not in real live) prototype gauges. But since the maintenance categories are deleted per this TfD, I can not research this. -DePiep (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
9 mm is defined by N scale, but that article is not well-sourced. So we link it to the HOn30 page, which has sources (but is a derived use of 9the mm gauge).
the examples are not showing the text suggested
Baltimore with allk shows wiki linked Baltimore, al shows nothing Dave Rave (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed this template is used often in articles when the gauge measurement appears in text as an adjective. Similar to the {{convert}} template, we need an adjective parameter that adds hyphens to the resulting text. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, quite useful. Which setup shall we make? Let's take ideas and guides from MOS:UNIT and {{Convert}} (see #Parameter_list).
Notes:
{{Track gauge}} shows symbol by default [while Convert does name by default]. This will remain unchanged.
{{Track gauge}} only uses metric (mm) and imperial (ft in) units.
Nomenclature:
symbol: unit symbol like mm, ft in. (called "abbr" in Convert).
name, unit name: unit spelled out
adjective form: "A 3-feet gauge" (note: only affects name-writing, not symbol-writing: "A 3 ft gauge").
Value: the size ('length') of a gauge, being number × unit. The template outputs two values.
2nd value: The second value as shown, e.g. in 3 ft (914 mm) the "914 mm" value. It usually is bracketed, see |disp= options.
Input value: input value, appearing the first shown value (usually). However, by |first=met/imp the shown order can be reversed.
What options do we need?
A. Both units by name: A 3-foot (914-millimeter) gauge
B (Bimp). First unit by name only: A 3-foot (914 mm) gauge
Bmet. First unit by name only: A 914-millimeter (3 ft) gauge
C. Is this uppercase required? 3-Foot (914 mm) historical track was ...
D. Construct like The 3-foot historical track (914 mm) was ...
E. Is it ever useful to write 'millimeter' (or can we say: |adj=on only names imperial unit, not metric)?
F. Use non-adjective names: 3 foot (914 millimeters)
Comment – My thoughts are |adj=on would result in B, and then |adj|mid|historical track would result in D. A preference often exists to place the noun directly after the adjective before mentioning the conversion in parenthesis. Having |adj=mid allows the editor using the template to control that. Also, if we think that the term gauge or historical track is almost always going to follow the measurement, then perhaps we need to make the adjective form the default setting in the template, and then have |adj=off and |adj=mid as optional parameters. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree, B. is preferred. Next questions: Also when metric definition (Se Bmet)? Or, why write "millimeters" at all?
|mid= can be added.
I don't want to set adjective the default form because: symbol writing does not change when being adjective, and already 30.000 transclusions rely on symbol form.
Note: I added option F. (non-adjective unitnames). May be used in a infobox.
DePiep, I did not initiate this discussion for theoretical reasons. I was recently asked to provide feedback in a featured article nomination, and when I was reviewing the article, I noticed the template being used in the opening line of the lead (Disneyland Railroad). Being used as an adjective there requires a hyphen, which the template does not currently support. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, gives weight to the request. I hope too that Jackdude101 (I've met before) adds more, especially wrt the variant options. -DePiep (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding optional hyphens to this template. It should maintain the abbreviations for foot and millimeter, and it should include the phrase narrow-gauge to emphasize that it's smaller than 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge, or broad-gauge to emphasize that it's larger. The parameters would look like this: {{Track gauge|3ft|adj=on|allk=on}}, where the |adj=on parameter triggers the hyphen and the |allk=on parameter triggers the narrow-gauge phrase. Examples: 3-ft (914 mm) narrow-gauge; 914-mm (3 ft) narrow-gauge. Also, @Slambo:, the WikiProject Trains admin, who also uses this template extensively, will probably want to chime in on this one. Jackdude101 (Talk) 21:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding 'narrow-gauge' in any way or sense is a different discussion. (Really, I'd like to help but let's not mix up unrelated issues). Then, what does "adv" come from? In general, I only want to: 1. use established {{Convert}} parameters, and 2. reduce them into simple & intuitive ones. This talk is about: what output do we want? -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a mistake: "A 3 ft gauge" (the symbol aka abbr) never takes a hyphen. Only "A 3-foot gauge" does. Is what {{Convert}} does consistently too BTW. -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The only issue that I have noticed with the convert template is that it is not precise enough in the are of track gauge. Example: {{Convert|3|ft|mm}} creates: 3 feet (910 mm). It should say 914 mm. Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: The track gauge template also serves the purpose of linking to specific articles connected to the track gauge. 3 ft (914 mm) creates a link to the 3 ft gauge railways article, for instance. Keep in mind that this template is used extensively not just in the Disney train articles, but also in pretty much every Wikipedia article about rail lines. Although the Disney train articles with which I have been working overlap the amusement park world and the rail transport world, I consider them to primarily be rail transport articles. This is because you could theoretically take their trains out of the parks, put them on any other rail line in the world with the same track gauge, and they would still be able to function normally (as long as they have appropriate sources of fuel and water, of course). For these reasons, I am 100% against discarding the track gauge template outright. Jackdude101 (Talk) 12:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't suggesting that the template be deleted at this point, as I figured there was more to it. However, if the track gauge would need to be mentioned more than once in the body of an article, then it should be helpful to know that you don't have to use the track gauge template every consecutive time. Switching to the convert template on the second mention helps avoid WP:OVERLINK. So it would seem that we still need to work on adding the adjective parameter, such as the suggested |adj=on above. I would prefer this over "adv", which seems to imply that it stands for adverb. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I meant to say |adj=on, as well. My mistake. Also, WP:OVERLINK is not a problem if you use this template more than once in the same article because you can turn off the link. All you have to do is omit the |lk=on parameter. I ensured that it was only linked once in the Disney train articles that I have been dealing with recently. Once the coding for the |adj=on parameter is put in place, I'll change the track gauge templates in the articles I handle accordingly. Jackdude101 (Talk) 16:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
That's the wrong question, "would we ever want to spell out "millimeter"?" It requires us to predict the future, and to predict other editors' futures. Instead the question should be, "Why would we want to make it permanently impossible to spell out 'millimetre'?" Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
C'mon, Andy. making it impossible is not correct: already today it is 'not possible' within the template. I am only asking: are there actual situations where the "impossible" is limiting good articles? -DePiep (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
