Template talk:Track gauge/Archive 7

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

I propose to remove the 783 mm gauge from the definitons list. As the sourcing article HOn30_gauge explains, this is just a theoretical (prototype) gauge. Such a theoretical gauge is the reaul of a calculation of model gauge ⁄ model scale (the reversed way). -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"theoretical prototype gauge" explained

1. Regular determination of a model gauge is as follows (prototype gauge = real life gauge):

prototype gauge × scale = model gauge

standard gauge × HO scale = model gauge

1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) × 1:87.1 = 16.5 mm

So 16.5 mm is the result (rounding effects are omitted here).

2. Now on that same physical model gauge we can reverse-calculate with a different scale, that results in a different prototype:

? gauge × OO scale = 16.5 mm model gauge

With OO scale being 1:76, we find prototype gauge:

4 ft 1+1⁄2 in (1,257 mm) × 1:76.2 = 16.5 mm model gauge

Since the 4 ft 1 1⁄2 in gauge exists in RL, this is OK. (so the modeling uses two scales, which both result in gauge-fitting rolling stock, but they'll look unnaturally different when riding with each other on the same model track).

3. However, the reverse-calculation can also lead to a non-existing gauge:

H0e scale is 1:87, defined as 9 mm model gauge (from prototype 760 mm, rounded toward the definition).

Actual prototype would be:

? prototype × 1:87 = 9 mm

783 mm × 1:87 = 9 mm

That prototype does not exist in real life, so it is theoretical only. Therefor it should be deleted from the list of definitions. (There are dozens of model gauges & scales to combine that would lead to multiple dozens of such theoretical gauges). -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Y preparing. -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

1,200 mm (3 ft 11+1⁄4 in) should perhaps be linked to Narrow-gauge railway#Four foot and 1200 mm gauge instead of to Appenzell Railways. Peter Horn User talk 04:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[[:Category:

Even better would be to move the four foot coverage from "narrow gauge" to standard gauge. The early 4' and 4'6" railways weren't a "narrow gauge", they were simply a lack of agreement this early as to what the "standard" would become. Their history is more closely related to early railways than to the two-decade-later beginnings of a deliberately-narrowed loco-hauled edge-railway. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:01, 19 August 201

/Narrow-gauge_railway#Four_foot_and_1200_mm_gauge7 (UTC)

I can understand this moving it out of 'narrow gauge'. However, I don't think it should be in standard gauge, because it is not related to it (unlike, for example, near-s.g. tracks that are actually connected to true s.g. somehow). New grouping article like "Non-narrow-gauge narrow gauges" needed? (well, something more serious then but you get the idea). -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, {{Track gauge}} itself does not use the "narrow gauge", "s.g.", "broad gauge" classifications at all. (The documentation only has rough assumption, internally). So if the 1200 mm sourced definition is moved to an other article, {{Track gauge}} will follow by changing the link. The move Andy mentiones (out of "narrow gauge" class) is relevant for content articles & categories. Better discuss there, or at WT:TRAINS? -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Reply to Peter Horn: The problem with Narrow-gauge railway#Four foot and 1200 mm gauge is that there is no source in there (a source that proves that the gauge was defined once). Appenzell_Railways has that source. So once Narrow-gauge railway has a source in there, we can link to that article (which of course would be better for being generic). -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Then copy the source from Appenzell_Railways to Narrow-gauge railway#Four foot and 1200 mm gauge. At any rate the individual articles listed probably have a source. If not then the link in the template should go directly to the section Appenzell_Railways#Operation. Peter Horn User talk 11:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes someone could do that. Soundest is to add both article link Appenzell_Railways and its source to the 1200 mm article. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The template is fully protected. Only someone with access can change the link there. Peter Horn User talk 17:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Peter Horn. The template is complicated & sensitive (for wrong data), so it is protected. But as you know from this talkpage, all proposals are discussed very seriously. When a discussion concludes, the template will be changed (by me, often). Peter, this is why this enwiki list of well-defined track gauges is so very great & stable & trustworthy & well-sourced. And of course, you are one of those who contributed heavily to that greatness. -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Y preparing. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

For Hohenzollern Locomotive Works#Fireless steam locomotives

• 840 mm (2 ft 9+1⁄16 in)
• 780 mm (2 ft 6+23⁄32 in)
  Peter Horn User talk 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As always, we need sources. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

So then, where did the author, or contributor, of the article or section mentioned at the outset get his / her info except from the archives of the Hohenzollern Locomotive Works? Peter Horn User talk 22:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Never in Wikipedia we say: "the author must have read it somewhere" as a WP:RELYABLESOURCE. It is simple: someone could make a talkpage request at that dewiki talkpage. Must say: I am only maintaining {{Track gauge}}, not providing all its 250+ sources. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Need to check/find sources. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Need to check or find sources. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

German industrial or mine railways, around 1890-1910. Hohenzollern and O&K both built stock for these. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, looks like that. We need a RS in the article that confirm each definition. Article de:Aktiengesellschaft für Lokomotivbau Hohenzollern mentions books (I don't have access to). -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This gauge seems to be sourced (cannot check), but by saying it was proposed, not build. No need to add to the list then, just use {{Convert}}. -DePiep (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Following on to this, it's quite right that this was a proposed gauge for the Corris Railway which was actually built to 2 ft 3 in (686 mm) gauge. But I think there were a small number of industrial railways n the UK that did use this gauge - particularly underground in coal mines. Let me see if I can confirm and source that. If my recollection is correct, then it might be worth adding this gauge to the template. Railfan23 (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, when sourced there sure will be an article that should have that gauge + source (maybe a list), and then it can be added to the template. -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

For 3 ft 6 in gauge railways#Nomenclature 1,065 mm (3 ft 5+15⁄16 in) instead of1,065 mm (3 ft 5+59⁄64 in). Peter Horn User talk 23:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this a question? -DePiep (talk)

• It appears that "1065 mm" (in metric) is the formal gauge in South Africa. So Cape Gauge has two sizes (like Russian gauge). -DePiep (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Y in sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added, now live. -DePiep (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sourced, so will be included in the next update. -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Y in sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done added. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sourced, new, so to be added shortly. -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done - DePiep (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Why does George Stephenson's original Stephenson gauge link to the very minor, and twenty years later, New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad? Rather than Killingworth Colliery railway, or somewhere more normative? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

We want to link to an article that has the source (reference) for a gauge definition. When multiple articles apply, of course we use the first/original/institutional definition article.

wrt changing to Killingworth Colliery railway: that link has some issues. The section it Redirects to has one dead link, and the actual source for this gauge is a book (I can not check). IMO this is a bit below standard ;-). If someone could shape it up, check & fix sources, use {{Cite}} nicely, replace "world famous" with the reason of this being famous, maybe make it a stand-alone article (stub), wouldn't that be inviting? Of course the essence (being the origin of s.g.) is huge. - DePiep (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A link to George Stephenson or Killingworth locomotives (that could be a target for the Killingworth Colliery railway redir) would be fine, ideally to a section specifically on gauge. But it ought to be related to the origin, and to Stephenson's early work, before his son's extra half inch. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Which one has the right or best source for this 4 ft 8 in? That is actually my main concern wrt this topic. Could be in Killingworth Colliery railway all right, but better have it right. - DePiep (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

In Template:Track gauge#List of defined track gauges there is 1,448 mm 4 ft 9 in 57 imp 57in; 4ft9in broad Manchester and Leeds Railway. cat:4 ... 0 P cat:mnt This is absurd because a number of American railways are linked to Manchester and Leeds Railway as in 4 ft 9 in (1,448 mm) Peter Horn User talk 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest List of 4 ft 9 in railways. Peter Horn User talk 22:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikicode {{Track gauge|4ft 9in|lk=on}} links this way: 4 ft 9 in (1,448 mm) to Manchester and Leeds Railway because that is where the gauge is defined (sourced), see reference ^[1] in the infobox. Maybe other pages have a source too, great, still the Man-Leeds one is the oldest one (1839). Currently there are five articles in Category:4 ft 9 in gauge railways, but no List of 4 ft 9 in railways so linking to such a page is useless. - DePiep (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC) ping Peter Horn - DePiep (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I was recently browsing some pages on rolling stock in New South Wales, Australia when I noticed that the decimal place indicator was a comma in the Guage field of the train Infobox, while length, width, and height use a dot. This struck me as inconsistent. Is there any reason why this is so? Could this be made more consistent? JonsterMonster (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS:DECIMAL. English always uses a dot, never a comma. oknazevad (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

So why does this template use commas? Seems like it should use dots. JonsterMonster (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean like in 1,000 mm (3 ft 3+3⁄8 in)? This is the thousands-separator, described in MOS:DIGITS. A decimal point is used in 0.256 in (6.5 mm). Which article(s) were you looking at?

If this comma should be optional (alternatives are in MOS:DIGIT), please note. - DePiep (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, yes I'm stupid. I read it as decimal metres, but it says mm. JonsterMonster (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it could be that en-Australian language articles (see local language articles) do not use that comma, and prefer a small space instead ("1 000 mm"). If that should be an option in {{Track gauge}}, it can be proposed here. - DePiep (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace all code in Module:Track gauge with all code in Module:Track gauge/sandbox (diff sandbox). Effect: shows a message, in Preview only, when the input is not in de list of defined options. Testcases here (check preview to see the intended effect). DePiep (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Cabayi (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

N Was never build, so will not be added. In the article, I'll change the template to a regular {{Convert}}. -DePiep (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Was discussed before, see /Archive_7, with same result. (I started this 2nd thread because the article was in the error category today). - DePiep (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge/data has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Please copy all code from Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox into Module:Track gauge/data (replace; diff).

Changed: added four new sourced track gauge definitions.

Discussion & testcases: see yellow box in #4_ft_9.5_in_gauge, #2_ft_2.5_in_gauge, #12.5_inch_miniature_gauge, #780_mm, #840_mm. DePiep (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed #-link to wrong section. - DePiep (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

For Hohenzollern Locomotive Works#Fireless steam locomotives

• 840 mm (2 ft 9+1⁄16 in)
• 780 mm (2 ft 6+23⁄32 in)
  Peter Horn User talk 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As always, we need sources. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

So then, where did the author, or contributor, of the article or section mentioned at the outset get his / her info except from the archives of the Hohenzollern Locomotive Works? Peter Horn User talk 22:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Never in Wikipedia we say: "the author must have read it somewhere" as a WP:RELYABLESOURCE. It is simple: someone could make a talkpage request at that dewiki talkpage. Must say: I am only maintaining {{Track gauge}}, not providing all its 250+ sources. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Need to check/find sources. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Need to check or find sources. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

German industrial or mine railways, around 1890-1910. Hohenzollern and O&K both built stock for these. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, looks like that. We need a RS in the article that confirm each definition. Article de:Aktiengesellschaft für Lokomotivbau Hohenzollern mentions books (I don't have access to). -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Asked source-check at dewiki. DePiep (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: by DGEG and [6]:

780 mm [7]

840 mm [8]

Also suggested [9] for 840 mm, but I haved not found it yet (Search difficulty).

Anyway: RS and so both will be added. - DePiep (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Y added to sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Well, Peter Horn, this did not even take a full year ;-) -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Source does mention it, but why would a company start a new gauge (*next to existing, common gauges)? Could it nbbe the source was sloppy? See also 12+5⁄8 in (321 mm) - DePiep (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an unique gauge (nowhere else used or mentioned). The source here is The Railway Age, July 1, 1898., which indeed mentions that gauge. However, it is strange that for this one track (6 locomotives) the company would create a new gauge, while they also build the common 12+5⁄8 in (321 mm) (of 1⁄8 inch difference). In other words, it may very well be that the 12+1⁄2 in the source is a miswriting.

Having said this doubt, this gauge will be added. -DePiep (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Y in sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Cannot check the source. (bad reference format). - DePiep (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• OK, gauge is defined in the source. Will add this to the list.
• Y Added to data/sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done - DePiep (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Y added to sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge/data has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace all Module:Track gauge/data content with Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox code (=update from sandbox). Change: adds the sourced gauge 6+1⁄4 inch. Discussed & tested in section #above. DePiep (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

DePiep (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Should |disp s=, i.e. {{RailGauge|5ft6in|lk=off|disp=s}} generate any space around the backslash separator?

At present there's no spacing and it's hard to read, the two terms running closer together than even their numerals and units: Thin space

Particularly where, as for 5 ft 6 in gauge railway, it's bolded as an article title: 5 ft 6 in / 1,676 mm Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at {{Convert}}. The / slash is not available by default, but can be used:

{{convert|5|ft|6|in|mm|abbr=on|disp=x|/}} → 5 ft 6 in/1,680 mm

However, you may have a point. Would thin space help?

• 5 ft 6 in/​1,676 mm
• 5 ft 6 in / 1,676 mm
• 5 ft 6 in / 1,676 mm

(not the best way to compare, better inline. Anyway, I'd definitiely make the first space NBSP, so that a linebreakl may occur after the slash). -DePiep (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• So would this be better as a fix to {{Convert}} itself? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

{{Track gauge}} does not use Convert internally, all gauge values are hardcoded in the list (the ~275 gauges × 2 metric/imperial), and internally formatted stealing from Convert. I'm looking at Convert because it is good to keep similar formatting &tc.

Asking Johnuniq for input here, especially for the visual/typographical aspect you mention. (There might be older considerations I'm not aware of). -DePiep (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Also, shouldn't any linebreak be before the slash? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

In convert, |disp=slash was removed in November 2014. That link shows an example of how it looked before removal: "55 miles / 89 kilometres" with a non-breaking space before the slash. Convert still allows a slash in a range as requested for high/low temperature ranges which is apparently standard for weather reports (September 2016). In case it's of interest, following is an example showing the exact wikitext output by convert for 83 / 63 °F (28 / 17 °C):

{{convert|83|/|63|F}}
83 / 63 °F (28 / 17 °C)

Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That no-slash discussion is here in the Convert Archives. Problematic situation is "570 mph/917 km/h; 495 kn". In track gauge, the "km/h" does not occur, but double-meaning of slash does: "2 ft 1⁄8 in/613 mm".

While we allow the slash value-separator in {{Track gauge}}, we better add spaces to strengthen the right visual grouping:

5 ft 6 [in/​1,676] mm

[5 ft 6 in] / [1,676 mm]

Wrapping (soft newlines) tbd. -DePiep (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley Changed in sandbox. See demo in /testcases. Fine with me.

For OP example {{Track gauge/sandbox|5ft6in|lk=off|disp=s}}:

5 ft 6 in / 1,676 mm

<span class="nowrap">5 ft 6 in</span> / <span class="nowrap">1,676 mm</span>

The new space after the slash is a soft line break option. OK? -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

So just use |disp=s and it should be good then? Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the old unspaced form will be gone (also in existing situations, 16 articles if I'm correct [10]).

I will go ahead and put it live. -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace all Module:Track gauge code with all module /sandbox code (diff).

Changed: values separator "/" (slash) now has spaces added " / ". Reqeuest & discussion #above. + minor edits. Testcases here. DePiep (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• User:NE2/nonstandard gauge#5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm) 5ft4in
• User:NE2/nonstandard gauge#5'9" 5ft9in, Track gauge 5ft9in not in List of defined track gauges 5ft9in
• User:NE2/nonstandard gauge#3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) 3ft6.5in
• User:NE2/nonstandard gauge#4 ft 3 in (1,295 mm) 4ft3.5in
• User:NE2/nonstandard gauge#Outliers in 1887 (not 3 ft or 914 mm or between 4 ft ​8 1⁄2 in or 1,435 mm and 4 ft 9 in or 1,448 mm - also checked against 1903

12ft
and perhaps others. Peter Horn User talk 04:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 04:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 04:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Please find articles that actually use these gauges, and sources with them. We do not add rare gagues to the list that are not sourced. -DePiep (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The articles and historic sources are found in User:NE2/nonstandard gauge and the sections thereof listed above. Peter Horn User talk 05:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Peter Horn, these are all redlinks or unspecified. You just dumped a mess and walked away. What do you expect from others? Cooperation? Improvement? Clean up your chaos? I've had enough of this commanding attitide.

Let me tell you how to use this talkpage. The point of a talkpage, any talkpage, is that you can ask a question or propose something. On this very talkpage, that would be a sentence like: "I propose to add gauge xyz, as used in article [[Pqr]] and sourced as a defined track gauge in [...]. That is how it works, that's how wikipedia works, and that's what I've asked you here for years. Still you come here dumping loads of work for others to research & check & cleanup without the least care or info or behaviour input. I strongly suggest you rewrite your post into something constructive. -DePiep (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Mea culpa

Ne2's sources are :

• 1862 Low's
• 1864 Ashcroft's
• 1864 Pennsylvania
• 1868 Poor's
• 1871 Pennsylvania
• 1874-75 Poor's
• 1878 Poor's
• 1881 Official Guide
• 1885 Poor's
• 1889 Poor's**
  

As for the "red links", may be we could invite NE2 to research and write the pertinent articles, since he appears to be the one who has access to all those reference volumes. I don't have access to them.
Peter Horn User talk 14:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• What's your point here? Two of these are hugely well known gauges. The others (in the main) are already in the template. So what are you asking to be changed in this template? 5'9" is the only one I can see that isn't. Most of the others, they're a recognised gauge already but you've added some unlinked changed version of it - what's that about? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Which two, and in what form? Peter Horn User talk 20:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. Will take a look later on. Let's add a gauge per source (which track gauge is in which source?). -DePiep (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see User talk:NE2#Articles needed. The "unlinked versions" are composed by me because I was not aware of the existence of the linked or recognized versions. Please provide me with the recognized versions of those track gauges so that I can pass them on to the appropriate sections of User:NE2/nonstandard gauge Thanks. Peter Horn User talk 17:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

To be clear: we are looking for the combination: gauge -- article -- source. (de:Liste_der_Spurweiten might help, but note dewiki does convert to mm always while we keep the original unit being imperial or metric). -DePiep (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Needs source. Was there a long time, just recently checked by {{Track gauge}}. Since 10 Jan 2018 -DePiep (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

{{convert|38.5|in|mm|0|abbr=on}} 38.5 in (978 mm) Peter Horn User talk 16:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed id (is 2ft 3.5in). -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Talk [11] mentions source Webb, Brian (1973). Should be enough. -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• From that talk:

At least one UK quarry used 2 ft 3+1⁄2 in (699 mm). This was Boon's Granite Quarries near Nuneaton.[12] I know nothing of the quarry, but they were the first customer, in 1929, for Kerr Stuart's widely-used DX-1 contractor's loco. These had a 30 hp McLaren petrol engine and the first had a Robertson CVT. They're in Webb's book, Webb, Brian (1973). The British Internal Combustion Locomotive, 1894-1940. David & Charles. p. 62. ISBN 0715361155. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) User:Andy Dingley 12:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

According to Frank Jux's KS Locomotive Works List (Industrial Locomotive Society 1991) this would be KS4422 of 9/1929 "Basset Green" User:RGCorris 13:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Y added to sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done live now. -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge/data has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Please copy/paste all Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox code into data module (diff).
• Change: 20190916: NEW added 2ft 3.5in (699mm), Cuba & Nuneaton quarries (Webb 1973). Discussion & consensus: here and here. DePiep (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• I wonder why this straightforward and non-controversial request is still waiting for execution. Anything unclear? @Redrose64, Xaosflux, and Primefac:. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's in the backlog, someone will get to it. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's that I saw later requests being executed while requiring some discussion, yet this one not (so far). -DePiep (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably because making a change to a subpage of a module, where you can't see the effect without taking a leap in the dark, isn't an easy or comfortable choice.

 Done Cabayi (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

No re 'probably becasue'. TE editors did not work following the queu, they obviosly skipped the easy ones. Is what I asked about. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Obviously your perception of what is easy differs from the perception of the TEs who skipped your request. Your expectation that requests will be handled in a specific order is not realistic and, as far as I'm aware, doesn't apply to any queue on the wiki. Cabayi (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I wrote "easy" because the requested edit did not invoke further questions or research by any TE. As for "leap in the dark": it was tested. wrt the order: except that one could expect older requests may be looked at first. All in all this is what caused my question. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we've had this discussion before. I accept you've tested it to your satisfaction, that you're a competent template editor. BUT... Where could I see the effect tested? Where in your request did you point to any testing for me to validate the change for myself before making it? Cabayi (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The consensus section I linked to has a box saying "Currently in sandbox: 2 ft 3 1⁄2 in (699 mm)". Anyway, if such testing were an issue for TE's passing by, why not simply ask for it? The primary requirementrs are: showing consensus, and be clear about the change— both were served here IMO. wrt your reference to an earlier discussion we had: that was about a different issue in an edit request. No reason and even not helping cxlarification to turn to that full stop. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway was laid to 3ft 8in gauge, per Marks, George Croydon (1897). "Cliff Railways". Cassier's Magazine: 68–73.. Marks was the engineer responsible for the railway. This is the only railway I know of built to this gauge. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Tracking this. Looks serious & sourced, nice. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The engineering-timelines.com source, from the article, says: "The tracks are of bullhead rails set at 1.14m (3ft 9in) gauge, ...". -DePiep (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Maggie Shapland's 2017 book on the Clifton Rocks Railway (p28) gives the gauge as 3'9", with 3'6" for Bridgnorth and (another unlisted one) 3'2½" for Clifton. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

How is this 3'8" sourced in G.C. Marks as was mentioned? Can someone check it? The 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) is ok in Bridgnorth Cliff Railway, 3'2½" up for reseach in #3ft_2_1/2in. Could you add that one to an article using {{Track gauge}}? -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have copies of several Cassier's Magazines myself, but after some searching I found the article online as well. You can read it here. It says "the rails are laid to a gauge of 3 feet 8 inches, and the larch sleepers are placed at about 6 feet pitch..." starting at the bottom of the right-hand column on page 68. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: A note on the engineering-timelines.com source. It is not entirely reliable. While it has a lot of good information, it doesn't fully source its information, and it is user-generated content - I don't think there is any editorial control. I've found several instances of factual errors on it, and I treat it with caution. That said sources do disagree about the track gauge of the Cliff Railway. The Cassier's article could be a typo - though you would think the chief engineer of the line would be keen to get that sort of detail right. It is even possible that it was originally 3ft 8in and was slightly gauge widened when the modern concrete sleepers were put in. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, Martin Easdown's 2018 book give 3ft 8in as the gauge for the Clifton Rocks Railway, not 3ft 2.5in: Easdown, Martin (15 July 2018). Cliff Railways, Lifts and Funiculars. Amberley Publishing. pp. 34–35. ISBN 978-1-4456-8004-0.. I've also found another paper by Marks given to the Institute of Civil Engineers which again quotees 3ft 8in for the gauge of the Lynton Cliff Railway.Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain) (1894). Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. The Institution. p. 318. This to me makes it less likely that the 3ft 8in is a typo. It would appear that Marks at least thought it was a 3ft 8in gauge line. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Not in an article (yet). -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I've just added it to the Clifton Rocks Railway as one of four (!) gauges quoted for that railway in various reliable sources. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Great. Sourced and used in article: a true track gauge :-) Will happen. -DePiep (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Use ref Maggie Shapland's 2017 as found by User:The Mirror Cracked. -DePiep (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Needs sourcing. Started Talk. -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Needs research, sources. Also, the "600 mm" is weird for a Welsh track. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Track gauge has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following templates with lk=on generate a clickable link to former article and current redirect 1495 mm gauge railways:

• 4 ft 10+7⁄8 in (1,495 mm) ( {{Track gauge|58.875in|lk=on}} )
• 4 ft 10+7⁄8 in (1,495 mm) ( {{RailGauge|toronto|lk=on}} )

Could you please change that link from "1495 mm gauge railways" to "Toronto-gauge railways". For background discussion on this request, please see: Talk:Toronto streetcar system#Track gauge. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please help me out. Do we understand that both "58.875 in" (4 ft 10+7⁄8 in) and "Toronto gauge" (4 ft 10+7⁄8 in) refer to the same, physical gauge width? Also, that they are mutually excluding (i.e., no other gauges by name of width), refer to this one?

And if this is the case, you propose to change the target link from Redirect [[1495 mm gauge railways]] to its R-target [[Toronto-gauge railways]] then?

Could be done, btw, skipping the ridrect is trivial. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Toronto-gauge railways For historical reasons could {{Track gauge|59in}} or {{Track gauge|4ft11in}} 4 ft 11 in (1,499 mm) or 4 ft 11 in (1,499 mm) be added? {{cvt|4|ft|11|in|mm|0}} 4 ft 11 in (1,499 mm) It has already {{Track gauge|58.75in}} 4 ft 10+3⁄4 in (1,492 mm) Peter Horn User talk 12:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That is for Toronto-gauge railways#Variations in Toronto gauge Peter Horn User talk 12:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep:, Hello,
Please see above. Peter Horn User talk 03:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: Working on this. 59in looks like a good source, so inclusion is appropriate. Nice catch! -DePiep (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep:, Thanks, I have been looking at this undocumented track gauge for almost as long as I have been involved with the Toronto-gauge railways page and that has been quite a while. Peter Horn User talk 22:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: A great catch: well documented so I approve. Will happen. -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I corrected the link Peter Horn User talk 01:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Y 4ft11in added to sandbox. Unique network (Toronto), historical. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge/data has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace all code in Module:Track gauge/data with its /sandbox code.

Changes: added 4 ft 11 in gauge. Sourced, discussed & consensus: see #Toronto gauge railways above. DePiep (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done @DePiep: I changed some punctuation, though. Let me know if ok. Special:Diff/956720303/967444671 Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep:, @Matt Fitzpatrick: Earlier today I added 4 ft 11 in (1,499 mm) to the article. Thanks to everyone. Peter Horn User talk 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This template/module uses the visualhide class. It has a TemplateStyles solution and will accordingly be removed from Common.css soon. Your feedback regarding the timeline is requested at MediaWiki talk:Common.css § visualhide removal. Izno (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Done, into WP:TemplateStyles [13]. Maybe Template:Frac/styles.css. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have |disp=br() added as is already in Template:Convert? Example {{cvt|9 x 10|in|mm|disp=br()}} 9 in × 10 in
(230 mm × 250 mm) Peter Horn User talk 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be, for 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in); ({{Convert}} does this):

{{convert|1435|mm|in|disp=br()}} →

1,435 millimetres
(56.5 inches)

Do you have an example article where this would be useful? -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall. Perhaps I'm thinking of something else I'll have to get back to you on that one. Peter Horn User talk 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Denied

N Stop bothering me. Prepare your question first. -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Mea culpa, request on wrong template talk. Peter Horn User talk 01:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Touché Peter Horn User talk 04:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Peter Horn, these days I do not have much editing time to spend on Track Gauges. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

{{Track gauge|20in|lk=on}} 20 in (508 mm), could this be linked to minimum-gauge railway Peter Horn User talk 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

In {{Track gauge}}, a target link is to a gauge-specific article, which has sources for that gauge. That is, defining sources, proving actual usage of the definition. For example: "5 ft (1,524 mm)". For the 20-inch gauge, that could be one of the articles Category:20_in_gauge_railways_in_England (3) (only 2 are categorised). Quite often I see articles that use this setup: "20 in (508 mm) (minimum gauge)". -DePiep (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

So the reply is, Peter Horn can be done for a dedicated article on the 20-inch track (with sources), not for the minimum gauge article. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Then could we eventually have 20 in and 200 mm railways 21:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

So far we only have North Bay Railway, Woburn Safari Park#Railway and minimum-gauge railway Peter Horn User talk 22:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Add Coronado Railroad Peter Horn User talk 22:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And Template:Navbox track gauge Peter Horn User talk 22:Peter Horn User talk 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And Shipley Glen Tramway Peter Horn User talk 22:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

1. About a new article: 20in fine, but does not correspond with 200mm(?!). And 200mm is not even defined as a gauge. Sorry about that, I meant 20 in and 500 mm railways Peter Horn User talk 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

2. Could you add Coronado to the right subcategory anyway? Might need a new category. How ti that done? Peter Horn User talk 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

3. Don't understand the navbox line. 20 in (508 mm) is listed in Template:Navbox track gauge. Peter Horn User talk 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

4. (btw, Peter, your request does not sound friendly, I suggest you start a sentence with 'c/would you' etc). Mea Culpa. Peter Horn User talk 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

DePiep (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Mea culpa Peter Horn User talk 22:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Then why write this?

To be clear: I can only respond to clear questions. Your first, 17:10 question I have answered. Waiting for more proposals/requests. -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:20_in_gauge_railways_in_England (3) has been expanded. Peter Horn User talk 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that 500 mm gauge railway redirects back to minimum-gauge railway Peter Horn User talk 01:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Won't redirect the 20in track gauge to that one, then. Will remove that one from 500mm even. For principle explained above. -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please note the same problem with the following ones: 400 mm (15+3⁄4 in), 16 in (406 mm), 18 in (457 mm), 19 in (483 mm). One might possibly list all of them, including 500 mm and 20 in, in Minimum-gauge railway#Installations Peter Horn User talk 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Please consider my latest comment above. Peter Horn User talk 13:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I am thinking about this guideline:

General requirement for any wikilink in this form: the target article must have a RS for the actual gauge being defined (by actual usage/ordering). In order of preference: gauge-dedicated article, gauge-defining installation(s) (railroad build), generic article ("gauges in country XX", "gauges overview"). RS required always. -DePiep (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: In addition we could give each gauge, including 2 ft and 500 mm, its own brief descriptive section and all redirects would go to each its own section. Peter Horn User talk 20:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

For Ridable miniature railway#Miniature railways {{Track gauge|4.25in}} 4.25in Peter Horn User talk 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sacramento Valley Live Steamers

7+1⁄2 in (190.5 mm)

USA

7+1⁄2 in (190.5 mm) gauge and 4+1⁄4 in (108 mm) gauge[1]

For comparison {{cvt|4+1/4|in|mm|1}}, {{cvt|4+1/4|in|mm|2}} 4+1⁄4 in (108.0 mm), 4+1⁄4 in (107.95 mm) Peter Horn User talk 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Please and thanks, also 4+1⁄4 in (110 mm) which is 2 mm too much. Peter Horn User talk 19:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Track gauge has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reason for changing "Victorian broad gauge" to "Australian broad gauge"
1600 mm (5ft 3in) gauge exists in the Australian states of Victoria and South Australia (and, now trivially, existed in Tasmania in the 19th century). Australia-wide, the broad gauge is not known as "Victorian broad gauge" but simply "broad gauge". Victoria has no special claim to the "Victorian" nomenclature on the basis of history or any other reason. Changing the term to "Australian broad gauge" would recognise the common usage and the fact that it does not exist solely in Victoria.

Consequent suggested changes
In the "List of defined track gauges" table, in the 1,600 mm row:

• column 3: change "Victorian broad gauge" to "Australian broad gauge".

Similarly, in the "Named gauges" table:

• column 1: change {{Track gauge|Victorian|al=on}} to {{Track gauge|Australian|al=on}}
• column 2: change "1,600 mm (5 ft 3 in) Victorian broad gauge" to "1,600 mm (5 ft 3 in) Australian broad gauge".
  SCHolar44 (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It sure would help to have some citations at the linked page. Do you know of any? Also, why not just call it "broad gauge", as indicated in the target article, to be inclusive of Brazilian usage as well? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) We should only use names that are actually used as such, not descriptive terms. Despite "Victorian" being a misnomer, as you say, is it not used? And "Australian broad gauge", is that used in sources? -DePiep (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I have added a citation to the bullet point relating to Australia on the linked page. Re your question, "why not just call it "broad gauge?", I guess it's simply that it's a relative term: unless a context is put on it, the term would mean different things to different people – e.g. 5ft 6in on the Indian subcontinent and 1668mm in Spain – hence ambiguous. That said (and the following also addresses DePiep's comment), I can say very confidently that someone in Australia with an interest in railways, when asked, say, "What gauge was the line from Melbourne to Albury before it was standardised?", would reply, "It was broad gauge". And similarly, "Were the railways in the Adelaide suburban area standardised when the interstate routes were?", the reply would be, "No, it's still broad gauge." The terms "Victorian broad gauge" (as currently in the article) and "South Australian broad gauge" would simply never be used. And "Irish gauge" is not used in Australia either. To explicitly answer your 2nd question, De Piep, you would only find the term "Australian broad gauge" used by Australians in a discussion of multi-national gauges, so a published source would be as rare as hen's teeth. I'll browse some old magazines and books and ask my mates to look for one, but I won't hold my breath. ;-) It makes sense to me, as mentioned at the beginning, to add "Australian" solely to establish context among other nation's alternative understandings for the term. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 12:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

PS: Almost forgot, De Piep – with regard to "comma=off" and your 12 January comment: "will dive into this", have you had any luck yet? SCHolar44 (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Since this request needs some fleshing out, I've put the status |answ=pause; can be reactivated easily. @SCHolar44: -DePiep (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Current working: {{Track gauge|Victorian|allk=on}} → 1,600 mm (5 ft 3 in) Victorian broad gauge

Request (demo): {{Track gauge|Australian|allk=on}} → 1,600 mm (5 ft 3 in) Australian broad gauge

About "Victorian": So actual uasage (as a track gauge name) is disputed in OP. If no sources are found that supports this name (today or historically), it must be deprecated & removed indeed. Of course it might be regional, pertaining to Australia and in now way in Ireland for example. (I recall, from initial days of {{Track gauge}}, this 'source' requirement was not this hard, so Victorian might have entered from habit).

About "broad gauge": Not useful havng this as input option: it contains dozens of gauges (all >1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge). However, in an article section it is usable, to make nice sentences: "AU has 1,600 mm (5 ft 3 in), a broad gauge. The broad gauge was introduced ... etc.".

About "Australian gauge": To make this a recognised name in {{Track gauge}} (as are, nowadays: Victorian, Iberian, Ohio, Russian, etc.), we need sources RS that use this as a name (not as a description). It could be historical (only used in certain era). Best would be, like, an order of a rail road company: "We order this rolling stock with Australian gauge" :-) If these sources can not be found, this signals that "Australian" has not been used as such, and so is not acceptable here. (I understand here in current ref#6, R. Fitch, might be helpful but does not use it; I cannot access the book). In this case too, I note that a colloquial name as "Australian gauge" can be introduced in text, with less sourcing requirements, and improve the article's info & legibility.

So: two topics to find sources for, I don't have the time & knowledge to do so these days. HTH. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello DePiep, I laughed out loud at the notion of a colloquial name of "Australian gauge" -- not in any way at you, I assure you, just at how it shows up Australia's tragic railway history. The logical concept of one Australian gauge is the very antithesis of what happened with three main gauges that persist today, ignoring the minor ones – which people overseas can barely conceive of. Here's a comment by a former railways commissioner (=president or CEO):

Australia’s rail gauge mess has been nothing short of disgraceful, and it is to the everlasting discredit of those responsible. It has been a farrago of procrastination, parochialism, interstate jealousies and political bloody-mindedness. All this capped off by hindrance on the part of Canberra-insulated public servants whose function appeared, for the most part, to be confined to paper shuffling but who, despite their remoteness from the action, sought to impose their obstructive philosophies on the states. And, finally, when at last something was done, we were still left with three gauges, a dozen breaks of gauge — which, at one stage, included two three-gauge stations only a few kilometres apart — and a half-baked standard gauge system that one could be pardoned for suggesting had been designed specifically to ensure that complete unification could never be achieved.

... Today, after more than 100 years of Federation, we are left with 33,500 route kilometres of public railways on the mainland, still of three gauges — 4000 broad, 15,100 standard, 14,100 narrow and 300 dual — together with ten operative breaks of gauge and three inactive ones on account of the cancellation of services.

That should demonstrate why the term "Australian gauge" doesn't have traction anywhere in Australia, and why it hasn't been used historically -- it simply wouldn't make sense. If used overseas it would be erroneous through being a meaningless term. It won't therefore be found in a published source. (I'm confident on this subject because I've been involved professionally with the Australian railway industry for a long time.)

So, unless you disagree, could you clarify what sort of citations you think are needed now? I'll try to help.

Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 00:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I see! As for {{Track gauge}}, there is no use in adding any "Australian gauge" ID. It's as wide as "broad gauge" is: not specific. So, we'll remove Victorian (b/c unsourced), and not add anything. -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DIGITS says: "Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped (either 1,250 or 1250), with consistency within any given article." Could {{Track gauge}} get a |comma=off option like {{Convert}}? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Read, will dive into this. Peter Horn -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Could we have a space instead of the comma? Peter Horn User talk 00:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

PrimeHunter: MOS:DIGITS, in saying "Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped (either 1,250 or 1250) ...", overlooks the formal SI preference for a space: "Spaces should be used as a thousands separator (1 000 000) in contrast to commas or periods (1,000,000 or 1.000.000) to reduce confusion resulting from the variation between these forms in different countries", and perhaps that's what Peter Horn had in mind (or maybe not) in asking for a space instead of the comma. My experience has been that the space is used much less often than when the SI convention was instigated -- it seems to me that people are now pretty well aware of the convention in the "other" jurisdiction.

In the event, provision could be made for three options: default comma, space, no comma until there are 5 or more numerals. ("Comma=5", as already provided in Template:Convert, is better than "comma=off", because once you get to millions the comma is inserted at position 3 in addition to position 6.)

DePiep, have you had time yet to dive into this? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 06:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

We should not support an option that is not supported by the MOS, regardless, which would appear to dis-include the ISO's preference. --Izno (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Given the eminence of the SI as a world authority, would it not be better to add to the MOS? SCHolar44 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If you believe SI having a specific preference is sufficient to see something added to the MOS, you will be quite surprised. Regardless, adding it to the MOS is blocking to adding it here. --Izno (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Izno, I don't understand "is blocking to adding it here" in your 2nd sentence. Could you please clarify? Thank you. Come to think of it, a bit of background about being surprised about adding to the MOS would also be appreciated -- I'm keen to benefit from your experience. SCHolar44 (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"blocking" in a development process usually refers to "you need to sort the blocking thing out before doing the blocked thing". In context, adding to MoS is blocking adding it here means "you must have it added to MOS before adding it here".

As for surprise, the MOS is its own MoS. While we may take into consideration some particular style, we often need to make other concessions or actively reject other style points. For example, regarding the symbol of a byte or its multiples, I do not think we follow SI. (Why is left to the curious reader.) The case of a space separator is a case where I believe our desire to have a consistent numerical representation for both technical (for SI's primary concern is technical for the majority of its recommendations) and non-technical readers (the majority of ours are undoubtedly the latter) would likely have us reject a change to include spaces as a permissible 10^3n separator (and/or 10^-3n). But, if you should feel obliged on the point, start by reviewing the talk archives there (WT:MOSNUM) to ensure it has not been discussed, and then start a new discussion with your understanding of previous discussion laying out why you think the MOS should change. --Izno (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative explanation. SCHolar44 (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Up in sandbox now, see Template:Track gauge/testcases § comma = off.

Ignores the <space> issue (Izno subthread) here.

Per current data, only applies to metric not ft,in values (IOW, no comma present in current ft,in output so not applied on ft,in in the module at all).

Intention to go live shortly. @PrimeHunter and SCHolar44: -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, DePiep -- thank you! SCHolar44 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Thanks a lot! Is _true and _false at Template:Track gauge/testcases § comma = off just part of testing and will be removed? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

PrimeHunter. I noticed a bug in my sandbox, so I had to pause my request.

Issue (pls take a look PH, maybe you can help): #comma_=_off_bad_input tests, with "ugly input", showed bugs. In short: when input is like |comma= (<blank>), |comma=foo, the 'remove comma' still fires. I cannot get it right somehow. If you could take a look & edit fix it, would be great. -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: I'm not a Lua coder but I guess formatNum added the comma so [14] appears to be one way to fix it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, see infobox here for example. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In Module:Track gauge: Please replace all code with sandbox code (diff)

Change: option |comma=off added (do not show comma in numbers like 1,600 mm/1600 mm). Only applies to metric values not ftin, given current data list.

Discussed: #Comma off option, example article here. DePiep (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

(Request reactivated after extra bug checks. -DePiep (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

To editor DePiep:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:3 ft 6 in gauge railways#More relevant link & 3 ft 6 in gauge railways#Similar gauges
{{Track gauge|1372mm|lk=on}}, ([[4 ft 6 in gauge railway]]) 1,372 mm (4 ft 6 in), (4 ft 6 in gauge railway) The "lk=on" should go directly to 4 ft 6 in gauge railway instead of to Toden Arakawa Line. Peter Horn User talk 00:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this will work. {{RailGauge|54in|lk=on|disp=flip|nowrap=all}} 4 ft 6 in (1,372 mm). But it does not. Peter Horn User talk 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: I agree with you. Toden Arakawa Line is merely one of the railways using 4'6" track gauge. Linking "1372mm" to "Arakawa Line" is just like linking a word "human" to "Chuck Norris". --侵入者ウィリアム (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Well found. In the early days of {{Track gauge}}, things were not that clear ;-) (See for example this 2014 issue).

Will change. -DePiep (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Unclear report. About which gauge are you talking? I see both 3ft6in, 4ft6in, 1372mm; and a chaotic bug report (not "is ...; should be ...; see also ..."). -DePiep (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: At the current version of this template, {{Track gauge|4ft6in|lk=on}} and {{Track gauge|54in|lk=on}} both generate a link to 4 ft 6 in gauge railway. When using millimeters instead of inches, {{Track gauge|1372mm|lk=on}} generates a link to Toden Arakawa Line, which is inappropriate as I mentioned above. Likewise the cases with "4ft6in" and "54in", {{Track gauge|1372mm|lk=on}} should be linked to 4 ft 6 in gauge railway.--侵入者ウィリアム (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Will fix this. -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: @侵入者ウィリアム: (thank god for "copy and paste") In the infobox of Toden Arakawa Line ONLY {{RailGauge|1372mm|lk=on}} 1,372 mm (4 ft 6 in) does, for some reason, not work at all. Peter Horn User talk 17:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It does work, but since the target page = the article itself, the "1,372 mm"shows bold (wikilink-to-self). -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Of course, I was half asleep. Peter Horn User talk 18:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

No it is the very bug you discovered! ;-) -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting note: The "Toden_Arakawa_Line" is linked because it is defined metric not ft/in, with source! So: for consistency :-). Here at {{Track gauge}}, we adhere to defined tracks, even per unit (ft/in or metric). So this is why the 1372mm link is as it is.

The article should be moved to 4 ft 6 in and 1372 mm gauge railway (Seriously. Because the metric one is defined & sourced). -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Will change the data all right. -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: I'm eagerly awaiting that suggested consolidation or move. Peter Horn User talk 13:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. (sandbox was in use for this change). -DePiep (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Conclusion

Today:

1. Target wikilink for 4 ft 6 in (1,372 mm) is 4 ft 6 in gauge railway (no redirect) generic Y
2. Target wikilink for 1,372 mm (4 ft 6 in) is Toden Arakawa Line (no redirect), specific ?

(Probably used because article says 'define in metric', initially. But we can not confirm such a source today.)

All in all, there is no sourcing article (found yet) to claim an "1372 mm gauge" article. So nor change existing ft/in article into "4 ft 6 in and 1372 mm gauge railway".

Tomorrow:

So, we will redirect 1,372 mm (4 ft 6 in) to 4 ft 6 in gauge railway, as requested.

Ever:

I add: base of the {{Track gauge}} is that it encourages sourced track gauges. That is: gauges that are sourced, including their unit. e.g., "metre gauge " was never defined or ordered in ft/in units :-)

-DePiep (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Now in sandbox, to go live: Target wikilink for 1,372 mm (4 ft 6 in). -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Peter Horn and 侵入者ウィリアム: -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Thank you. --侵入者ウィリアム (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor 侵入者ウィリアム: Thanks. This was elaborate talks. The enwiki track gauge set is well-based (sourced) and we prefer that. Maybe, in the future, I might ask more questions about 1372mm & Japan ;-) Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge/data has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace all Module:Track_gauge/data code with its /sandbox code (diff)

Change: gauge 1372mm has new target article. Per Template talk:Track gauge (includes tests). DePiep (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor DePiep:  done, and thank you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Page watchers may be interested in MediaWiki talk:Common.css § Preview warning and hatnotes moving to TemplateStyles Izno (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

{{Track gauge|4ft8in|lk=on}} 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm) , see also {Standard gauge#Almost standard gauge Peter Horn User talk 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: What about a page called 4 ft 8 in railways and a list of usage? Peter Horn User talk 13:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

See Category:4 ft 8 in gauge railways. Latest count known (2016): it was used in 32 articles.

If the article is stable, and has sources for the gauge, it can be used as target. IMO, if it only has list of usage it might not be viable (then categorise the list). But feel free. -DePiep (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: We have 3 ft 6 in gauge railways as a model to follow. Peter Horn User talk 16:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 16:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: An interim solution would be to link all 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm) to 4 ft 8 in gauge railway which redirects to Standard-gauge railway#4 ft 8 in gauge At some time this redirect can then be transformed into a true article. Peter Horn User talk 23:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the redirect link. BTW, did you check if there is a source in that target paragraph? -DePiep (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

What did you mean here? Peter Horn User talk 19:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

There are two sources in the target paragraph. Peter Horn User talk 20:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the redirects to Stockton and Darlington Railway#George Stephenson Peter Horn User talk 00:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Forget about the previous two suggestions. I'll make it 4 ft 8 in gauge railways Peter Horn User talk 17:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Perhaps you might now change the link in {{Track gauge|4ft8in|lk=on}} 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm) from New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad to 4 ft 8 in gauge railways which I will transform into a true article. Peter Horn User talk 19:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. I hope we will see a well-sourced article soon. -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: please stop messing around with undiscussed and random and frivoluous editing. We are not here to solve your chaos. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Mea culpa: 4 ft 8 in gauge railways is now ready as a stub and we can get rid of New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad as a link. Peter Horn User talk 23:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Target wikilink for 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm) has not yet been changed. Peter Horn User talk 13:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Still no the appropriate redirect. Peter Horn User talk 20:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Still no the appropriate redirect. I don't know how to correct this anomaly. Peter Horn User talk 20:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

My advice: try writing an *open* question. Not a commanding one. Just me. -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. Peter Horn User talk 20:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep:Per a request, I updated the link in Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox, so that it can be tested with Module:Track gauge/sandbox with {{Track gauge/sandbox|4ft8in|lk=on}}, which appears to be working: 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm). If you have time, can you confirm my change and update in Module:Track gauge/data if appropriate? —Ost (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ost316: Your edit looks OK. I have removed the "1422 mm" (metric) definition because no source available (see #1422 mm below). I leave the honour of the EditRequest (../data/sandbox) to you :-) -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep:Thanks for correcting my edit to get the metric portion. I'll add the edit request below. —Ost (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Was not an error, just an addition ;-) -DePiep (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Y Ready to go live -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

1422 mm

For Trams in Amsterdam {{Track gauge|1422mm|lk=on}} 1422mm won't link. Peter Horn User talk 01:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Basic {{Track gauge}} rule: "1422 mm" is a metric definition, and so requires its own source. I have asked for a source in Talk:Trams in Amsterdam#Track gauge 1422 mm. So, when the 1422mm ID remains unsouced, it will be removed from the TG-list, and can be referred to as 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm). -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed from sandbox because no source for the metric one. -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Y Ready to go live -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge/data has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update: In Module:Track gauge/data, please replace all code with sandbox code (diff)

Change:

See {{Track gauge/status}} calls in discussion for demonstration of following differences:

1. Update link for 4ft8in railway from New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad to 4 ft 8 in gauge railways.
2. Remove link for 1422mm railway.

Discussion: #Another more appropriate link needed

—Ost (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Track gauge has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace all code in {{Track gauge}} with code from {{Track gauge/sandbox}} (diff)

Change: in tracking, add |comma= as known parameter (per this earlier edit). DePiep (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

For Pays de Waes (locomotive)#History {{Track gauge|1,145mm}} 1,145mm 1,145 mm (3 ft 9+3⁄32 in) Peter Horn User talk 03:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There already exists {{Track gauge|3ft9in|lk=on}} 3 ft 9 in (1,143 mm) Peter Horn User talk 03:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 14:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: When you can spare a minute or so, please take this new one under consideration. Peter Horn User talk 01:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting case. Is 1145 mm original (=thought of locally), or a rounded conversion of the imperial size? After all, rounding is just 2 millimetres (0.079 in). The (modern) source only mentions metric, but possibly the contemporary source (=design) *might* mention the imperial one as origin.

For the moment, I am thinking: "1145 mm is the metrical equivalent of 3 ft 9 in (1,143 mm), rounded". Needs some more research. -DePiep (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be watching. Peter Horn User talk 01:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge/data has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Seems to have been an error introduced in a change to the Toronto gauge entry.

Basically, when the article was moved from Toronto gauge to Toronto-gauge railways, the entry in the data here was changed such that {{Track gauge|Toronto|first=met|allk=on}} (basically the |allk=on version) lists "Toronto-gauge railways" instead of what it should list, which is "Toronto gauge" (i.e. list the name of the gauge as the link text, not the name of the article it links to).

This can be seen in the second paragraph of this, where the sentence reads: The trains are powered by linear induction motors and operate on 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge tracks, unlike the city's subway lines and the Toronto streetcar system, which use the unique 1,495 mm (4 ft 10+7⁄8 in) Toronto gauge.

You can see the usage expects the template to generate something like "standard gauge", not "standard-gauge railway". You can see how Toronto sticks out currently as wrong in the table of gauges, where all the other "Alt Name" entries are in the form "[location name] gauge" (e.g. "Ohio gauge", "Russian gauge") whereas Toronto's entry is "Toronto-gauge railways".

I think I've fixed this in the sandbox here but to be honest I couldn't quite figure out how to test changes made to the sandbox version of /data.

Anyway, can someone either make the change as per the link I've provided or, if it's incorrect, fix it so that when |allk= is set to "on" for "Toronto", it lists "Toronto gauge" as the link text and not "Toronto-gauge railways"? Joeyconnick (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: Yes, looks like an issue. Will take a look at it. For now, I have paused the Edit Request to do the sandbox checks. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Request: please replace all code in Module:Track gauge/data with Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox (diff).

Change: per OP report, named gauge now appears as "Toronto gauge" (not Toronto-gauge railways).

Tests: see Template:Track_gauge/testcases#fix_Toronto. @Joeyconnick: -DePiep (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To editors DePiep and Joeyconnick:  done, and thank you both for your help! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both! —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone add please this:

{
["full-id"] = "4000-met",
["id"] = "4000",
["def1"] = "met",
["aliases"] = {4000mm, 4m},
["pagename"] = "Breitspurbahn",
["contentcat"] = "",
["ft"] = "9",
["in"] = "10",
["num"] = "1",
["den"] = "8",
["mm"] = "4000"
},

Look Breitspurbahn#Tracks for the reason. Thanks a lot. --Albrecht Eckert (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The track has never been build, so inclusion not applicable. Also, there is no RS source in the link for this design. Policy is that unsourced traks are not added. -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

In List of secondary, industrial and Decauville railways in Argentina I found the following new track gauge: {{Track gauge|650mm}} 650mm Peter Horn User talk 06:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

My first impression is that "0.65 m" is a typo or a data mistake. Would be very peculiar if for this 32 km of rails rolling stock with such an unique gauge would have been created. -DePiep (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Who knows. There was also 0.51 m which would make {{Track gauge|510mm}} 510mm 510 mm (20+3⁄32 in). The previous one would be 650 mm (25+19⁄32 in) Peter Horn User talk 17:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 17:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"Who knows" indeed. No source then. Not acceptable for the list. (btw how does "0.51 m" prove anything?) -DePiep (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: 0.51 m^[1] The same as the reference for all the gauges in the List of secondaryarticle.

Or look for Ledesma Mill Railway (Desvio Ingenio Ledesma)^[2]

I repeat: 0.65 m gauge very unlikely, as it would require unique rolling stock. Why plausible?

As for 0.51 m: please take a good check yourself. What would your assumption be? -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: I have found both within the followin text using "ctrl f" together ("find"). Just try that. Peter Horn User talk 18:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Mea culpa, that text yielded only 0.65 m. That leaves 0.51 m as an error on the previous revisions of the article Peter Horn User talk 18:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, not is not "Ctrl f". When the reference opens, there are instructions in German to the left. There is a search window and to the right of that "Los gehts". That allows me to find 0.65 m gauge. Peter Horn User talk 19:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

PS, That search window is called in German "im Buch suchen". Peter Horn User talk 16:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That source is not reliable for obvious reasons, as mentioned. No base to include these. -DePiep (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The source is a US government department publication which has been used as a source for most of the railways mentioned in the article, there are for me "no obvious reasons" why it should be unreliable. As for "not plausible", a number streetcar systems in the US had unusual, if not unique, track gauges. To this day the Toronto Transit Commission is hobbled by the Toronto gauge Peter Horn User talk 18:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The "author" is not disputed. I wrote that the unique gauge is probably a typo or data mistake, because it is not plausible that a 32-km track in Tucuman Argentine would order an worldwide unique rolling stock with that gauge. About the "0.51 m", I suggested you took a little reasonability-research. Well this is what I though you could have found in a whimp: 0.51 metres (20.079 in) is quite likely a regular "20-inch" gauge, rounded in metrification somewhere in the reporting route. (If not a rounding difference, then the same unlikeliness occurs: why order an unique gauge?).

Since this is a talkpage, I have some talking notes to make. First, all the links you added are all to a single source. Doubling a link does not add quality for the claim. Also, it would be helpful if you tried to grasp my remarks & questions, and then build unpon those. For now, it looks like if you missed most of my points. -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I left a note on the usertalk of the original contributor. As there is only a single solitary source, this is not a problem. The US government had its military reasons for making this a list. Peter Horn User talk 21:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Good action. And indeed, although it says "commercial", the military goal is quite clear. Nowadays, CIA maintains such lists. -DePiep (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I found a reference which says 70 centimeter and 20 inch gauge^[3] 508 mm (20 in) {{track gauge|20in|first=metric|lk=on}} lk=on does not work here.Peter Horn User talk 01:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

And this one ^[4] Peter Horn User talk 03:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: {{Track gauge|20in|lk-on}} 20 in (508 mm) and {{Track gauge|20in|first=metric|lk-on}} 508 mm (20 in) Both should link to Minimum-gauge railway Peter Horn User talk 03:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Peter Horn User talk 00:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 01:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

From Ridable miniature railway#Gauge Holly Tree Railway, {{RailGauge|7.75in}}, {{cvt|7+3/4|in|mm|0}} 7.75in, 7+3⁄4 in (197 mm) at the Holly Tree PH, Leytonstone, London^[1]

Peter Horn User talk 00:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Make that Ridable miniature railway#Miniature railways Peter Horn User talk 00:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

For Severn and Wye Railway#Severn and Wye Railway 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm).^{[note 1]} Peter Horn User talk 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Track gauge|2.5in}}, 2+1⁄2 in (64 mm) on one hand {{cvt|2.5|in|mm|1}}, 2.5 in (63.5 mm) on the other hand. Should the output of template:track gauge not match the output of template:Convert? Peter Horn User talk 23:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The conversion is {{cvt|2.5|in|mm|1}} 2.5 in (63.5 mm), {{cvt|2.5|in|mm|2}} 2.5 in (63.50 mm) Peter Horn User talk 05:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need to. {{Convert}} is handling precision & uncertainty in the generic way, bases on common measurement & precision theories in science. It's about scientists expressing uncertainty in the measurement (with original unit); convert then should try to reproduce that uncertainty as good as possible (but not suggesting more precision than the source says).

Track gauges, OTOH, are a defined size (length), and by unit so (defined in a certain unit). The definition size itself does not imply uncertainty/precision. Because: it is defined, not measured. Possibly the definition has specifications on tolerance in RL constructing, all right. We don't know them, we don't need to report them: for these specifications, go to the definition page (say, Standard gauge § precision). On top of this, the defined precision (tolerance) varies: for a TGV the SG tolerance is much smaller than for an underused fright track. So far for the defined size in a unit.

Then, when we (enwiki) convert to a non-defined unit, we should not imply or suggest precision in the new value. {{Track gauge}} does consistently:

In the conversion, round to nearest 1 mm or 1⁄32 in. [1 mm (0.039 in), 1⁄32 in (0.794 mm)]

In practice, this conversion is hardcoded into {{Track gauge}}. For the model gauges, those under 89 mm or 3+1⁄2 in, this guideline is not applicable.

This looks like a most understandable representation, not-impractically precise and expressed in commonl;y recognisable units. -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but we DO have 7+1⁄4 in (184 mm) , so what is the problem with 2+1⁄2 in (64 mm) being more precise? Peter Horn User talk 00:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

DePiep (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Y Prepared in sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Y prepared in sandbox, see testcases. -DePiep (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Y prepared in sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge/data has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace all code in Module:Track gauge/data ← Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox (diff)

Changes: three new sourced gauge-definitions are added (§ Lego Trains, § 4ft 2 1/2in (1283 mm), § 1522 mm (Helsinki metro)). Also (minor), trivial comma replaced by period (46×).

Test: testcases 1, 2, 3. DePiep (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC), added #3 -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised this one isn't already on the list. Still: Grachester (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Grachester:, great report! I understand this one is in the source. If so, a well-defined one.

I have a question though: could you check whether this one is the same as:

• A. 1 ft 10+3⁄4 in (578 mm) (=22+3⁄4 in; Category:1 ft 10¾ in gauge railways (2))? or maybe
• B. 22+5⁄8 in (575 mm) (defined in metric only; List of track gauges#575 mm)
• C. 22+27⁄32 in (580 mm) (defined in metric only; List of track gauges#580 mm)?

What we want to have is the definition of a gauge, say: the size as ordered. So when in practice, when it is ~1⁄4 inch off, it might be the same gauge (but source is imprecize).

Then, when these are the same, that explains why you were surprised: they are present under a different size.

OTOH, if these are not the same (i.e., they are absolutely defined to be different by original order), this is an unique gauge railway.

-DePiep (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

All in Category:1 ft 10¾ in gauge railways:

Lakeside Amusement Park

Dinorwic quarry

Penrhyn Castle Railway Museum

Penrhyn Quarry Railway

Inny Valley Railway

-DePiep (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DePiep:. The source gives the gauge of the tramway as 1ft 11in, as distinct to other close variants, so I believe it is the definition of the gauge. I'm surprised this gauge isn't used more, since it would be an obvious variant of "near-2ft" gauges. Anyway, I do believe this is a unique (or at least rare) gauge that should be separately defined in the template. Thanks, Grachester (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks, yes that is plausible. Now the other part of my (confusing) question is:

Are the other, nearby gauge sizes possibly the same as this 1 ft 11 in, but only more sloppy researched/documented?

Because, it is very likely that these are originally defined the same. Why would there be such small variations? Why would the Hendre-Ddu Tramway have an unique gauge by itself? (surprising indeed, as you said yourself). So the 2nd question is: could you take a look at the other lines, whether their gauge is well-sourced to be different? DePiep (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep:it's entirely possible that there are other railways at 1ft 11in. Those listed above as 1 ft 10¾ in gauge are correct. There are a lot of tramways and railways in Wales that served mines and quarries that were "around" 2ft gauge. Most of these are either undocumented, and/or were roughly laid and their gauge varied by +/- an inch or even two. So stating a precise gauge for them is difficult. I don't have a list of other known 1ft 11in gauge railways, but there certainly would have been some. These small differences didn't matter for horse/human worked tramways, but did make a difference once the railways were locomotive-worked, as the Hendre Ddu was from 1921 onwards. So I do think it is meaningful to list this specific version of "2ft gauge" even if the Hendre Ddu is the only (so far) documented example. Grachester (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Y OK, we will add it.

The grouping you mention put on the todo-list (e.g., widening the scope of Category:1 ft 10¾ in gauge railways into ".. circa 2 ft"). DePiep (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Module:Track gauge/data has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Please replace all code from Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox into Module:Track gauge/data (diff).

Change: add gauge 1ft 11in, per sourced request.

Test: see section § 1ft 11in header box. DePiep (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

For the Rennes Metro please add {{Track gauge|1620mm}} 1620mm (1,620 mm (5 ft 3+25⁄32 in)) Peter Horn User talk 02:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 02:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@DePiep: Could it be that fr:Métro de Rennes, the "source" of this strange gauge, has an error? Peter Horn User talk 11:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 11:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not that interested where an error comes from ;-), which answers nothing. I'd like to see a confirming source :-).

At first, a new metro way in the 1960s(!) in France(!) would hardly have a non-standard gauge. However, since the city has a history in fr:Tramway de Rennes from 19th century, a distinct gauge could be plausible. That is, the new metro would have chosen the same gauge as their old tramways...

For now, finding a source is best, probably frwiki is better positioned. If in say a few months a source is not found, we'll have to remove any gauge number as not-verifiable. DePiep (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I revised fr:wiki fr:Métro de Rennes to 1435 mm on the basis that I got to a previous revision. I'll see what will bee their reaction. Peter Horn User talk 02:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Good idea! The process I refer to is WP:VERIFY: "material likely to be challenged" — which we do at this point. Good luck with your French. DePiep (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I got a reply on fr:Discussion utilisateur:Peter Horn#Écartement métro de Rennes. There is NO conventional track, only twu roll ways. The 1620 mm is the distance between them. Mystery solved. Peter Horn User talk 00:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

fr:Métro de Rennes now givves now gives "Documentation technique du VAL 206 [dont le VAL 208 en est l'évolution]" (PDF). http://www.traction-electrique.ch. Retrieved 7 February 2023. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help) This link .</ref> Peter Horn User talk 01:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

OK then. Don't think we should list this in/as {{Track gauge}}. I propose you use simple {{Convert}} in the infobox (here, enwiki), and maybe note this detail with it. DePiep (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops, you already did ;-) DePiep (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Found Category:Rubber-tyred metros (24). DePiep (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:List of track gauges § Swedish inches (conversion of old Swedish units of measurement; Narrow-gauge railways in Sweden). Pls discuss there. DePiep (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

How is dual gauge (e.g., 4'8-1/2" and 3') presented with this template? Casey (talk) Casey (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Only as separate gauges: {{Track gauge|4ft81/2in|allk=on)}} and {{Track gauge|3ft|allk=on}} →

4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) and 3 ft (914 mm).

DePiep (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Make that {{Track gauge|3ft|lk=on}} 3 ft (914 mm) Peter Horn User talk 00:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Could be helpful: Category:Dual gauge railways (6). DePiep (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

For Clifton Rocks Railway#Operations 3 ft 2.5 in {{TrackGauge|3 ft 2.5 in}} Peter Horn User talk 21:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

For Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway#Technical details 3 ft 8 in {{TrackGauge|3 ft 8 in}} Peter Horn User talk 00:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

can we please use 1435 mm ({{val|1435}}) instead of 1,435 mm, as suggested in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers? ThurnerRupert (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This template admits a parameter comma which is described almost nowhere in the description. By "almost nowhere", I mean that the only place where I found it mentioned is at the bottom of the TemplateData rollout, as "Parameter: comma; Description: no description; Type: Unknown; Status: optional". That's rather uninformative, don't you think ? After having seen that parameter in use in several places in the article Dual gauge, I wanted to know what it did, and after reading the above, I still didn't know. Then I guessed that comma=no suppressed the thousands comma in the gauge widths, but after trying to add an example as part of this comment, the preview still separated the thousands with a comma. So please, someone, complete the description of the comma parameter at the bottom of the TemplateData rollout, and also add some examples of its use here and there in the rest of the description. — Tonymec (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)