View source for Template talk:Track gauge/Archive 7

{{talk archive navigation}}

== Remove 783&nbsp;mm gauge ==

{{Track gauge/status|783 mm|783|mm|source={{cite web |url=http://www.morop.org/en/normes/nem010_en.pdf |title=NEM 010: Ratio, Scale and Gauge |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927143351/http://www.morop.org/en/normes/nem010_en.pdf |archivedate=2007-09-27}}
|note=}}
I propose to ''remove'' the 783&nbsp;mm gauge from the definitons list. As the sourcing article [[HOn30_gauge#H0e|HOn30_gauge]] explains, this is just a theoretical (prototype) gauge. Such a theoretical gauge is the reaul of a calculation of {{nowrap|1=''model gauge'' &frasl; ''model scale''}} (the reversed way). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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&nbsp;gauge&nbsp;&times; scale = model&nbsp;gauge
::standard gauge &times; [[HO scale]] = model gauge
::{{nowrap|1={{track gauge|sg}} &times; 1:87.1 = 16.5&nbsp;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:
::?&nbsp;gauge &times; [[OO gauge|OO scale]] = 16.5&nbsp;mm model gauge
::With OO scale being  1:76, we find prototype gauge:
::{{track gauge|4 ft 1 1⁄2 in}} &times; 1:76.2 = 16.5&nbsp;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:
::[[HOn30_gauge#H0e|H0e]] scale is 1:87, defined as 9&nbsp;mm model gauge (from prototype 760&nbsp;mm, rounded toward the definition).
::Actual prototype would be:
::?&nbsp;prototype &times; 1:87 = 9&nbsp;mm
::783&nbsp;mm &times; 1:87 = 9&nbsp;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). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

{{yellow tick}} preparing. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

{{done}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

== Track gauge 1,200 mm ==
{{Track gauge/status|1200 mm|1200|mm|article=[[Narrow-gauge railway#Four foot and 1200 mm gauge]], [[Appenzell Railways]]|source=See Appenzell Railways|category=[[:Category:1200 mm gauge railways]]|note=}}
{{Track gauge|1200mm|lk=on}} should perhaps be linked to [[Narrow-gauge railway#Four foot and 1200 mm gauge]] instead of to [[Appenzell Railways]]. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk: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). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::BTW, {{tlf|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&nbsp;mm ''sourced definition'' is moved to an other article, {{tlf|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]]? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
*Reply to {{U|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#Operation|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). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::Then ''copy'' the source from [[Appenzell_Railways#Operation|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]]. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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&nbsp;mm article. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::The template is fully protected. Only someone with access can change the link there. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 17:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Yes, {{U|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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

{{yellow tick}} preparing. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

{{done}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

== Yet two more oddball track gauges ==

For [[Hohenzollern Locomotive Works#Fireless steam locomotives]]
* {{Track gauge|840mm}}
* {{Track gauge|780mm}}<br> [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:As always, we need sources. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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]]? [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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:RS|WP:RELYABLESOURCE]]. It is simple: someone could make a talkpage request at that dewiki talkpage. Must say: I am only maintaining {{tlf|Track gauge}}, not providing all its 250+ sources. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

===780 mm===
{{Track gauge/status|780 mm|780|mm}}
:Need to check/find sources. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

===840 mm===
{{Track gauge/status|840 mm|840|mm}}
:Need to check or find sources. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk: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). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

== 2 ft 2.5 in: projected gauge only ==

{{Track gauge/status| 2 ft 2.5 in|26.5|in
|article=[[Corris Railway]]
|source={{cite book |last=Johnson |first=Peter |title=An Illustrated History of the Great Western Narrow Gauge |publisher=Oxford Publishing Co |date=2011 |authorlink=Peter Johnson (railway historian)}}}}
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 {{tlf|Convert}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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 {{RailGauge|2ft3in}} 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. [[User:Railfan23|Railfan23]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

=={{anchor|1=South Africa}}1065 mm in South Africa (not 1067 mm, from 3 1/2 ft)==
{{Track gauge/status
|1= 1065 mm<!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2=1065
|3= mm<!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in), will be used in calculated unit conversion. -->
|article=[[3 ft 6 in gauge railways#Nomenclature]]<!-- any -->
|category=<!-- content category; full wl and use colon-: trick to show -->
|source=[[3 ft 6 in gauge railways#Nomenclature]], [http://chartsbin.com/view/38573]
|note=Rounded from {{track gauge|3ft6in|lk=on}}. Formal in South Africa. <br>''Output'' {{para|allk|on}} will yield gauge name Cape gauge. However, ''input'' <nowiki>{{track gauge|Cape gauge}}</nowiki> will yield the original imperial definition: {{track gauge|Cape gauge|allk=on|lk=on}}.
}}


For '''[[3 ft 6 in gauge railways#Nomenclature]]''' {{Track gauge|1065mm}} instead of{{convert|1065|mm|ftin|frac=64|abbr=on}}. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 23:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
:Is this a question? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
* {{yellow tick}} in sandbox. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{done}} Added, now live. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

== 4 ft 9 3/8 in  gauge ==

{{track gauge/status
|1= 4 ft 9 3/8 in<!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2= 57.375
|3= in<!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in) to will be used in calculated unit conversion). -->
|article=[[Cleveland and Mahoning Valley Railroad]]
|category=<!-- content category; full wl and use colon-: trick to show -->
|source=[http://elmags.railfan.net/ERIE_Dec1958.pdf] p. 12
|note=Unique gauge
}}
* Sourced, so will be included in the next update. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
* {{yellow tick}} in sandbox. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{done}} added. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

== 12 5/8 in gauge (321 mm) ==

{{track gauge/status
|1= 12 5/8 in<!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2= 12.625
|3= in<!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in) to will be used in calculated unit conversion). -->
|article=[[Midland Beach Railway Company]]
|category={{clc|12⅝ in gauge railways‎}}<!-- content category; full wl and use colon-: trick to show -->
|source=[https://archive.org/stream/streetrailwayjo211903newy/streetrailwayjo211903newy#page/538/mode/1up Miniature locomotives for street railway parks.] The Street railway journal, Vol. XXI (Vol. 21), No. 14, 4 April 1903, p. 538.
|note=Unique gauge
}}
*Sourced, new, so to be added shortly. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

{{done}} - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

== 4 ft 8 in wl target? ==
{{anchor|1= 4ft 8in wl target? }}
{{track gauge/status
|1= 4ft 8in<!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2= 56
|3= in<!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in) to will be used in calculated unit conversion). -->
|article=[[New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad]] (suggested: [[Killingworth Colliery railway]])
|category={{clc|4 ft 8 in gauge railways‎}}<!-- content category; full wl and use colon-: trick to show -->
|source=[http://www.csa-railroads.com/New_Orleans_and_Carrollton.htm NO&C RR]
|note=Original Stevenson gauge (proto Standard gauge)
}}
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? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk: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 {{tl|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. - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

== Change a link ==

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 {{Track gauge|57in|lk=on}} [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
:I suggest '''List of 4 ft 9 in railways'''. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 22:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
::Wikicode <code><nowiki>{{Track gauge|4ft 9in|lk=on}}</nowiki></code> links this way: {{Track gauge|4ft 9in|lk=on}} to [[Manchester and Leeds Railway]] because that is where the gauge is ''defined'' (sourced), see reference <sup>[1]</sup> 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 {{cl|4 ft 9 in gauge railways}}, but no [[List of 4 ft 9 in railways]] so linking to such a page is useless. - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC) <small>ping {{U|Peter Horn}} - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)</small>

== Decimals: Comma or Dot? ==

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?
[[User:JonsterMonster|JonsterMonster]] ([[User talk:JonsterMonster|talk]]) 22:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
:[[MOS:DECIMAL]]. English always uses a dot, never a comma. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 00:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
:So why does this template use commas? Seems like it should use dots. [[User:JonsterMonster|JonsterMonster]] ([[User talk:JonsterMonster|talk]]) 03:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
::You mean like in {{track gauge|1000mm}}? This is the thousands-separator, described in [[MOS:DIGITS]]. A decimal point is used in {{track gauge|0.256 in}}. Which article(s) were you looking at? 
::If this comma should be optional (alternatives are in MOS:DIGIT), please note. - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
:::OK, yes I'm stupid. I read it as decimal metres, but it says mm. [[User:JonsterMonster|JonsterMonster]] ([[User talk:JonsterMonster|talk]]) 11:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
::::Well, it could be that en-Australian language articles (see [[MOS:ENGVAR|local language articles]]) do not use that comma, and prefer a small space instead ("{{nowrap|1=1&thinsp;000 mm}}"). If that should be an option in {{tl|Track gauge}}, it can be proposed here. - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

== Template-protected edit request on 8 July 2018 ==

{{edit template-protected|Module:Track gauge|answered=y}}
Please replace all code in [[Module:Track gauge|'''Module''':Track gauge]] with all code in [[Module:Track gauge/sandbox]] ({{diffsandbox|Module:Track gauge|label=diff sandbox}}). 
Effect: shows a message, in Preview only, when the input is not in de list of defined options.
Testcases [[Template:Track_gauge/testcases#Unrecognised|here]] (check preview to see the intended effect). [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 09:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

== 2 ft 2.5 in gauge ==
{{hatnote|1=Oops, was already discussed in [[Template_talk:Track_gauge/Archive_7#2_ft_2.5_in:_projected_gauge_only|/Archive_7]]}}
{{Track gauge/status
|1= 2 ft 2.5 in<!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2= 26.5
|3= in<!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in), will be used in calculated unit conversion. -->
|article=[[Corris Railway#Precusor_schemes:_1850_to_1858|Corris Railway]]<!-- any -->
|category={{clc|2 ft 3 in gauge railways in Wales}}<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source=<ref>{{cite book |last=Johnson |first=Peter |title=An Illustrated History of the Great Western Narrow Gauge |publisher=Oxford Publishing Co |date=2011 |authorlink=Peter Johnson (railway historian)}}</ref>
|note=The article states that this gauge was decided in 1851, but was never build.
}}
{{nay}} Was never build, so will not be added. In the article, I'll change the template to a regular {{tlf|Convert}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
:Was discussed before, see [[Template_talk:Track_gauge/Archive_7#2_ft_2.5_in:_projected_gauge_only|/Archive_7]], with same result. (I started this 2nd thread because the article was in the error category today). - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

== Template-protected edit request on 4 August 2018 ==

{{edit template-protected|Module:Track gauge/data|answered=yes}}
* Please copy all code from [[Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox]] into [[Module:Track gauge/data]] (replace; {{diffsandbox|1=Module:Track gauge/data|label=diff}}).

:Changed: added four new sourced track gauge definitions.
:Discussion & testcases: see yellow box in [[#4_ft_9.5_in_gauge]], <s>#2_ft_2.5_in_gauge</s>, [[#12.5_inch_miniature_gauge]], [[#780_mm]], [[#840_mm]]. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
::Fixed #-link to wrong section. - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 08:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

== Yet two more oddball track gauges ==
{{hatnote|1=Restored from [[Template_talk:Track_gauge/Archive_7#Yet_two_more_oddball_track_gauges|/Archive 7]], issue was not finished. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)}}
For [[Hohenzollern Locomotive Works#Fireless steam locomotives]]
* {{Track gauge|840mm}}
* {{Track gauge|780mm}}<br> [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:As always, we need sources. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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]]? [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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:RS|WP:RELYABLESOURCE]]. It is simple: someone could make a talkpage request at that dewiki talkpage. Must say: I am only maintaining {{tlf|Track gauge}}, not providing all its 250+ sources. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

===780 mm===
{{Track gauge/status|780 mm|780|mm
|article=[[Hohenzollern Locomotive Works]]
|source=[https://dgeg.de/172-Spurweiten_800_bis_899_mm] (DGEG)}}
:Need to check/find sources. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

===840 mm===
{{Track gauge/status|840 mm|840|mm
|article=[[Hohenzollern Locomotive Works]]
|source=[https://dgeg.de/172-Spurweiten_800_bis_899_mm]}}
:Need to check or find sources. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk: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). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Asked source-check at [[:de:Diskussion:Aktiengesellschaft_für_Lokomotivbau_Hohenzollern#Einzigartigen_Spurweiten|dewiki]]. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
::::Result: by [[DGEG]] and [https://dgeg.de/107-Spurweiten_Auswahl]:
:{{od}} 780 mm [https://dgeg.de/132-Spurweiten_750_bis_799_mm]
:840 mm [https://dgeg.de/172-Spurweiten_800_bis_899_mm]
:Also suggested [http://www.ssdw.de/BE/BE_1993-01.pdf] for 840 mm, but I haved not found it yet (Search difficulty).
:Anyway: RS and so both will be added. - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

{{yellow tick}} added to sandbox. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

{{done}} Well, {{U|Peter Horn}}, this did not even take a full year ;-) -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

== 12.5 inch miniature gauge ==

{{track gauge/status
|1= 12.5 in<!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2= 12.5
|3= in<!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in) to will be used in calculated unit conversion). -->
|article=[[Miniature Railway Company]]
|category={{clc|12½ in gauge railways‎}}<!-- content category -->
|source=[[Miniature_Railway_Company#Trans-Mississippi_Exposition]]: [http://www.shorpy.com/node/13260#comment-138653 The Railway Age, July 1, 1898.]
|note=Unique gauge (so far); see comment on source quelity
}}
: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 {{track gauge|12 5/8in|lk=on}} - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

:This is an unique gauge (nowhere else used or mentioned). The source here is [http://www.shorpy.com/node/13260#comment-138653 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 {{track gauge|125/8in|lk=on}} (of {{frac |1|8}} inch difference). In other words, it may very well be that the {{frac|12|1|2}} in the source is a miswriting.
:Having said this doubt, this gauge will be added. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

{{yellow tick}} in sandbox. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

{{done}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

==4 ft 9.5 in gauge==
{{Track gauge/status
|1= 4 ft 9.5 in <!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2=57.5
|3= in<!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in), will be used in calculated unit conversion. -->
|article=[[Cleveland,_Columbus_and_Cincinnati_Railroad#Construction_of_the_line]]<!-- any -->
|category=<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source=<ref>{{cite book|ref=harv|author=Ohio Commissioner of Railroads and Telegraphs|title=Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Railroads and Telegraphs of Ohio for the Year Ending June 30, 1872|location=Columbus, Ohio|publisher=Nevins and Myers, State Printers|date=1873|url=http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b2896931}}</ref>{{sfn|Ohio Commissioner of Railroads and Telegraphs|1873|page=125}}, see also [[Cleveland,_Columbus_and_Cincinnati_Railroad#cite_note-64|footnote f]] in the article
|note=Would be an unique gauge (single network use).
}}
* <s>Cannot check the source. (bad reference format).</s> - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
* OK, gauge is defined in the source. Will add this to the list. 
*{{yellow tick}} Added to data/sandbox. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

{{done}} - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

== 6 1/4 inch ==

{{Track gauge/status
|1= 6 1/4 in
|2=6.25
|3= in
|article=[[Ridable miniature railway]] ([[Nelson, New Zealand]])
|category=<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source=<ref>[https://www.nelsonmodellers.org.nz/about/history nelsonmodellers]</ref> (see article)
|note=sourced; unique so far (enwiki, dewiki). Will be added.
}}
-[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
:{{yellow tick}} added to sandbox. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

:{{done}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
=== Template-protected edit request on 10 November 2018 ===

{{edit template-protected|Module:Track gauge/data|answered=yes}}
Please replace all [[Module:Track gauge/data]] content with [[Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox]] code (=update from sandbox). Change: adds the sourced gauge {{frac|6|1|4}} inch. Discussed & tested in section [[#6 1/4 inch|#above]]. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 19:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

== 1620 mm ==

{{Track gauge/status
|1= 1620 mm
|2= 1620
|3= mm
|article=[[Toulouse Metro]]
|category=
|source=not available yet
|note=see also [[Talk:Toulouse Metro]]
}} [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

== disp=s, slash separator and spacing ==

Should {{para|disp&#160;s}}, i.e. <code><nowiki>{{RailGauge|5ft6in|lk=off|disp=s}}</nowiki></code> 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: '''{{RailGauge|5ft6in|lk=off|disp=s}}'''  [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 12:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
:Looking at {{tl|Convert}}. The / slash is not available by default, but can be used:
:<code><nowiki>{{convert|5|ft|6|in|mm|abbr=on|disp=x|/}}</nowiki></code> &rarr; {{convert|5|ft|6|in|mm|abbr=on|disp=x|/}}
:However, you may have a point. Would [[thin space]] help?
::* <span class="nowrap">5&nbsp;ft&nbsp;6&nbsp;in</span>/&#x200b;<span class="nowrap">1,676&nbsp;mm</span> 
::* <span class="nowrap">5&nbsp;ft&nbsp;6&nbsp;in</span>&thinsp;/&thinsp;<span class="nowrap">1,676&nbsp;mm</span>
::* <span class="nowrap">5&nbsp;ft&nbsp;6&nbsp;in</span>&nbsp;/&#x20;<span class="nowrap">1,676&nbsp;mm</span> 
::(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). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
:* So would this be better as a fix to {{tl|Convert}} itself? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 16:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
:::{{tlf|Track gauge}} does not use Convert internally, all gauge values are hardcoded in the list (the ~275 gauges &times; 2 metric/imperial), and internally formatted stealing from Convert. I'm looking at Convert because it is good to keep similar formatting &tc. 
:::Asking {{U|Johnuniq}} for input here, especially for the visual/typographical aspect you mention. (There might be older considerations I'm not aware of). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
:* Also, shouldn't any linebreak be ''before'' the slash? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 17:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

In convert, <code>|disp=slash</code> was removed in [[Template talk:Convert/Archive November 2014#Module version 6|November 2014]]. That link shows an example of how it looked before removal: "55 miles&nbsp;/ 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 ([[Template talk:Convert/Archive September 2016#Module version 15|September 2016]]). In case it's of interest, following is an example showing the exact wikitext output by convert for 83&thinsp;/&thinsp;63&nbsp;°F (28&thinsp;/&thinsp;17&nbsp;°C):
<pre>
{{convert|83|/|63|F}}
83&amp;thinsp;/&amp;thinsp;63&amp;nbsp;°F (28&amp;thinsp;/&amp;thinsp;17&amp;nbsp;°C)
</pre>
[[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
:That no-slash discussion is [[Template_talk:Convert/Archive_November_2014#Deprecation_of_"/"_(slash)_join|here]] in the Convert Archives. Problematic situation is {{nowrap|1="570 mph/917 km/h; 495 kn"}}. In track gauge, the "km/h" does not occur, but double-meaning of slash does: {{nowrap|1="2 ft 1⁄8 in/613 mm"}}.
:While we allow the slash value-separator in {{tlf|Track gauge}}, we better add spaces to strengthen the right ''visual grouping'':
::<span class="nowrap">5&nbsp;ft&nbsp;6&nbsp;{{color|blue|&#x005B;}}in</span>/&#x200b;<span class="nowrap">1,676{{color|blue|&#x005D;}}&nbsp;mm</span> 
::<span class="nowrap">{{color|blue|&#x005B;}}5&nbsp;ft&nbsp;6&nbsp;in{{color|blue|&#x005D;}}</span>&nbsp;/&nbsp;<span class="nowrap">{{color|blue|&#x005B;}}1,676&nbsp;mm{{color|blue|&#x005D;}}</span>
:Wrapping (soft newlines) tbd. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

* {{U|Andy Dingley}} Changed in sandbox. See demo in [[Template:Track_gauge/testcases#disp_=_slash|/testcases]]. Fine with me.
:For OP example <code><nowiki>{{Track gauge/sandbox|5ft6in|lk=off|disp=s}}</nowiki></code>:
:{{Track gauge/sandbox|5ft6in|lk=off|disp=s}}
:<code><nowiki><span class="nowrap">5&nbsp;ft&nbsp;6&nbsp;in</span>&nbsp;/ <span class="nowrap">1,676&nbsp;mm</span></nowiki></code>
:The new space after the slash is a soft line break option. OK? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
:: So just use |disp=s and it should be good then?   Thanks. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk: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 [https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/TemplateParam.php?action=valuelinks&wiki=enwiki&template=Track+gauge&param=disp&value=%2F]).
:::I will go ahead and put it live. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

=== Template-protected edit request on 24 January 2019 ===

{{edit template-protected|Module:Track gauge|answered=yes}}
Please replace all [[:Module:Track gauge]] code with all module /sandbox code ({{diffsandbox|Module:Track gauge|label=diff}}).

Changed: values separator "/" (slash) now has spaces added "&nbsp;/&nbsp;". Reqeuest & discussion [[Template_talk:Track_gauge#disp=s,_slash_separator_and_spacing|#above]]. + minor edits. Testcases [[Template:Track_gauge/testcases#disp_=_slash|here]]. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/[[User:Alex 21|<span style="color:#008">Alex</span>]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|<sub style="color:#008">21</sub>]]''</span> 13:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

== Some historic track gauges  ==

*[[User:NE2/nonstandard gauge#5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm)]] {{Track gauge|5ft4in}}
*[[User:NE2/nonstandard gauge#5'9" 5ft9in, Track gauge 5ft9in not in List of defined track gauges]] {{Track gauge|5ft9in}} 
*[[User:NE2/nonstandard gauge#3 ft 6 in  (1,067 mm)]] {{Track gauge|3ft6.5in|lk=on}}
*[[User:NE2/nonstandard gauge#4 ft 3 in (1,295 mm)]] {{Track gauge|4ft3.5in|lk=on}}
*[[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]]
{{Track gauge|12ft}}<br> and perhaps others. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 04:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC) [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 04:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC) [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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.  -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 05:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
:::{{U|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 <nowiki>[[Pqr]]</nowiki> and ''sourced as a defined track gauge in <nowiki>[...]</nowiki>''. 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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
:Mea culpa<br>
Ne2's sources are <!-- copy and paste -->:
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=GJw_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9 1862 Low's]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=FH8pAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9 1864 Ashcroft's]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=7NM2AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7 1864 Pennsylvania]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=AV9JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA35 1868 Poor's]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=pbc2AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR22 1871 Pennsylvania]
*[http://www.archive.org/details/poorsmanu1874a1875newyuoft 1874-75 Poor's]
*[http://www.archive.org/details/poorsmanualofrai11newyuoft 1878 Poor's]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=6I5XgcduNQYC&pg=RA1-PA23 1881 Official Guide]
*[http://www.archive.org/details/poorsmanualofrai18newyuoft 1885 Poor's]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=E6koAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA1-IA9 1889 Poor's**]<br>
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.<br>[[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
**Which two, and in what form? [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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?). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

== 2ft 3.5in ==

{{Track gauge/status
|1= 2ft 3.5in
|2= 27.5
|3=in <!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in), will be used in calculated unit conversion. -->
|article=[[Narrow-gauge_railway#Gauges_between_2_ft_and_2_ft_6_in]]
|category=<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source= <ref>[http://www.zelmeroz.com/canesig] (2003)</ref>
|note=
}}
:<s>Needs source</s>. Was there a long time, just recently checked by {{tlf|Track gauge}}. Since [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Narrow-gauge_railway&diff=819676870&oldid=819676072&diffmode=source 10 Jan 2018] -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
::<nowiki>{{convert|38.5|in|mm|0|abbr=on}}</nowiki> {{convert|38.5|in|mm|0|abbr=on}} [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 16:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
::Fixed id (is 2ft 3.5in). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
:::The [[Talk:Narrow-gauge_railway#Cuba 2ft 3.5in gauge|Talk]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narrow-gauge_railway&type=revision&diff=916001434&oldid=896159478&diffmode=source] mentions source Webb, Brian (1973). Should be enough. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
*From that talk:
{{quote|style=background:#ddd;|text=
At least one UK quarry used {{TrackGauge|2ft 3.5in}}. This was Boon's Granite Quarries near [[Nuneaton]].[http://www.nuneatonhistory.com/brickyards-quarries--collieries-extractive-industries.html] 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, {{cite book
  |first1=Brian  |last1=Webb
  |authorlink=Brian Webb (railway historian)
  |title=The British Internal Combustion Locomotive, 1894-1940
  |publisher=[[:en:David & Charles|David & Charles]]
  |year=1973
  |isbn=0715361155
  |ref=harv
  |page=62
}}  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)
}}
*{{yellow tick}} added to sandbox. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
:{{done}} live now. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

=== Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2019 ===

{{edit template-protected|Module:Track gauge/data|answered=y}}

*Please copy/paste all [[Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox]] code into data module ({{diffsandbox|1=Module:Track gauge/data|label=diff}}).
*Change: 20190916: NEW added 2ft 3.5in (699mm), Cuba & Nuneaton quarries (Webb 1973). Discussion & consensus: [[Talk:Narrow-gauge_railway#Cuba_2ft_3.5in_gauge|here]] and [[Template_talk:Track_gauge#2ft_3.5in|here]]. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
::*I wonder why this straightforward and non-controversial request is still waiting for execution. Anything unclear? {{re|Redrose64|xaosflux|Primefac}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::*It's in the [[:Category:Wikipedia edit requests|backlog]], someone will get to it. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 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). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp -->  [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk: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&mdash; 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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

== 3ft 8in ==
{{Track gauge/status
|1=3ft 8in <!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2=44
|3=in <!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in), will be used in calculated unit conversion. -->
|article=[[Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway]] <!-- any -->
|category=<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source=<ref>{{cite journal |work=Cassier's Magazine |last=Marks |first=George Croydon |title=Cliff Railways |pages=68-73 |year=1897}}</ref><ref>Martin Easdown's 2018 book gives 3ft 8in: {{cite book |first=Martin |last=Easdown |title=Cliff Railways, Lifts and Funiculars |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oq6IDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT34 |date=15 July 2018 |publisher=Amberley Publishing |isbn=978-1-4456-8004-0 |pages=34-35}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain) |title=Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bSpCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA318 |year=1894 |publisher=The Institution |pages=318}}</ref>
|note=
}}
{{Track gauge/status
|1=3ft 9in <!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2=45
|3=in <!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in), will be used in calculated unit conversion. -->
|article=[[Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway]] <!-- any -->
|category=<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source=<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=345 |title=Lynton & Lynmouth Cliff Railway. |publisher=engineering-timelines.com |accessdate=31 August 2018|authors=Robert Jones,
George Croydon Marks}}</ref>
|note=
}}
The [[Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway]] was laid to 3ft 8in gauge, per {{cite journal |work=Cassier's Magazine |last=Marks |first=George Croydon |title=Cliff Railways |pages=68-73 |year=1897}}. Marks was the engineer responsible for the railway. This is the only railway I know of built to this gauge. [[User:The Mirror Cracked|The Mirror Cracked]] ([[User talk:The Mirror Cracked|talk]]) 00:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
* Tracking this. Looks serious & sourced, nice. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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, ...". -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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 Cliff Railway|Bridgnorth]] and (another unlisted one) 3'2&frac12;" for Clifton. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk: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 {{track gauge|3 ft 6 in}} is ok in [[Bridgnorth Cliff Railway]], 3'2&frac12;" up for reseach in [[#3ft_2_1/2in]]. Could you add that one to an article using {{tl|Track gauge}}? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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 [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951000765002z&view=1up&seq=80 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. [[User:The Mirror Cracked|The Mirror Cracked]] ([[User talk:The Mirror Cracked|talk]]) 13:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|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. [[User:The Mirror Cracked|The Mirror Cracked]] ([[User talk: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: {{cite book |first=Martin |last=Easdown |title=Cliff Railways, Lifts and Funiculars |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oq6IDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT34 |date=15 July 2018 |publisher=Amberley Publishing |isbn=978-1-4456-8004-0 |pages=34-35}}. 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.{{cite book |author=Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain) |title=Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bSpCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA318 |year=1894 |publisher=The Institution |pages=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. [[User:The Mirror Cracked|The Mirror Cracked]] ([[User talk:The Mirror Cracked|talk]]) 02:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

== 3ft {{frac|8|1|2}}in {{anchor|3ft 8.5in}}==
{{Track gauge/status
|1=3ft 8.5in <!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2=44.5
|3=in 
|article=[[Talk:Clifton_Rocks_Railway#Gauge]]
|category=
|source=This 1957 book gives 3ft 8{{frac|1|2}}in: {{cite book|author1=John Robert Day|author2=Brian Geoffrey Wilson|title=Unusual Railways|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HX4bAAAAIAAJ|year=1957|publisher=Muller}}
|note=See the article talk for more on the sources (there are 5 gagues for this one, two of them unique). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
}}
:-[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
:

== 3ft 2 1/2in ==

{{Track gauge/status
|1= 3ft 2 1/2in<!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2=38.5
|3=in <!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in), will be used in calculated unit conversion. -->
|article=[[Clifton Rocks Railway]]?
|category=
|source=<ref>Maggie Shapland's 2017 book on the Clifton Rocks Railway (p28) gives the gauge as 3ft 2{{frac|1|2}}in</ref>
|note=first noted in [[#3ft_8in]]. More in [[Talk:Clifton Rocks Railway#Gauge]].
}}
:Not in an article (yet). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:The Mirror Cracked|The Mirror Cracked]] ([[User talk:The Mirror Cracked|talk]]) 23:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
::Great. Sourced and used in article: a true track gauge :-) Will happen. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
:::Use ref Maggie Shapland's 2017 as found by User:The Mirror Cracked. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

== 287 mm ==

{{Track gauge/status
|1= 287 mm
|2=287
|3=mm
|article=[[List_of_rail_transport_modelling_scale_standards#Live_steam]]
|category=
|source=?
|note="1:5 scale, Used in Sweden. Also called the ÅHÅ scale."
}}
:Needs sourcing. Started [[Talk:List_of_rail_transport_modelling_scale_standards#287_mm_model_gauge:_source?|Talk]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

== 1 ft 11 5/8 in ==

{{Track gauge/status
|1= 1 ft 11 5/8 in <!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2=23.625
|3=in
|article=[[Bala Lake Railway]]
|category=<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source=?
|note=Suggests: defined imperial; 600mm rolling stock?
}}
* Needs research, sources. Also, the "600 mm" is weird for a Welsh track. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

== Template-protected edit request on 14 May 2020 ==

{{edit template-protected|Template:Track gauge|answered=yes}}
The following templates with lk=on generate a clickable link to former article and current redirect [[1495 mm gauge railways]]:

* {{Track gauge|58.875in|lk=on}} ( <nowiki>{{Track gauge|58.875in|lk=on}}</nowiki> )
* {{RailGauge|toronto|lk=on}} ( <nowiki>{{RailGauge|toronto|lk=on}}</nowiki> )

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. [[User:TheTrolleyPole|TheTrolleyPole]] ([[User talk:TheTrolleyPole|talk]]) 21:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

:Please help me out. Do we understand that ''both'' "58.875 in" ({{Track gauge|58.875in|disp=1}}) and "Toronto gauge" ({{Track gauge|toronto|disp=1}}) 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 <nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[1495 mm gauge railways]]<nowiki>]]</nowiki> to its R-target <nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[Toronto-gauge railways]]<nowiki>]]</nowiki> then?
:Could be done, btw, skipping the ridrect is trivial. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks. [[User:TheTrolleyPole|TheTrolleyPole]] ([[User talk:TheTrolleyPole|talk]]) 23:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

== Toronto gauge railways ==
[[Toronto-gauge railways]] For historical reasons could <nowiki>{{Track gauge|59in}} or {{Track gauge|4ft11in}}</nowiki> {{Track gauge|59in}} or {{Track gauge|4ft11in}} be added? <nowiki>{{cvt|4|ft|11|in|mm|0}}</nowiki> {{cvt|4|ft|11|in|mm|0}} It has already <nowiki>{{Track gauge|58.75in}}</nowiki> {{Track gauge|58.75in}} [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 12:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
:That is for [[Toronto-gauge railways#Variations in Toronto gauge]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 12:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

{{Track gauge/status
|1=4ft11in
|2=59
|3=in <!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in), will be used in calculated unit conversion. -->
|article=[[Toronto-gauge_railways#Variations_in_Toronto_gauge]]
|category=[[:Category:4 ft 10⅞ in gauge railways]] (as Toronto gauge)<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source="In order to accommodate this arrangement, the track gauge had to be 4 feet, 11 inches."<ref>[https://transittoronto.ca/streetcar/4002.shtml TTC FAQ]</ref>
|note=see also 4 feet 10 and 3/4 inches, below: sources differ.
}}

{{Track gauge/status
|1=4 ft 10 3/4 in
|2=58.75
|3=in<!-- 2=number, 3=unit (mm or in), will be used in calculated unit conversion. -->
|article=[[Toronto-gauge_railways#Variations_in_Toronto_gauge]]
|category=<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source= The street railways were built to the horse car gauge of 4 feet 10 and 3/4 inches.<ref>[http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/Toronto/junction/history.htm Old Time Trains]</ref>
|note=
}}

:{{ping|DePiep}}, Hello,<br>Please see above. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 03:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
::{{re|Peter Horn}} Working on this. 59in looks like a good source, so inclusion is appropriate. Nice catch! -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|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. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 22:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
::::{{re|Peter Horn}} A great catch: well documented so I approve. Will happen. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
: I corrected the link [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 01:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
:{{yellow tick}} 4ft11in added to sandbox. Unique network (Toronto), historical. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== Template-protected edit request on 1 July 2020 ==

{{edit template-protected|Module:Track gauge/data|answered=yes}}
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. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> {{re|DePiep}} I changed some punctuation, though. Let me know if ok. [[Special:Diff/956720303/967444671]] [[User:Matt Fitzpatrick|Matt Fitzpatrick]] ([[User talk:Matt Fitzpatrick|talk]]) 08:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{re|DePiep}}, {{re|Matt Fitzpatrick}} Earlier today I added {{Track gauge|59in}} to [[Toronto-gauge railways#Variations in Toronto gauge|the article]]. Thanks to everyone. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== visualhide removal ==

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 {{slink|MediaWiki talk:Common.css|visualhide removal}}. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
:Done, into [[WP:TemplateStyles]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Module:Track_gauge&diff=993653820&oldid=879954704]. Maybe [[:Template:Frac/styles.css]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== |disp=br() ==

Would it be possible to have |disp=br() added as is already in [[Template:Convert]]? Example <nowiki>{{cvt|9 x 10|in|mm|disp=br()}}</nowiki> {{cvt|9 x 10|in|mm|disp=br()}} [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
::That would be, for {{Track gauge|1435 mm}}; ({{tlf|Convert}} does this):
:::<code><nowiki>{{convert|1435|mm|in|disp=br()}}</nowiki></code> &rarr;
:::{{convert|1435|mm|in|disp=br()}}
::Do you have an example article where this would be useful? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{Denied}}
::{{Xmark|12}} Stop bothering me. Prepare your question first. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Mea culpa, request on wrong template talk. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 01:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|DePiep}} '''''Touché''''' [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 04:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{od}} Actually, Peter Horn, these days I do not have much editing time to spend on Track Gauges. Have a nice edit. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

== 20 inch gauge  ==
{{Track gauge/status|20 in|20|in}}
<nowiki>{{Track gauge|20in|lk=on}}</nowiki> {{Track gauge|20in|lk=on}}, could this be linked to [[minimum-gauge railway]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

:In {{tl|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: "{{track gauge|5 ft|lk=on}}". For the 20-inch gauge, that could be one of the articles {{clc|20_in_gauge_railways_in_England}} (only 2 are categorised). Quite often I see articles that use this setup: "{{track gauge|20in|lk=on}} ([[minimum gauge]])". -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

:So the reply is, {{U|Peter Horn}} can be done for a dedicated article on the 20-inch track (with sources), not for the [[minimum gauge]] article. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 22:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|User:DePiep}} Add [[Coronado Railroad]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 22:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
::And [[Template:Navbox track gauge]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 22:[[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
:::And [[Shipley Glen Tramway]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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 [[Template:Track_gauge#List_of_defined_track_gauges|defined as a gauge]]. Sorry about that, I meant [[20 in and 500 mm railways]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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? [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
:::3. Don't understand the navbox line. {{Track gauge|20in|lk=on}} is listed in [[Template:Navbox track gauge]]. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::: [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
:Mea culpa [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 22:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
::Then why write [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Track_gauge&diff=997082308&oldid=997078476&diffmode=source this]?
::To be clear: I can only respond to clear questions. Your first, 17:10 question I have answered. Waiting for more proposals/requests. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
:::{{clc|20_in_gauge_railways_in_England}} has been expanded. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::::I just noticed that [[500 mm gauge railway]] redirects back to [[minimum-gauge railway]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 01:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::Please note the same problem with the following ones: {{RailGauge|400mm|lk=on}}, {{RailGauge|16in|lk=on}}, {{RailGauge|18in|lk=on}}, {{RailGauge|19in|lk=on}}. One might possibly list all of them, including 500 mm and 20 in, in [[Minimum-gauge railway#Installations]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|User:DePiep}} Please consider my latest comment above. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|User: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. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 20:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

== An unusual track gauge ==
{{Track gauge/status|4.25in|4.5|in|article=[[Ridable miniature railway]]}}
For [[Ridable miniature railway#Miniature railways]] <nowiki>{{Track gauge|4.25in}}</nowiki>  {{Track gauge|4.25in}} [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
{|
| Sacramento Valley Live Steamers
| {{RailGauge|7.5in}}
| {{flagicon|USA}} USA
| 
| {{RailGauge|7.5in}} gauge and {{cvt|4+1/4|in|mm|0}} gauge<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.svls.org/|title=Sacramento Valley Live Steamers Railroad Museum (SVLSRM)|website=Svls.org|access-date=1 June 2016}}</ref>
|-
|}

:For comparison <nowiki>{{cvt|4+1/4|in|mm|1}}, {{cvt|4+1/4|in|mm|2}}</nowiki> '''{{cvt|4+1/4|in|mm|1}}''', {{cvt|4+1/4|in|mm|2}} [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
::Please and thanks, also {{cvt|4+1/4|in|mm}} which is 2 mm too much. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 19:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Template-protected edit request on 23 February 2021 – Australian broad gauge ==
{{Track gauge/status|Victorian}}

{{edit template-protected|Template:Track gauge|answered=pause}}
'''Reason for changing "Victorian broad gauge" to "Australian broad gauge"'''<br />
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'''<br />
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 <nowiki>{{Track gauge|Victorian|al=on}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{Track gauge|Australian|al=on}}</nowiki> 
* column 2: change "1,600 mm (5 ft 3 in) Victorian broad gauge" to "1,600 mm (5 ft 3 in) Australian broad gauge".<br />[[User:SCHolar44|SCHolar44]] ([[User talk:SCHolar44|talk]]) 04:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
:It sure would help to have some citations at [[5_ft_3_in_gauge_railways#Nomenclature|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? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk: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? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 05:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
:::[[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]], I have added a citation to the bullet point relating to Australia on [[5_ft_3_in_gauge_railways#Nomenclature|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 [[User:DePiep|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 – [[User:SCHolar44|<b style="color:#7F007F; font-size:medium">SCHolar44 🇦🇺</b>]] [[User talk: SCHolar44|<b>💬</b>]] 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? [[User:SCHolar44|SCHolar44]] ([[User talk:SCHolar44|talk]]) 12:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
::::Since this request needs some fleshing out, I've put the status {{para|answ|pause}}; can be reactivated easily. {{ping|SCHolar44}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
:* Current working: <code><nowiki>{{Track gauge|Victorian|allk=on}}</nowiki></code> &rarr; {{Track gauge|Victorian|allk=on}}
:: Request (demo): <code><nowiki>{{Track gauge|Australian|allk=on}}</nowiki></code> &rarr; {{Track gauge|1600mm}} [[5_ft_3_in_gauge_railways#Nomenclature|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 {{tlf|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 &gt;{{track gauge|sg|allk=on}}). However, in an article section it is usable, to make nice sentences: "AU has {{track gauge|1600mm}}, a [[broad gauge]]. The broad gauge was introduced ... etc.".
::About "Australian gauge": To make this a recognised name in {{tlf|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 [[5_ft_3_in_gauge_railways#Nomenclature|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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

:::Hello [[User:DePiep|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):
::::{{smaller|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.}}
::::{{smaller|... 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 – [[User:SCHolar44|<b style="color:#7F007F; font-size:medium">SCHolar44 🇦🇺</b>]] [[User talk: SCHolar44|<b>💬</b>]] at 00:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I see! As for {{tlf|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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

== Comma off option ==

[[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 {{tl|Track gauge}} get a <code>|comma=off</code> option like {{tl|Convert}}? [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 22:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
:Read, will dive into this. {{U|Peter Horn}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
::Could we have a space instead of the comma? [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

:::[[User:PrimeHunter|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 [[Système international d'unités|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 [[User:Peter Horn|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.) 
:::[[User:DePiep|DePiep]], have you had time yet to dive into this? Cheers, Simon – [[User:SCHolar44|<b style="color:#7F007F; font-size:medium">SCHolar44 🇦🇺</b>]] [[User talk: SCHolar44|<b>💬</b>]] 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. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:SCHolar44|SCHolar44]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, [[User:Izno|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. [[User:SCHolar44|SCHolar44]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 08:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
::Thank you for your informative explanation. [[User:SCHolar44|SCHolar44]] ([[User talk:SCHolar44|talk]]) 08:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

{{yellow tick}} Up in sandbox now, see {{slink|Template:Track_gauge/testcases|2=comma_=_off}}.
::Ignores the &lt;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. {{ping|PrimeHunter|SCHolar44}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Excellent, [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] -- thank you! [[User:SCHolar44|SCHolar44]] ([[User talk:SCHolar44|talk]]) 05:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ping|DePiep}} Thanks a lot! Is _true and _false at {{slink|Template:Track_gauge/testcases|2=comma_=_off}} just part of testing and will be removed? [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 22:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{U|PrimeHunter}}. I noticed a bug in my sandbox, so I had to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Track_gauge&diff=prev&oldid=1010114536&diffmode=source pause] my request. 
:::::Issue (pls take a look PH, maybe you can help): [[Template:Track_gauge/testcases#comma_=_off_bad_input|#comma_=_off_bad_input]] tests, with "ugly input", showed bugs. In short: when input is like {{para|comma|}} (&lt;blank>), {{para|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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|DePiep}} I'm not a Lua coder but I guess formatNum added the comma so [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Module:Track_gauge/sandbox&diff=1010136277&oldid=1010115947] appears to be one way to fix it. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 00:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
{{done}}, see [[South Australian Railways K class (broad gauge)|infobox here]] for example. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

=== Template-protected edit request on 3 March 2021 ===

{{edit template-protected|Module:Track gauge|answered=yes}}
In [[:Module:Track gauge]]: Please replace all code with sandbox code ({{diffsandbox|Module:Track gauge}})

Change: option {{para|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 [[South Australian Railways K class (broad gauge)|here]]. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:(Request reactivated after extra bug checks. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC))
::{{to|DePiep}} {{done|done}}, and thank you very much''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>21:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)</small>

== A more appropriate link ==
{{Track gauge/status|4ft6in|54|in}}
{{Track gauge/status|1372 mm|1372|mm}}
[[Talk:3 ft 6 in gauge railways#More relevant link]] & [[3 ft 6 in gauge railways#Similar gauges]]<br>
<nowiki>{{Track gauge|1372mm|lk=on}}, ([[4 ft 6 in gauge railway]])</nowiki> {{Track gauge|1372mm|lk=on}}, ([[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]]. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
:Perhaps this will work. <nowiki>{{RailGauge|54in|lk=on|disp=flip|nowrap=all}}</nowiki> {{RailGauge|54in|lk=on||]disp=flip|nowrap=all}}. But it does not. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|Peter Horn}} I agree with you. [[Toden Arakawa Line]] is merely one of the railways using [[4 ft 6 in gauge railway|4'6" track gauge]]. Linking "1372mm" to "[[Toden Arakawa Line|Arakawa Line]]" is just like linking a word "human" to "[[Chuck Norris]]". --[[User:侵入者ウィリアム|侵入者ウィリアム]] ([[User talk:侵入者ウィリアム|talk]]) 13:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Well found. In the early days of {{tlf|Track gauge}}, things were not that clear ;-)  (See for example [[Talk:4 ft 6 in gauge railway#Moved: 'Scotch gauge' into '4 ft 6 in gauge railway'|this]] 2014 issue).
:::Will change. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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 ..."). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|DePiep}} At the current version of this template, <code><nowiki>{{Track gauge|4ft6in|lk=on}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{Track gauge|54in|lk=on}}</nowiki></code> both generate a link to [[4 ft 6 in gauge railway]]. When using millimeters instead of inches, <code><nowiki>{{Track gauge|1372mm|lk=on}}</nowiki></code> generates a link to [[Toden Arakawa Line]], which is inappropriate as I mentioned above. Likewise the cases with "4ft6in" and "54in", <code><nowiki>{{Track gauge|1372mm|lk=on}}</nowiki></code> should be linked to [[4 ft 6 in gauge railway]].--[[User:侵入者ウィリアム|侵入者ウィリアム]] ([[User talk:侵入者ウィリアム|talk]]) 14:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::Thanks. Will fix this. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 14:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|DePiep}} {{ping|User:侵入者ウィリアム}} (thank god for "copy and paste") In the infobox of [[Toden Arakawa Line]] '''''ONLY''''' <nowiki>{{RailGauge|1372mm|lk=on}}</nowiki> {{RailGauge|1372mm|lk=on}} does, for some reason, not work at all. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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).  -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|DePiep}} Of course,  I was half asleep. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 18:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
:::No it is the very bug you discovered! ;-)  -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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 {{tlf|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). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
::Will change the data all right. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|DePiep}} I'm eagerly awaiting that suggested consolidation or move. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 13:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::::OK. (sandbox was in use for [[#Template-protected edit request on 3 March 2021|this]] change). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

*'''Conclusion'''
Today:
#Target wikilink for {{Track gauge|4ft6in|lk=on}} is [[4 ft 6 in gauge railway]] <small>(no redirect)</small>  generic {{aye}}
#Target wikilink for {{Track gauge|1372mm|lk=on}} is [[Toden Arakawa Line]] <small>(no redirect)</small>, specific {{question mark|10}}
::(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 {{Track gauge|1372 mm|lk=on}} to [[4 ft 6 in gauge railway]], as requested.
Ever:
:I add: base of the {{tlx|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 :-)

-[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

{{Yellow tick}} Now in sandbox, to go live: Target wikilink for {{Track gauge/sandbox|1372mm|lk=on}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{done}} {{ping|Peter Horn|侵入者ウィリアム}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|DePiep}} {{Thank you}}. --[[User:侵入者ウィリアム|侵入者ウィリアム]] ([[User talk:侵入者ウィリアム|talk]]) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
::::{{to|侵入者ウィリアム}} Thanks. This was elaborate talks. The enwiki [[Template:Track_gauge#List_of_defined_track_gauges|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.  -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

=== Template-protected edit request on 9 March 2021 ===

{{edit template-protected|Module:Track gauge/data|answered=yes}}
Please replace all [[:Module:Track_gauge/data]] code with its /sandbox code ({{diffsandbox|Module:Track gauge/data}})

Change: gauge 1372mm has new target article. Per [[Template_talk:Track_gauge#A_more_appropriate_link|Template talk:Track gauge]] (includes tests). [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{to|DePiep}} {{done|done}}, and thank you''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>20:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)</small>

== Preview warning and hatnotes moving to templatestyles ==

Page watchers may be interested in {{slink|MediaWiki talk:Common.css|Preview warning and hatnotes moving to TemplateStyles}} [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

== Another more appropriate link needed ==
{{Track gauge/status|4ft8in|56|in}}
{{Track gauge/status|1422 mm|1422|mm}}
<nowiki>{{Track gauge|4ft8in|lk=on}}</nowiki> {{Track gauge|4ft8in|lk=on}} , see also {[[Standard gauge#Almost standard gauge]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|User:DePiep}} What about a page called [[4 ft 8 in railways]] and a list of usage? [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 13:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
::See {{cl|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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 14:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|User:DePiep}} We have [[3 ft 6 in gauge railways]] as a model to follow. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 16:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC) [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 16:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|User:DePiep}} An interim solution would be to link all {{Track gauge|4ft8in|lk=on}} 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. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
:What did you mean here? [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 19:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
::There are two sources in the target paragraph. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 20:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
::::I have changed the redirects to [[Stockton and Darlington Railway#George Stephenson]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 17:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|User:DePiep}} Perhaps you might now change the link in <nowiki>{{Track gauge|4ft8in|lk=on}}</nowiki> {{Track gauge|4ft8in|lk=on}} from [[New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad]] to [[4 ft 8 in gauge railways]] which I will transform into a true article. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 19:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Whatever. I hope we will see a well-sourced article soon. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
::::{{re|Peter Horn}} please stop messing around with undiscussed and random and frivoluous editing. We are not here to solve your chaos. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC) 

::{{ping|User: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. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 23:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|User:DePiep}} Target wikilink for {{track gauge|4 ft 8 in|lk=on}} has not yet been changed. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 13:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ping|User:DePiep}} Still no the appropriate redirect. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 20:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|User:DePiep}} '''Still no the appropriate redirect'''. I don't know how to correct this anomaly. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 20:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
::My advice: try writing an *open* question. Not a commanding one. Just me. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
:::My apologies. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 20:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|User:DePiep}}Per [[Talk:4_ft_8_in_gauge_railways#The_correct_link|a request]], I updated the link in [[Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox]], so that it can be tested with [[Module:Track gauge/sandbox]] with {{tlp|Track gauge/sandbox|<nowiki>4ft8in|lk=on</nowiki>}}, which appears to be working: {{Track gauge/sandbox|4ft8in|lk=on}}. If you have time, can you confirm my change and update in [[Module:Track gauge/data]] if appropriate? —[[User:Ost316|Ost]] ([[User talk:Ost316|talk]]) 02:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
:::{{re|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 :-) -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
::::{{re|User:DePiep}}Thanks for correcting my edit to get the metric portion. I'll add the edit request below. —[[User:Ost316|Ost]] ([[User talk:Ost316|talk]]) 01:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::Was not an error, just an addition ;-) -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{yellow tick}} Ready to go live -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
;{{anchor|1=#1422 mm}}1422 mm: For [[Trams in Amsterdam]] <nowiki>{{Track gauge|1422mm|lk=on}}</nowiki> {{Track gauge|1422mm|lk=on}} won't link. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 01:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
::Basic {{tlx|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 {{track gauge|4 ft 8 in|lk=on}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Module:Track_gauge/data/sandbox&diff=1016297101&oldid=1016228881 from sandbox] because no source for the metric one. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{yellow tick}} Ready to go live -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

===Template-protected edit request on 6 April 2021===
{{Edit template-protected|Module:Track gauge/data|answered=yes}}
:Update: In [[:Module:Track gauge/data]], please replace all code with sandbox code ({{diffsandbox|Module:Track gauge/data}})
:Change:
::See <nowiki>{{Track gauge/status}}</nowiki> calls in discussion for demonstration of following differences:
:#Update link for 4ft8in railway from [[New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad]] to [[4 ft 8 in gauge railways]].
:#Remove link for 1422mm railway.
:Discussion: [[#Another more appropriate link needed]]
:—[[User:Ost316|Ost]] ([[User talk:Ost316|talk]]) 01:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
:: {{Done}} [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

== Template-protected edit request on 25 May 2021 ==

{{edit template-protected|Template:Track gauge|answered=yes}}
Please replace all code in {{tl|Track gauge}} with code from {{tl|Track gauge/sandbox}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:Track gauge}})

Change: in tracking, add {{para|comma}} as known parameter (per [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Module:Track_gauge&diff=1010318000&oldid=993653820 this] earlier edit). [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
: {{Done}} [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

== Another additional track gauge ==
{{Track gauge/status|1145 mm|1145|mm|article=[[Pays de Waes (locomotive)#History]]}}
{{Track gauge/status|3 ft 9in|45|in}}
For [[Pays de Waes (locomotive)#History]] <code><nowiki>{{Track gauge|1,145mm}}</nowiki></code> {{Track gauge|1,145mm}} {{cvt|1,145|mm|ftin|frac=32}} [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 03:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
:There already exists <code><nowiki>{{Track gauge|3ft9in|lk=on}}</nowiki></code> {{Track gauge|3ft9in|lk=on}} [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 03:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC) [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 14:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|User:DePiep}} When you can spare a minute or so, please take this new one under consideration. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 01:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
:::Interesting case. Is 1145&nbsp;mm original (=thought of locally), or a rounded conversion of the imperial size? After all, rounding is just {{convert|2|mm|in|3}}. 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 {{track gauge|3ft9in|allk=on}}, rounded". Needs some more research. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
:Thanks, I'll be watching. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 01:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

== Template-protected edit request on 2 August 2021 ==

{{edit template-protected|Module:Track gauge/data|answered=yes}}
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 {{code|<nowiki>{{Track gauge|Toronto|first=met|allk=on}}</nowiki>}} (basically the {{para|allk|on}} version) lists "[[Toronto-gauge railways]]" instead of what it should list, which is "[[Toronto-gauge railways|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Line_3_Scarborough&oldid=1036794147 this], where the sentence reads:
The trains are powered by [[linear induction motor]]s and operate on {{Track gauge|sg|allk=on}} tracks, unlike the city's subway lines and the [[Toronto streetcar system]], which use the unique {{Track gauge|Toronto|first=met|allk=on}}.

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 {{em|think}} I've fixed this in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:ComparePages&page1=Module%3ATrack+gauge%2Fdata&page2=Module%3ATrack+gauge%2Fdata%2Fsandbox&diffmode=source 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 {{para|allk}} is set to "on" for "Toronto", it lists "Toronto gauge" as the link text and not "Toronto-gauge railways"? [[User:Joeyconnick|Joeyconnick]] ([[User talk:Joeyconnick|talk]]) 19:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

*'''Request''': please replace all code in [[Module:Track gauge/data]] with [[Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox]] ({{diffsandbox|Module:Track gauge/data}}).
:Change: per OP report, named gauge now appears as "Toronto gauge" (not <s>Toronto-gauge railways</s>). 
:Tests: see [[Template:Track_gauge/testcases#fix_Toronto]]. {{ping|Joeyconnick}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
::{{to|DePiep|Joeyconnick}} {{done|done}}, and thank you both for your help''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>13:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)</small>
:::Thanks both! —[[User:Joeyconnick|Joeyconnick]] ([[User talk:Joeyconnick|talk]]) 17:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

== Further track gauge ==
{{Track gauge/status
|1= 4000mm
|2= 4000
|3= mm
|article=[[Breitspurbahn#Tracks]] 
|category=<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source=(none)
|note=
|conclusion={{Unapproved}}, was not build.<!-- 2022-12-27 -->
}}
Can someone add please this:

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

Look [[Breitspurbahn#Tracks]] for the reason. Thanks a lot. --[[User:Albrecht Eckert|Albrecht Eckert]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

== 650 mm {{anchor|New track gauge}} ==
{{Track gauge/status|650 mm|650|mm
|article=[[List of secondary, industrial and Decauville railways in Argentina]]
|category=<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source=https://books.google.de/books?id=0P7zI1NzplIC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false
|note=}}
In [[List of secondary, industrial and Decauville railways in Argentina]] I found the following new track gauge: <nowiki>{{Track gauge|650mm}}</nowiki> {{Track gauge|650mm}} [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|User:DePiep}} Who knows. There was also 0.51 m which would make <nowiki>{{Track gauge|510mm}}</nowiki> {{Track gauge|510mm}} {{cvt|510|mm|in|frac=32}}. The previous one would be {{cvt|650|mm|in|frac=32}} [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 17:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC) [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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?) -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ping|User:DePiep}} 0.51 m<ref name="US Survey"> United States. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Transportation Division: [https://books.google.de/books?id=0P7zI1NzplIC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false World Survey of Foreign Railways, Part 1.] 1936, p. 13-14e (i.e. p. 9-15, top).</ref> The same as the reference for all the gauges in the [[List of secondary, industrial and Decauville railways in Argentina|List of secondary]]article.
:Or look for '''[[List of secondary, industrial and Decauville railways in Argentina|Ledesma Mill Railway (Desvio Ingenio Ledesma)]]'''<ref>[https://books.google.de/books?id=0P7zI1NzplIC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false Ledesma Mill Railway (Desvio Ingenio Ledesma) 0.51 m]</ref>
::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? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|User:DePiep}} I have found '''''both''''' within [https://books.google.de/books?id=0P7zI1NzplIC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false the followin text] using "ctrl f" together ("find"). Just try that. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 18:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
:Mea culpa, [https://books.google.de/books?id=0P7zI1NzplIC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false that text] yielded only 0.65 m. That leaves 0.51 m as an error on the previous revisions of [[List of secondary, industrial and Decauville railways in Argentina|the article]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 19:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
:::PS, That search window is called in German "im Buch suchen". [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 16:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
:{{od}}That source is not reliable for obvious reasons, as mentioned. No base to include these. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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 railways|Toronto gauge]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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: {{convert|0.51|m|in|3}} 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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 18:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
:I left a note on [[User talk:NearEMPTiness#Ledesma Mill Railway (Desvio Ingenio Ledesma)|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. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk: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, [https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/argentina/#transportation CIA] maintains such lists. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
:::I found a reference which says 70 centimeter and 20 inch gauge<ref>[https://books.google.ca/books?id=h__OoZEv_AQC&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=Ledesma+Mill+Railway&source=bl&ots=EeUDw1sed9&sig=ACfU3U1-2qvyKSFgUcf8S7YfdA6Fx8319g&nhl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIlc6kqNDzAhV0rHIEHR37AwMQ6AF6BAgYEAM#v=onepage&q=Ledesma%20Mill%20Railway&f=false Ledesma]</ref> {{track gauge|20in|first=metric|lk=on}} <nowiki>{{track gauge|20in|first=metric|lk=on}}</nowiki> lk=on does not work here.[[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 01:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
:And this one <ref>[https://books.google.ca/books?id=h__OoZEv_AQC&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=Ledesma+Mill+Railway&source=bl&ots=EeUDw1sed9&sig=ACfU3U1-2qvyKSFgUcf8S7YfdA6Fx8319g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIlc6kqNDzAhV0rHIEHR37AwMQ6AF6BAgYEAM#v=onepage&q=La%20Baviera%20Mill%20Railway&f=false La Baviera Mill Railway]</ref> [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 03:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|User:DePiep}} <nowiki>{{Track gauge|20in|lk-on}}</nowiki> {{Track gauge|20in|lk-on}} and <nowiki>{{Track gauge|20in|first=metric|lk-on}}</nowiki> {{Track gauge|20in|first=metric|lk-on}} Both should link to [[Minimum-gauge railway]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 03:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
=== References ===
{{Reflist}}
[[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 01:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

== Another obscure track gauge ==

From [[Ridable miniature railway#Gauge]]
Holly Tree Railway, <nowiki>{{RailGauge|7.75in}}, {{cvt|7+3/4|in|mm|0}}</nowiki> {{RailGauge|7.75in}}, {{cvt|7+3/4|in|mm|0}} at the Holly Tree [[public house|PH]], [[Leytonstone]], [[London]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.timeout.com/london/news/have-you-been-to-the-east-london-beer-garden-with-a-model-railway-in-it-yet-if-not-why-not-100919?fbclid=IwAR2i846qmx1HrtAlnbc7_keLTIGUCBKGB1vws7dYRgmRO_-aZO9aZ_dB09Y |title=Have you been to the east London beer garden with a model railway in it yet? (If not, why not?) |first=Kate |last=Lloyd |publisher=Time Out |accessdate=20 May 2021}}</ref>
=== refs ===
{{Reflist}}
[[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
:Make that [[Ridable miniature railway#Miniature railways]] [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

== Another new track gauge ==

For [[Severn and Wye Railway#Severn and Wye Railway]] {{railgauge|3ft6in}}.<ref group = note>{{railgauge|3ft6in}} is given throughout Pope et al., and Paar. Casserley, page 121, gives {{convert|3|ft|8|in|mm|0|abbr=on}} <!-- {{railgauge|3ft8in}} -->, as does MacDermot, volume II, page 402.</ref> [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
=== Notes ===
{{reflist | group = note}}

== A question ==

<nowiki>{{Track gauge|2.5in}},</nowiki> {{Track gauge|2.5in}} on one hand <nowiki>{{cvt|2.5|in|mm|1}},</nowiki> {{cvt|2.5|in|mm|1}} on the other hand. Should the output of [[template:track gauge]] not match the output of [[template:Convert]]? [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 23:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
:The conversion is <nowiki>{{cvt|2.5|in|mm|1}}</nowiki> {{cvt|2.5|in|mm|1}}, <nowiki>{{cvt|2.5|in|mm|2}}</nowiki> {{cvt|2.5|in|mm|2}} [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 05:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
::I don't think we need to. {{tlf|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, {{slink|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. {{tlf|Track gauge}} does consistently:
:::''In the conversion, round to nearest 1&nbsp;mm or {{frac|1|32}}&nbsp;in.'' [{{cvt|1|mm|in|3}}, {{cvt|1/32|in|mm|3}}]
::In practice, this conversion is hardcoded into {{tlf|Track gauge}}. For the model gauges, those under 89&nbsp;mm or {{frac|3|1|2}}&nbsp;in, this guideline is not applicable.
::This looks like a most understandable representation, not-impractically precise and expressed in commonl;y recognisable units. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Yeah, but we DO have {{Track gauge|7.25in}} , so what is the problem with {{Track gauge|2.5in}} being more precise? [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

== Lego Trains ==

{{Track gauge/status
|1= 37.5 mm<!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2=37.5
|3=mm
|article=[[Lego Trains]]
|category=<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source=
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://orionrobots.co.uk/Lego+Specifications|title=Lego Specifications|publisher=Orionrobots.co.uk|date=26 February 2011|access-date=3 October 2011|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110823204619/http://orionrobots.co.uk/Lego+Specifications|archive-date=23 August 2011}}</ref><ref>{{slink|Lego|Design}}; [[:File:Lego dimensions.svg]] (stud dimensions)</ref>
|note=aliases: {{code|1=L scale, Lego, Lego Trains}}
|conclusion={{done}}
}} [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

* {{yellow tick}} Prepared in sandbox. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

== 4ft 2 1/2in (1283 mm) ==

{{Track gauge/status
|1=4ft 2 1/2in <!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2=50.5
|3=in
|article=[[Saltburn Cliff Lift]]
|category=?<!-- content category; best: use {{clc|...}} -->
|source=<ref name="eng time">{{cite web|url=http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=1302 |title=Saltburn Funicular Railway|website= engineering-timelines.com|accessdate=30 August 2022}}</ref>
|note=expected: 1283 mm
|conclusion=Sourced, so add; RS? {{done}}
}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
*{{yellow tick}} prepared in sandbox, see testcases. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

== 1522 mm (Helsinki metro) ==

{{Track gauge/status
|1=1522 mm <!-- 1=track gauge id, in mm or ft,in: "700 mm", "3 ft" -->
|2=1522
|3=mm
|article=[[Helsinki metro]]
|category={{clc|1520 mm gauge railways}}
|source=<ref>{{cite web |title=Perustietoja ja metroasemat |url=https://www.raitio.org/metro/helsinki/perustietoja/ |publisher=Finnish Railway Society |access-date=30 August 2022 |language=Finnish, English}}</ref><ref name=hkl-toimintaohje>{{cite web |title=Työskentely metroradan läheisyydessä |url=https://www.hel.fi/enwiki/static/liitteet-2019/Kymp/HKL/Liite%204%20-%20Tyoskentely_metroradan_laheisyydessa.pdf |publisher=[[Helsinki City Transport]] |access-date=30 August 2022 |language=Finnish |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220815211402/https://www.hel.fi/enwiki/static/liitteet-2019/Kymp/HKL/Liite%204%20-%20Tyoskentely_metroradan_laheisyydessa.pdf |archive-date=15 August 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|note= middle of metric 1520mm and imp 1524mm
|conclusion=Two sources, to add. {{done}}
}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
* {{yellow tick}} prepared in sandbox. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)