Talk:4 ft 8 in gauge railways

List or article

I redirected 4 ft 8 in gauge railway as an {{R to singular}} because I thought that this page would be covering the topic because of the title and discussion at Template Talk:Track gauge#Another more appropriate link needed, but seeing the See Also section has me rethinking that assumption. Is this page more accurately intended to be List of 4 ft 8 in gauge railways, making 4 ft 8 in gauge railway a {{R from list topic}} or needing to be reverted to the section that discusses them? I hope I didn't make a mess, but for what it's worth as someone not familiar with this topic who did a little searching on Wikipedia about it due to some unexplained WP:BLANKing, I think that it is better as article discussing the gauge and including the list than just a List, since there are various redirects or links ostensibly pointing to information about this gauge and having one main article seems reasonable. —Ost (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ost316: 4 ft 8 in gauge railways is modeled after 3 ft 6 in gauge railways, 4 ft 6 in gauge railway and others like it. Peter Horn User talk 19:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: Thank you for your response. I think that this means that the redirect is fine, since both examples are more than a list. Also in comparing the examples, I want to note that the first sentence of this article is better than those two examples, since it clearly defines the topic. —Ost (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ost316: I modified the redirect of 4 ft 8 in gauge railway because that's where it needs to go. Peter Horn User talk 22:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: Can you please clarify why the redirect needs to go to that section? That target is a list that should have less information than this article, so it does not seem as useful to me as this page would be. If this page is intended to be about railways of this gauge, then the redirect should also point here (and probably be WP:SWAPped so the singular name page is the main page). If this page is not intended to discuss that topic and is instead a list of railways with the gauge, then this title seems ambiguous with the existing redirect and I think that this article should be renamed to List of 4 ft 8 in gauge railways. —Ost (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ost316: I readjusted the targets. Peter Horn User talk 02:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy editing! —Ost (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The correct link

4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm) should link here Peter Horn User talk 14:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ost316: Would you be able to adjust the link? Peter Horn User talk 21:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Someone at Template talk:Track gauge or using {{edit template-protected}} will have to update the template. I do not have the WP:Template editor privilege, but I updated the link in Module:Track gauge/data/sandbox, so that it can be tested with Module:Track gauge/sandbox. You can see the results with {{Track gauge/sandbox|4ft8in|lk=on}}: 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm). —Ost (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to @Peter Horn: —Ost (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Still not linked correctly. Peter Horn User talk 00:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Would you be willing to correct this long standing anomaly? Peter Horn User talk 00:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: I'm not a Lua coder and it isn't urgent so I suggest to just wait for somebody to respond to Template talk:Track gauge#Template-protected edit request on 6 April 2021. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)