Talk:Scharfenberg coupler
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Commonscat template
edit@Andy Dingley: There is absolutely nothing wrong with using {{Commonscat-inline}} in this scenario. Please establish consensus before replacing it with a far less common version of the {{Commonscat}} template. FDMS 4 00:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that you don't understand the MOS is no excuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Erm … do you remember who said "That page is poorly worded and is unclear in one slightly obscure situation."? I am following MOS guidelines, but it seems like not all MOS pages are equally "right" to you. FDMS 4 19:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Repeating myself: The MOS does not say that {{Commonscat}} is the only template that can be used to link to a Commons category. {{Commonscat-inline}} is a widely used template. You replaced it with a far less used version of {{Commonscat}}, wrongly citing the MOS. You are free to use the left variant of {{Commonscat}} in articles, but don't do so when other people chose to use {{Commonscat-inline}} instead. FDMS 4 19:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{Commons category}} is used more than ten times as often as {{Commonscat-inline}}. Your "far less used" comment is nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
| inline | position=left | |
|---|---|---|
| Commonscat | 21,444 results | 196 results |
| Commons category | 24,118 results | 315 results |
| used 45,562 times | used 511 times |
-
- Over ten times as many uses. Which part are you having the problem understanding? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is no particular reason the inline template is not integrated into {{Commonscat}} the same way the left-aligned version is, like {{Commonscat|inline=1}}. The left-aligned version is obviously different from the normal right-aligned {{Commonscat}} or {{Commons category}}. FDMS 4 22:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Over ten times as many uses. Which part are you having the problem understanding? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
-
Used by proposed California high speed rail system
editThe draft spec for the trainsets of the California High Speed Rail system specify this coupler type.[1], p. 82. Too soon for the article, though. --John Nagle (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Not just Canada, US and Australia - NZ too
editSee photo top right on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport_in_Auckland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.92.22 (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Youtube video
editIs there anything against linking to this youtube video showing the coupling/uncoupling action? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uE6WyVwcDg Closetsingle (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Schaku IS suitable for freight operations
editEuropean Digital Automatic Coupler Programme Board selected Scharfenberg for the new coupler standard on 21 September 2021. "European Digital Automatic Coupler: first step towards one type selection" (PDF). European DAC Delivery Programme. 2021-09-21. The program aims to convert all freight rail traffic in Europe to this automatic coupler by 2030. Pippo skaio (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)