Wikipedia

Template talk:Track gauge/Archive 1

< Template talk:Track gauge
(Redirected from Template talk:RailGauge/Archive 1)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Peter Horn in topic Fifteen inch gauge
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Great idea

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Great idea, perhaps adding a link to standard gauge or other common gauges could be added in addition to just the length for gauges that have wikipedia articles? Thoughts? Looks great so far tho. ~ PaulC/T+ 21:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. We should be able to integrate that as an optional parameter; now to try it out... Slambo (Speak) 21:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There's one for standard gauge. I'll play with it a little more this week. Slambo (Speak) 22:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

lk=on doesn't always work

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
  Resolved

It appears that the nested check for lk=on within the calls to convert aren't working properly. I haven't seen why yet, but I am looking into it. Slambo (Speak) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Found and fixed the problem. lk=on now works for all the specs I tested. Please let me know if there is one I missed. Slambo (Speak) 15:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ussg is OK for the States but is historically incorrect for the rest of the world

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I note that the explicit gauge in some UK rail infoboxes is being replaced with template with parameter 'ussg'. I may be being nationalistic but I thought that the UK gave the world 'standard gauge' - something to do with George Stephenson and (possibly) Roman cart wheels.

So whilst I am quite happy if 'ussg' is used for railways in the USA, I would prefer the template to support 'uksg' as an alternative for the UK at least and possibly a country neutral version for other countries that measure standard gauge in (UK) imperial units (feet and inches) as opposed to metric units. (forgot I had not logged in - actually User:XTOV)

87.102.67.90 (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Standard gauge is standard gauge in most of the countries of the world. Regardless of whether you call it 4 feet 8.5 inches or 1435 mm, it's the same distance between the tracks. The British invented it, after considerable too-and-fro'ing the Americans eventually settled on the same distance, and everybody else (with a few exceptions) fell into line. It doesn't matter what it is as long as everybody's trains can run on everybody else's tracks. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
More to the point, the article never displays "ussg", its just a convenient shorthand for the parameter. I take it as a good sign that we're arguing over the name of a parameter: if that's the case we must have finished all the work of completing the actual encyclopedia, right? Gwernol 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you use "sg" it will display metric first. This was chosen because of the row over the former {{standard gauge}} template on which units were displayed first. If you've got a better parameter value to use, it is a very simple matter to add it to the template. Slambo (Speak) 15:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think sg is working as expected - it appears twice in the switch (if I read the code correctly). Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There are two switch statements. One to specify which gauge to display, the second to specify which alternate name to display if al=on is given in the template call. {{RailGauge|sg}} produces "1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in)", and {{RailGauge|sg|al=on}} produces "1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge". Slambo (Speak) 10:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
One day I'll get the hang of these switches... Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ferrocarril General Bartolomé Mitre & Ferrocarril General Bartolomé Mitre

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

66 Somebody please get rid of the irrelevant "Provincial gauge" out of the template. Peter Horn 13:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

66 That got rid of the irrelevant "Provincial gauge". Peter Horn 00:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Iberian rail gauges

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Any reason why 1,672 mm, 1,668 mm and 1,664 mm (5 ft 5⅞ in, 5 ft 55⁄6 in and 5 ft 5½ in) were not included in the templates? See List of rail gauges#Broad gauge railways, by gauge and country etc. Peter Horn 00:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there weren't templates in the template category for them yet when this consolidated template was created. Slambo (Speak) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrections

  • 1668 mm = 5 ft 52⁄3 in
  • 1672 mm = 5 ft 55⁄6 in

Peter Horn 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Modification

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can 36, 60, 72 etc. etc. etc be modified to read 3 ft 0 in (914 mm) etc. etc. etc? Could " " be added to all RailGauge templates? Peter Horn 02:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We could add it, but in my references, I more often see "3 ft" than "3 ft 0 in", so it seems better as an optional spec than default. Slambo (Speak) 14:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

66

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could some one change Provincial gauge to Broad gauge??? Peter Horn 02:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Broad gauge refers to any gauge wider than standard gauge while Provincial gauge refers to only one gauge (5 ft 6 in). It seems to me that if we change this one, then we have to use broad gauge as the alternate for all gauges wider than standard, including Iberian gauge (5 ft 5½ in), Victorian broad gauge (5 ft 3 in) and Ohio gauge (4 ft 10 in). Slambo (Speak) 15:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Then Indian gauge might be a better name. Provincial gauge is too vague in that its connection to Canada is not readely apparent. Peter Horn 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Line Break

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can we have a parameter which forces a line break between the metric and imperial measurements? This would tidy up pages like List of locomotives in the UK National Collection where the natural line break falls between feet and inches. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this request until now. We could add something like "br=on" to produce the break, or we could add nonbreaking spaces between the foot and inch measurements. I left them out originally because it's a natural place for a break when the measurement is used in general text. Slambo (Speak) 14:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Units in full

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is it possible to add a parameter to give units in full, eg to expand {{RailGauge|2ft3in}} to 2 feet 3 inches (686 mm) rather than 2 ft 3 in (686 mm)? This is required by WP:UNITS, which states In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses... When there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we can do that. It seems to me that the default action for this template should be to show the units abbreviated because that's the more common usage of rail gauge specifications in industry publications, but an optional param to show the full word (maybe something like "fw=on"?) shouldn't be too hard to add. However, this brings up another wrinkle; the template is often used in conjunction with a link to rail gauge as in "... was a {{RailGauge|5}} [[rail gauge|gauge]] railroad ...". In cases like this example, the word needs to be singular rather than plural so it reads as "... was a 5 foot (1,524 mm) gauge railroad ...". Slambo (Speak) 14:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the implementation of this? I was looking at an article using inches converted to mm and I was confused with the 'in' abbreviation at first as it did not read right. Keith D (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
See also Template talk:RailGauge#Add parameters below. Peter Horn User talk 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please add & insert

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
Metric units first   Imperial units first
1245
1245mm 		1245 49
49in
49"
4
4ft1in
4'1' 		49

Usefull for The Salamanca & perhaps elsewhere. Peter Horn 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And for the Middleton Railway Peter Horn 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

  Done - added these conversions. Slambo (Speak) 14:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Spain + Portugal

please add 

|1664|1664mm|1.674|1.664m=1,664 mm (5 ft 6 in)
|1668|1668mm|1.676|1.668m=1,668 mm (5 ft 6 in)
|1672|1672mm|1.676|1.672m=1,672 mm (5 ft 6 in)

(dear admin, use edit mode to view correct source) TrackConnect (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}
That would be:
|1664|1664mm|1.674|1.664m={{convert|1664|mm|ftin|0|lk={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{lk|}}}}}|on|on|off}}|abbr=on}}
|1668|1668mm|1.676|1.668m={{convert|1668|mm|ftin|0|lk={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{lk|}}}}}|on|on|off}}|abbr=on}}
|1672|1672mm|1.676|1.672m={{convert|1672|mm|ftin|0|lk={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{lk|}}}}}|on|on|off}}|abbr=on}}
The middle one of which is the important one; being the standardised compromise Iberian gauge now used throughout Spain and Portugal (except for the new high-speed network). —Sladen (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Please correct the conversions of the above templates as per List of rail gauges#Broad gauge railways, by gauge and country as follows
  • 1664 mm = 5 ft 5½ in
  • 1668 mm = 5 ft 55⁄6 in
  • 1672 mm = 5 ft 5⅞ in
Thanks Peter Horn 23:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Urm; these fractions would be incorrect... (5ft + 5in + (5in/6) == 1672.17mm). It you really want to override the automatic conversion, then 5ft 52⁄3in is pretty close (1667.93mm). ...Thank goodness the world uses metric quantities for scientific / engineering measurements. —Sladen (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the current situation exists because fractions in eighths (⅛, ⅜ etc) exist as single characters whereas 5⁄6 requires use of the {{frac}} template, use super- and subscript (not ideal in all browsers). Therefore distances are given to the nearest eight of an inch. As the difference between a sixth and an eight of an inch is only about 1mm, I don't think this is a problem. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
mistake in 2nd line, 3rd number
|1668|1668mm|1.676|1.668m=1,668 mm (5 ft 6 in)

TrackConnect (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  Done - I found and fixed two other similar typos around that line too. Slambo (Speak) 19:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rail_gauge#Dominant_gauges the following still have same imperial: 1676 - 1668 TrackConnect (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

1668 Can this anomaly be corrected??? Peter Horn 17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
May be convert to decimal inches?? Peter Horn 17:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrections.1

  • 1668 mm = 5 ft 52⁄3 in (= 65.827 in)
  • 1672 mm = 5 ft 55⁄6 in (= 65.669 in)

Peter Horn 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Peter Horn 21:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add & insert some more

Latest comment: 13 years ago87 comments2 people in discussion
Metric units first   Imperial units first
1156
1156mm 		1156 45.5
45.5in
45.5"
45½"
45½in
3ft9.5in
3'9½"
3'9.5" 		45.5
1384
1384mm 		1384 54.5
54.5in
54.5"
54
54½in
4ft6.5in
4'6½"
4'6.5" 		54.5

See Arcata and Mad River Railroad Peter Horn 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Peter Horn 23:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

* Scotch gauge#4 ft 6½ in gauge, 4 ft 6+1⁄2 in (1,384 mm) 54.5

more to come. Peter Horn User talk 02:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nere we go.
I'll take a go at these in my sandbox when I find time. Peter Horn User talk 02:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Correction, go to Template:RailGauge/sandbox. Peter Horn User talk 14:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Tried 54.5|54.5in in Template:RailGauge/sandbox, waht's next??. Peter Horn User talk 15:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Some more
From Ridable miniature railway
  • 12 in (305 mm) 12
  • 9+1⁄2 in (241 mm) 9.5
  • 9 in (229 mm) 9
  • 8+1⁄4 in (210 mm) 8.25
  • 7+1⁄4 in (184 mm) 7.25 exists
  • 5 in (127 mm) 5 in (127 mm) exists
  • 3+1⁄2 in (89 mm) 3.5 exists
  • 108 mm (4.25 in) 108mm 4.25
From Ridable miniature railway#Others
  • 16 in (406 mm) 16

Peter Horn User talk 03:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Volks Electric Railway,
Again from Ridable miniature railway
From Ridable miniature railway#Overview
  • 2.5 in (63.5 mm) 2.5
  Done Keith D (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

More oddball rail gauges

3 ft 1+1⁄8 in (943 mm) 3 ft 1+1⁄8 in (943 mm)

2 ft 11 in (889 mm) 35

16+1⁄2 in (419 mm) 16.5

4 ft 4+1⁄2 in (1,334 mm) 52.5
2 ft 5 in (737 mm) 2 ft 5 in (737 mm)
29

27.5 vs 2 ft 3+1⁄2 in (698 mm), a 1 mm discrepancy

And it is still there! Peter Horn User talk 22:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Transporter wagon#Transporter flatcar
802 mm or 2 ft 7.6 in

802 mm / 2 ft 7+9⁄16 in 802 mm (2 ft 7+9⁄16 in)

Peter Horn User talk 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) And yet some more

3 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,130 mm) vs 44.5

3 ft 2+1⁄4 in (972 mm) vs 38.25

4 ft 2 in (1,270 mm) vs 4 ft 2 in (1,270 mm)

2 ft 10+1⁄2 in (876 mm) vs 34.5

450 mm (1 ft 5.72 in), 450 mm (17.72 in) vs 450 mm (17+23⁄32 in) Peter Horn User talk 21:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

450 mm (1 ft 6 in) vs 450 mm (17+23⁄32 in), nah nah, or 17.72 in (450 mm) vs 17.72in The 1/4 in + problem is still there. 450 mm is not 457 mm and 17.72 in is not 18 in! Peter Horn User talk 22:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
18, as it appears in Royal Arsenal Railway, is wrong, compare 450 mm (1 ft 5.72 in). Peter Horn User talk 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is required here. I thought from the initial request here and on my talk page (now archived) that you wanted 457mm 18" changing to read 450mm 18" and 18" 457mm changing to read 18" 450mm. Please explain clearly. the conversion required. Keith D (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
This was resolved on your talk page. Again Thanks and excuse any misunderstanding. Peter Horn User talk 18:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

3 ft 11 in (1,194 mm) vs 47

3 ft 9 in (1,143 mm) vs 45

3 ft 1 in (940 mm) vs 37

2 ft 0+1⁄8 in (613 mm) vs 24.125

2 ft 6+1⁄2 in (775 mm) vs 30.5

1 ft 5 in (432 mm) vs 17

Peter Horn User talk 00:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

1 ft 7+1⁄2 in (495 mm) vs 19.5

2 ft 10+1⁄2 in (876 mm) vs 34.5

Peter Horn User talk 03:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

3 ft 8+1⁄4 in (1,124 mm) vs 44.25

Peter Horn User talk 21:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

1 ft 7+1⁄2 in (495 mm) vs 19.5

2 ft 3+3⁄4 in (705 mm) vs 27.75

Peter Horn User talk 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

3 ft 2+1⁄4 in (972 mm) vs 38.25

Peter Horn User talk 22:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet more oddball rail gauges

3 ft 4+3⁄4 in (1,035 mm) vs 40.75

4 ft 2 in (1,270 mm) vs 50

Peter Horn User talk 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

2 ft 0+1⁄2 in (622 mm) vs 24.5

Peter Horn User talk 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

4 ft 4 in (1,321 mm) vs 52

Peter Horn User talk 23:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet more oddball rail gauges

Narrow gauge rail transport#Sweden Köping-Uttersberg-Riddarhyttan Railway: 1093 or 3 ft 7 in (1,093 mm), 1217 and 1188. Vs 1,093 mm (3.586 ft), 1,217 mm (3.993 ft) and 1,188 mm (3.898 ft). I could have done 1,093 mm (43.03 in), 1,217 mm (47.91 in) and 1,188 mm (46.77 in) or even 1,093 mm (3 ft 7.03 in), 1,217 mm (3 ft 11.91 in) and 1,188 mm (3 ft 10.77 in). Peter Horn User talk 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1,440 mm or 4 ft 8.69 in or 1440 from Brazil From Transport in the Dominican Republic#Railways: 558, Temporary fix: 558 mm (1.831 ft) or 558 mm (1 ft 9.97 in). I doubt if all of those Swedish rail gauges are ligit. See Railroad Gauge Width. Peter Horn User talk 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done all of these apart from the first set which I am trying to work out what is required. Keith D (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1,009 mm (3 ft 3.72 in) vs 1,009 mm (3 ft 3+23⁄32 in) Missing signature. Peter Horn User talk 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as I thought I would find no more I find:

Peter Horn User talk 22:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

3 ft 4 in (1,016 mm) vs 40 Peter Horn User talk 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Standard gauge#Origins

  • 1,410 mm (4.63 ft) vs 1410mm
    • 55.5 in (1,410 mm) vs 4 ft 7+1⁄2 in (1,410 mm) or 55.5
    • 4 ft 7.5 in (1,410 mm) vs 4 ft 7+1⁄2 in (1,410 mm) or 55.5
    • 4.63 ft (1,411 mm) vs 4.63ft or 55.56
Or 4ft 7+9/16in There are still red links. Peter Horn User talk 14:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
As I have already said below I have not input any with vulgar fractions - use one of the other means of getting this value there are 5 options available. We should be thinking of cutting down on input values rather than adding unnecessary values. Keith D (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I have added 55.56 and changed it to vulgar but not for input. Keith D (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Horn User talk 21:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

One more, 765 mm (2 ft 6.1 in) vs 765 mm (2 ft 6+1⁄8 in), Transport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo#Railways, Rail transport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Matadi-Kinshasa Railway Talk:Matadi-Kinshasa Railway#Clarification needed Peter Horn User talk 02:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Modelling scales

Peter Horn User talk 00:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling scales#Scales
  • 45 mm (1.77 in) vs 45 mm (1.772 in)
    • 45 mm (1.772 in) vs 45 mm (1.772 in)
  • 32 mm (1.260 in) vs 32 mm (1.26 in)
  • 14.28 mm (0.562 in) vs 14.28 mm (0.562 in)
  • 16.5 mm (0.650 in) vs 16.5 mm (0.65 in)
    • 0.649 in (16.48 mm) vs 0.649in
    • 0.650 in (16.5 mm) vs 0.650in
  • 18 mm (0.709 in) vs 18 mm (0.709 in)
  • 18.2 mm (0.717 in) vs 18.2 mm (0.717 in)
  • 9 mm (0.354 in) vs 9 mm (0.354 in)
  • 12 mm (0.472 in) vs 12 mm (0.472 in)
  • 4.5 mm (0.177 in) vs 4.5 mm (0.177 in)
    • 0.177 inches (4.50 mm) vs 0.177 in (4.5 mm)
  • 4 mm (0.157 in) vs 4 mm (0.157 in)
  • 14.2 mm (0.559 in) vs 14.2 mm (0.559 in)
  • 15.76 mm (0.620 in) vs 15.76mm
  • 14.125 mm (0.556 in) vs 14.125 mm (0.556 in)
  • 13.5 mm (0.531 in) vs 13.5 mm (0.531 in)

Peter Horn User talk 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  • 19 mm (0.748 in) vs 19 mm (0.748 in)

Peter Horn User talk 22:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • 63 mm (2.48 in) vs 63mm

Peter Horn User talk 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling standards#NEM
Rail transport modelling standards#Japanese
  • 13 mm (0.512 in) vs 13 mm (0.512 in)
  • 16.5 mm (0.650 in) vs 16.5 mm (0.65 in)
  • 20.5 mm (0.807 in) vs 20.5 mm (0.807 in)
  • 24 mm (0.945 in) vs 24 mm (0.945 in)
  • 35 mm (1.378 in) vs 35 mm (1.378 in)
  • 3 mm (0.118 in) vs 3 mm (0.118 in)
  • 4.8 mm (0.189 in) vs 4.8 mm (0.189 in)
  • 6.5 mm (0.256 in) vs 6.5 mm (0.256 in)
    • 0.256 inches (6.50 mm) vs 0.256 in (6.5 mm)
    • 0.257 inches (6.53 mm) vs 0.257in
    • 6.53 mm (0.257 in) vs 6.53mm

Peter Horn User talk 23:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling scale standards#British
  • 9.42 mm (0.371 in) vs 9.42 mm (0.371 in)
  • 18.83 mm (0.741 in) vs 18.83 mm (0.741 in)

Peter Horn User talk 21:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling scale standards#Historical
  • 22 mm (0.866 in) vs 22 mm (0.866 in)
  • 23 mm (0.906 in) vs 23 mm (0.906 in)

Peter Horn User talk 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling scale standards
  • 0.413 in (10.5 mm) vs 0.413 in (10.5 mm)

Peter Horn User talk 17:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  • 8.97 mm (0.353 in) vs 8.97mm
    • 0.353 in (8.97 mm) vs 0.353 in (8.97 mm)

Peter Horn User talk 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • 0.257 in (6.53 mm) vs 0.257in
  • 0.177 in (4.50 mm) vs 0.177 in (4.5 mm)

Peter Horn User talk 20:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • 0.256 in (6.50 mm) vs 0.256 in (6.5 mm)
  • 0.353 in 0.353 in (8.97 mm) vs 0.353 in (8.97 mm)

Peter Horn User talk 16:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  • 0.470 in (12.0 mm) 0.470 in (11.94 mm) 0.470 in (11.9 mm) vs 0.470in

Peter Horn User talk 17:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

    • 0.472 inches (12 mm) vs 0.472 in (12 mm)
  • 0.276 in (7.0 mm) 0.276 inches (7.0 mm) vs 0.276 in (7 mm)
  • 0.649 in (16.5 mm) 0.649 inches (16.5 mm) vs 0.649in
  • 0.750 in (19.05 mm) 0.750 inches (19.05 mm) vs 0.750in
  • 0.563 in (14.3 mm) 0.563 inches (14.3 mm) vs 0.563 in (14.3 mm)
  • 0.883 in (22.4 mm) 0.883 inches (22.4 mm) vs 0.883 in (22.43 mm)
  • 0.500 in (12.7 mm) 0.500 inches (12.7 mm) vs 0.500in or 0.5in
  • HO-track narrow gauge
Are you indicating you want an extra entry with the training zeros as this can be got without the zeros in the entry. There is a problem with the use of trailing zeros as the software trims them when input in the switch mechanism. Keith D (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If the trailing zeros are problematic, we can eliminate them. Peter Horn User talk 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 0.750 in (19.05 mm) 0.750 inches (19.05 mm) vs 0.750in
  • 1.250 in (31.8 mm) 1.250 inches (31.75 mm) vs 1.250in or 1.25 in (31.75 mm) Peter Horn User talk 02:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 1.125 in (28.6 mm) 1.125 inches (28.58 mm) vs 1.125 in (28.6 mm)
  • 1.766 in (44.85 mm) 1.766 inches (44.86 mm) vs 1.766 in (44.85 mm)
  • #1-track narrow gauge
  • 2.781 inches (70.64 mm) vs 2.781 in (70.69 mm)

Peter Horn User talk 21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling scale standards#NMRA Finescale

  • 0.250 in (6.35 mm) vs 0.250in

Peter Horn User talk 16:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

More modelling scales

H0 scale#Gauge

  • 10.5 mm (0.413 in) vs 10.5 mm (0.413 in)

OO gauge#Related scales

  • 16.2 mm (0.638 in) vs 16.2 mm (0.638 in)

Peter Horn User talk 19:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

16 mm scale model trains

  • 2 ft 9.75 in (857 mm) vs 33.75in

Peter Horn User talk 20:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

1 gauge

2 gauge

  • 64 mm (2.52 in) vs 64 mm (2+1⁄2 in)

Garden railway#Scales

  • 64 mm (2.52 in) vs 64 mm (2+1⁄2 in)
  • 49 mm (1.929 in) vs 49mm
  • 48 mm (1.890 in) vs 48mm
  • 42 mm (1.654 in) vs 42mm
  • 34 mm (1.339 in) vs 34mm
  • 30 mm (1.181 in) vs 30 mm (1.181 in)
  • 29 mm (1.142 in) vs 29mm

Peter Horn User talk 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wide Gauge

  • 2.125 in (53.975 mm) vs 2+1⁄8 in (53.975 mm)

Peter Horn User talk 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

16 mm scale model trains

  • 2 ft 9.75 in (857 mm) vs 33.75

Peter Horn User talk 19:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1 gauge

  • 1.75 inches (44.450 mm) vs 1.75 in (44.45 mm)

O scale#Wide or narrow gauge track

Peter Horn User talk 18:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter Horn User talk 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On2 scale

  • 12.7 mm (0.5 in) vs 12.7 mm (0.5 in)
    • 0.5 in (12.7 mm) vs 0.5in

Peter Horn User talk 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

S gauge

  • 22.42 mm (0.883 in) vs 22.42mm

S gauge#Narrow Gauge

  • 14.3 mm (0.563 in) vs 14.3 mm (0.563 in)

Peter Horn User talk 18:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

P4 gauge

  • 21 mm (0.827 in) vs 21 mm (0.827 in)

Peter Horn User talk 19:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling scale standards#NMRA Popular Railway Scales

  • 19.4 mm (0.764 in) vs 19.4 mm (0.764 in)(?)

HOe scale & OO9

  • 783 mm (30.83 in) vs 783mm

Peter Horn User talk 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

N scale#OOO models

  • 8 mm (0.315 in) vs 8 mm (0.315 in)

Peter Horn User talk 15:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Modelling 3' gauge railroads#United States

  • 14.3 mm (0.563 in) vs 14.3 mm (0.563 in)
  • 19.05 mm (0.75 in) vs 19.05mm

Modelling 3' gauge railroads#Ireland, the Isle of Man, and Britain

  • 21 mm (0.827 in) vs 21 mm (0.827 in)

Peter Horn User talk 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling scale standards#NMRA Finescale

  • 0.250 in (6.35 mm) vs 0.250in

Rail transport modelling scale standards#NMRA Deep Flange Scales

  • 0.865 in (21.97 mm) vs 0.865 in (21.97 mm)
  • 1.772 in (45.0 mm) vs 1.772 in (45 mm)

Rail transport modelling scale standards#NMRA Proto Scales

  • 1.177 in (29.9 mm) 1.177 in (30 mm) vs 1.177 in (29.9 mm)

Peter Horn User talk 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling scale standards#NMRA Popular Railway Scales

  • 0.473 in (12.0 mm) 0.473 in (12.01 mm) vs 0.472 in (12 mm)

Rail transport modelling scale standards#British

  • 14 mm (0.551 in) vs 14 mm (0.551 in)

Peter Horn User talk 14:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

O scale#Gauge

  • 32.96 mm (1.298 in) vs 32.96 mm (1.298 in)

The anomalies are still there!!!

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Surely they can be corrected??? Peter Horn 21:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Peter Horn 22:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally got a chance to get back to this to see what's going on (sorry for the delay; it's been at the back of my mind). I've made the updates as noted here and above. These three specifically were using {{convert}} to make the conversion which doesn't show fractions, now they use the fractional representations. Slambo (Speak) 21:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Add   to templates

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could some one progressively add a spacer " " to all templates so that there will be no "splits" at the end of a line? Peter Horn 20:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Add parameters

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

It might be desirable and usefull to add the optional parametres disp=/ and/or disp=s e.g. 1435 1 (Do not yet show). They are usefull for the same reason(s) that they are usefull in convert. Peter Horn 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

E.g. in Transporter wagon#Transporter flatcar. Peter Horn 16:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
By way of illustration: Transporter wagons were used extensively for a great many years also in Austria (gauge 760 mm (2 ft 5+15⁄16 in)), Switzerland (1,000 mm (3 ft 3+3⁄8 in) Brünigbahn) and Sweden (gauges 802 mm or 2 ft 7.6 in, 891 mm or 2 ft 11.1 in, and 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in)). Peter Horn 17:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Also in USATC S118 Class there is (or was) ...(1,000 mm / 39⅜ in) or Cape gauge (42 in / 1,067 mm)... Peter Horn 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

{{frac}} template

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

{{editprotected}}

This template should use {{frac}} instead of the unicode fractions.

  • ½ → 1⁄2, using {{frac|1|2}}
  • ⅓ → 1⁄3, using {{frac|1|3}}
  • ⅔ → 2⁄3, using {{frac|2|3}}
  • ¼ → 1⁄4, using {{frac|1|4}}
  • ¾ → 3⁄4, using {{frac|3|4}}
  • ⅛ → 1⁄8, using {{frac|1|8}}
  • ⅜ → 3⁄8, using {{frac|3|8}}
  • ⅝ → 5⁄8, using {{frac|5|8}}
  • ⅞ → 7⁄8, using {{frac|7|8}}

They are much more readable. It also harmonizes them with non-unicode fractions used (such as 1⁄16).Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you prepare that in the sandbox? Amalthea 10:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It's there.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, there are quite a number of copy&paste errors though, check this diff. Can you fix those? Or was there a reason for the change? Amalthea 15:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how did you get that diff between two different pages? I didn't know that was possible. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Manually. Figure out the revision IDs of the two pages, pass one as "oldid", and the other as "diff". :)
The title doesn't matter, http://en.wikipedia.org?oldid=242769639&diff=289897427 is actually enough. Amalthea 17:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any copy-paste errors...? I've simply made the change (½ → 1⁄2 (and similar). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah now I see them (you fixed them). I guess I made a mistake when using search/replace. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I only fixed some, but thought I'd leave the rest from the diff above to you. Amalthea 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) Alright, should be good now. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, done, but I notice that the proper way to use {{frac}} is to pull the integer value into the template as well. Otherwise, I think it will produce ambiguous values on screen readers and text browsers and the like? Would you mind changing the sandbox accordingly? Amalthea 05:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Amalthea 05:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Vulgar fraction characters?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why weren't they used? The superscript/subscript fractions look cumbersome on the screen. Irishchieftain (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello
That's something you should discuss at WT:MOSNUM, since that style guideline recommends using the {{frac}} template to display fractions.
Amalthea 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. See the above discussion. In a nutshell, they are much more readable and it also harmonizes them with non-unicode fractions used (such as 1⁄16).Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Error

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{editprotected}} 22 compare to 1 ft 10 in (559 mm) Some one please correct this anomaly. Peter Horn User talk 00:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done Keith D (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Template broken in Lynx

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the Lynx browser, {{RailGauge|sg}} expands to "1,435 mm (4 ft 8[DEL: + :DEL] ^1⁄[2] in)", which is totally unreadable. I also suspect this will cause problems with screen readers and other non-graphical browsers. --Carnildo (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this still a problem with the rewritten version? Keith D (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor adjustments

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Adjust

The above is not very accurate 76.75 in (1,949 mm) or 76+3⁄4 in (1,950 mm)* vs 76.575 in (1,945 mm) which means a 4 mm (0.157 in) discrepancy. This needs tweeking. Peter Horn User talk 00:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
76+3⁄4 in (1,950 mm)* gives 1 mm too much. Peter Horn User talk 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you indicate clearly what you want output for the conversions, I am confused. Keith D (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
1,945 mm (6 ft 4.575 in), or one could make that 1945 mm (6 ft 423⁄40). Peter Horn User talk 16:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  Done Keith D (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 59.06, 59.06in and 59.06" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=1|den=16|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1500}}.
  • 59.843, 59.843in and 59.843" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=5|den=6|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1520}}.
  • 76.575, 76.575in and 76.575" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=4|num=23|den=40|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1945}}.
  • 1980, 1,980 mm (6 ft 6 in), 1.98 and 1.98m are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1980|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20}}.
  • 77.95, 77.95in and 77.95" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1980}}.
  • 1981 and 1981mm are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1981|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=}}.
  • 78, 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm), 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm), 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm) and 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm) are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1981}}.

121.102.122.122 (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Vulgar fractions

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can the following standard symbols be used instead of the rather clumsy x/y form? ½, ⅓, ⅔, ¼, ¾, ⅛, ⅜, ⅝, ⅞

--TedColes (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are you suggesting this usage? Can you explain further. Keith D (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that 699 mm (2 ft 3½) in looks much better than {{RailGauge/metric|mm=699|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=2|in=3|num=1|den=2}}. But perhaps, given that this can only be used for a limited set of gauges, consistency for the whole set should over-ride elegance for the few. However, {{RailGauge/metric|mm=699|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=2|in=3|num=1|den=2}}, which uses templates 'small' and 'smallsup', looks nearly as good and can be applied to all the vulgar fractions. --TedColes (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally I find the fractions almost impossible to read, but I will leave it to those who use the template to determine which way to go but it must be the same for all entries so that the template will work. I have already had to recode it because it was causing the server to hang and not serve the page so too much complication may be a problem. Keith D (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Notice that this template currently only interlinks to standard gauge when applying the al and lk parameters. I know this topic has been brought up for more than a year. Please include more links for specific gauge terms such as narrow gauge, cape gauge, etc. Thx -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already modified the syntax in {{RailGauge/sandbox}} to make the Cape gauge, Ohio gauge, Victorian broad gauge and Provincial gauge to behave like standard gauge. Because I'm not the expert on this field, I guess there're more to be added like defining the rest into narrow gauge and broad gauge catalogs. Soon I will ask for editprotected if user:Keith D and user:Slambo remain inactive to this topic. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have modified template to add the links as per the sandbox version, I have also added capital to standard gauge for unlinked case. Keith D (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"in" is a word

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This template expands into some confusing text in places, for instance "Ridable, outdoor gauge. The gauge is 3+1⁄2 in (89 mm) the world over" in Rail_transport_modelling_scales.

Can "in" be changed either to "inches" or to the double quote character?--66.149.58.8 (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Discrepencies

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

in Rail transport modelling scale standards:

Problem with first one is the reverse one which we have of 22 mm (0.866 in) which one is right?
I have changed the second one. Keith D (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
22 mm (0.866 in) vs 0.865 in (22 mm), This will have to be resolved on Template talk:Convert. I'll post a request there. Peter Horn User talk 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Make that Template talk:Convert#Which one is right? Peter Horn User talk 15:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Some ideas are put forth on Template talk:Convert#Which one is right? Peter Horn User talk 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Change to vulgar fractions for consistency

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

750 mm (2 ft 5+1⁄2 in) & 800 mm (2 ft 7+1⁄2 in) are already vulgar. 775mm, 785 mm (2 ft 6+29⁄32 in) and 802 mm (2 ft 7+9⁄16 in) change the decimal fraction to 2 ft 6+1⁄2 in, 2 ft 6+9⁄10 in and 2 ft 7+3⁄5 in, etc etc in other cases. All this for the sake of uniformety and consistency. Peter Horn User talk 15:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Similarly 2ft9.75in change to 2 ft 9+3⁄4 in Peter Horn User talk 15:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  Done Keith D (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks Peter Horn User talk 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Missed out 891 mm (2 ft 11+3⁄32 in): {{ & 35.1in (2 ft 11+1⁄10 in) Peter Horn User talk 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  Done Keith D (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That was fast! Thanks. Peter Horn User talk 00:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Five more, or 6: 1,009 mm (3 ft 3+23⁄32 in) to 3 ft 3+11⁄32 in, 1,100 mm (3 ft 7+5⁄16 in) to 3 ft 7+7⁄16 in, 1,188 mm (3 ft 10+25⁄32 in) to 3 ft 10+4⁄5 in, 1,217 mm (3 ft 11+29⁄32 in) to 3 ft 11+9⁄16 in, and 1,440 mm (4 ft 8+11⁄16 in) to 4 ft 8+11⁄16 in as well as their respective imperial first counterparts, if any. There is also 558mm which should be 558 mm (1 ft 9.969 in), make that 1 ft 9+31⁄32 in. I think I spotted them all. Peter Horn User talk 01:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean 1,188 mm (3 ft 10+25⁄32 in) to 3 ft 10+4⁄5 in and 1,217 mm (3 ft 11+29⁄32 in) to 3 ft 11+9⁄10 in. I have done with my assumptions. Keith D (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct. To reverse check 1 ft 9+31⁄32 in (558 mm) (can't win), 1 ft 10 in (560 mm) 1,188 mm (3 ft 10.8 in) 1,217 mm (3 ft 11.9 in) just to double check. Peter Horn User talk 01:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There is still a "red link" here. Peter Horn User talk 16:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Where is this? What needs doing? Keith D (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

ft in

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

For the sake of consistency and uniformity let all rail gauges from 14 in (356 mm), 1 ft 2 in (356 mm) and up to 2 ft (610 mm) be given in feet and inches consistently e.g. 457 mm (1 ft 6.0 in) & 1 ft 6 in (457 mm) instead of 457mm & 18 in (457 mm). The use of "convert" is for the sake of illustration only. Peter Horn User talk 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  Done Keith D (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this why 15" and 18" gauge are presented as feet and inches, rather than as inches alone, as they have been since the days of Heywood and Horwich? Wikipedia shouldn't be changing an established convention like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Andy Dingley. Gauges below 2ft have always been referred to in inches as any reading round the subject will show (I am sure it is possible to quote exceptions). A personal taste for uniformity should not change normal usage, that is a form of OR. I haven't a clue how template engineering works or I would change it myself. Globbet (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
There was a mixture of those in inches and those in feet & inches before this change. Suggest dropping a note to Peter Horn to see if he has any input into the discussion as he is supplying most of the information for the conversions used in this template. Keith D (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
See my reply at Template talk:RailGauge#Fifteen inch gauge below. Peter Horn User talk 16:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just when I thought I had found everything

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

In Breitspurbahn#Tracks & Template:Rail gauges

  • 3,000 mm (9 ft 101⁄8 in) or 3,000 mm (9 ft 10.11 in) vs 3,000 mm (9 ft 10+1⁄8 in). Oh, that exists already. But sorry, 3 m is obviously NOT 10 ft, rather 1+7⁄8 in (48 mm) short of that!!! Peter Horn User talk 20:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  Done Keith D (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

|3000|3000mm|3m={{RailGauge/metric|m=3|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=9|in=10|num=1|den=8}}

|120|120in|120"|10ft|10'|118.11|118.11in|118.11"|9ft10.11in|9'10.11"={{RailGauge/imperial|ft=9|in=10|num=1|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=3}} 220.210.143.190 (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Confused - what do you require? Keith D (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The reverse of 118.11|118.11in|118.11"|9ft10.11in|9'10.11" etc. |120|120in|120"|10ft|10' irrelevent. Eliminate all that now shows in red. Peter Horn User talk 22:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
3000, 3,000 mm (9 ft 10+1⁄8 in) or 3,000 mm (9 ft 10+1⁄8 in) = {{RailGauge/metric|m=3|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=9|in=10|num=1|den=8}}
120, 10 ft (3,048 mm), 10 ft (3,048 mm), 10 ft (3,048 mm), 10 ft (3,048 mm), 118.11, 118.11in, 118.11", 9ft10.11in or 9'10.11" = {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=9|in=10|num=1|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=3}}
220.210.143.190 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
|118.11|118.11in|118.11"|9ft-10.11in|9'10.11"|9ft-10+1/8in|118.125in|9ft-10.125in|9'-10.125"={{RailGauge/imperial|ft=9|in=10|num=1|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=3}} etc. The idea is to make work all that now shows in red above. Peter Horn User talk 22:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I have put these in OK. Keith D (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Mission accomplished, except for on which is bot really important, hooray. Peter Horn User talk 01:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Trials 118.11, 118.11", 118.125, 118.125". The second two don't work yet. Peter Horn User talk 01:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have put 118.11 in to the list as per above rather than 118.125. Do you want 118.11 removing and replaced by 118.125 or do you want both 118.11 and 118.125 to translate to the same thing. Keith D (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
One might as well keep both. Peter Horn User talk 15:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
And not overlook 9'-10.125", 9'-10 1⁄8", 9'- 10+1⁄8", 9 ft-10 1⁄8 in, 9 ft - 10+1⁄8 in and any possible variation there off. Peter Horn User talk 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

4 ft 6 in (1,372 mm) and 3 ft 1 in (940 mm)

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

4 ft 6 in (1,372 mm):

  • scot is really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=6|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1372}}.

3 ft 1 in (940 mm):

  • 3 ft 1 in (940 mm) and 3 ft 1 in (940 mm) are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=3|in=1|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=940}}.

121.102.122.122 (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  Done I have used straight quotes in last example as per the rest. Keith D (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please add

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please add rail gauge specifications.

  • 59.06, 59.06in and 59.06" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=1|den=16|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1500}}.
  • 59.843, 59.843in and 59.843" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=5|den=6|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1520}}.
  • 76.575, 76.575in and 76.575" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=4|num=23|den=40|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1945}}.
  • 1980, 1,980 mm (6 ft 6 in), 1.98 and 1.98m are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1980|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20}}.
  • 77.95, 77.95in and 77.95" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1980}}.
  • 1981 and 1981mm are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1981|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=}}.
  • 78, 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm), 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm), 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm) and 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm) are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1981}}.

121.102.122.122 (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please correct

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please correct.

  • 76.575, 76.575in and 76.575" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=4|num=23|den=40|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1945}}.
  • 77.95, 77.95in and 77.95" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1980}}.
  • 78, 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm), 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm), 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm) and 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm) are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1981}}.

121.102.122.122 (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my fault in inserting last changes. Keith D (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifteen inch gauge

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

This should generate '15 inch', not '1 foot 3 inch'. Fifteen inch has a long tradition under that name, 1'3" isn't used. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As per comment from September - There was a mixture of those in inches and those in feet & inches before this change. Suggest dropping a note to Peter Horn to see if he has any input into the discussion as he is supplying most of the information for the conversions used in this template. Keith D (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to make the change myself - 15" and 18" gauges. In the absence of any arguments against, I'll do this when I get a moment. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Nope, protected (I guess that's why I didn't do it last time). Can someone who has the keys please change 15" and 18"? Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I will make the change, if you get consensus with Peter Horn who requested the original change and has been supplying changes to the template. Keith D (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of consitency within Wikipedia let us go with feet and inches. The facts of life are that many, if not most, sources will give rail gauges either in imperial or metric only. Therefore most conversions made by our templates are in itself a Wiki neolism. This comment also covers Template talk:RailGauge#ft in above. Peter Horn User talk 16:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 16:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No, that would be WP:OR. If you have any reference for 15" or 18" being described as "1 foot 3 inches" outside Wikipedia, please post it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I found 1ft 3in in [1], It did not take all that much time. Peter Horn User talk 02:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
As well as [2] and [3] Peter Horn User talk 03:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
15 in (381 mm) & 381 mm (15 in) OK Peter Horn User talk 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Sortfrac}}

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would this template be improved by using {{Sortfrac}} instead of {{frac}}? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Track_gauge/Archive_1&oldid=1190270816"