Template talk:Track gauge

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, most talk pages of subtemplates and modules redirect here

Template:Track gauge is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by .

Unexpected effects

I found this, not sure if it has to do with TemplateStyles etc. Article Great Western Railway uses {{Infobox GWR}}, {{Track gauge}} and {{Convert}}.

It has template output like:

{{Track gauge|uksg}} (in lede)

expct: 4 ft 81⁄2 in (1,435 mm)

shows: 4 ft 8+½ in (1,435 mm)

{{Convert|11+1/2|mi|km|0|adj=on}} section (in body)

expct: 111⁄2-mile (19 km) section

shows: 11+½-mile (19 km) section

That is: the "+" and "½" (fraction character) are unexpected. This also happens within {{Infobox GWR}}.

Research & reproduce: I found that when {{Infobox GWR}} is removed (absent), the output is regular. To reproduce: in Special:ExpandTemplates put the lede (and the {{Convert}} code from body), and check with/without {{Infobox GWR}}.

This is as far as I could get. Has to do with TS? @Izno: -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is due to the specific template first using this module when the module is wrapping the gauge in a link and is fundamentally this issue. Let me see if I can fix it here. Izno (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is in formatImp. I think I can do a limited fix though I hate that I must do it the way in question. Let me tweak the sandbox. Izno (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First fix works. I will see if I like one of the other solutions I was thinking about. Izno (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do prefer this version. Please feel free to sync as desired. Izno (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Test #1. Basic input options look fine, using Module:Track gauge/sandbox: see Template:Track_gauge/testcases#All

. -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Test #2: Article Great Western Railway with {{Track gauge/sandbox}}, also in {{Infobox GWR/sandbox}}. OK in preview.

. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Edit request: Please someone put all code Module:Track gauge/sandbox into Module:Track gauge (diff). -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring bug

@DePiep: I'm still seeing the + (but not the fraction character) at Track gauge#Early track gauges ("the Dundee and Newtyle Railway (1831) in the north-east of Scotland adopted 4 ft 6+1⁄2 in (1,384 mm)"). The correct output appears in preview. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hairy Dude:. OK here. Did you try to Purge the article (=click on clock topright on the page)? (Could be you have an old version in the cache). Anyway, I have made a minor edit, so the article should reload anyway. OK now? -DePiep (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first thing I tried after I saw the preview was correct. And I also made a minor edit to check. Are you not seeing it? Maybe it's some quirk of the mobile interface. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ah, mobile. Yes wrong on my mobile device too. Don't know from here. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, could you take a look?

In mobile view, Track gauge#Early track gauges using {{Track gauge|4ft6.5in}} shows the "+"-sign in a fraction. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This change should work around it. Izno (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back two years later, I'm still seeing these pluses at Track gauge. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 30 August 2022

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

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

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

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

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

1ft 11in

Track gauge: 1 ft 11 inThis box:

{{Track gauge}} list definition: 1 ft 11 in (584 mm)
Unit conversion (calculation): 23 inches converts to 584.200 mm
Article: Hendre-Ddu Tramway
Content category: Category:2 ft gauge railways in Wales (18) (!)
Defined in source: ^[1]
Currently in sandbox: 1 ft 11 in (584 mm)
Note: aliases:
Conclusion: Done, added 2023-01-01 [1]. Todo, separately: formally merge 1 ft 11 in (584 mm) and 1 ft 10+3⁄4 in (578 mm) as similar, for example in categorisation. 08:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Quine, Dan (December 2022). The Hendre Ddu Tramway: Blue Stones and Green Trees. Lightmoor Press. ISBN 9781915069153.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All in Category:1 ft 10¾ in gauge railways:

Lakeside Amusement Park

Dinorwic quarry

Penrhyn Castle Railway Museum

Penrhyn Quarry Railway

Inny Valley Railway

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, we will add it.

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

Template-protected edit request on 31 December 2022

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

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

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

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

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

Dual gauge?

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

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

4 ft 81⁄2 in (1,435 mm) and 3 ft (914 mm).

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

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

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

Rennes Metro

Track gauge: 1620 mmThis box:

{{Track gauge}} list definition: (Not defined, not in the list)
Unit conversion (calculation): 1,620 mm converts to 63.7795 inches (or 5 feet 3+25⁄32 inches)
Article: Rennes Metro
Defined in source: (none, see talk below)
Currently in sandbox: 1620 mm
Conclusion: Not approved Not added. Consulting fr:Métro de Rennes resulted: Rubber-tyred metro, not fit for the Track gauge list.

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swedish foot gauges

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

Yet another new track gauge

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

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

non breaking space instead of comma

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

'comma' parameter

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