Template talk:Track gauge/Archive 1

Great idea
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. ~ Paul C/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
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
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 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.  produces "", and  produces "". 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
Somebody please get rid of the irrelevant "Provincial gauge" out of the template. Peter Horn 13:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That got rid of the irrelevant "Provincial gauge". Peter Horn 00:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Iberian rail gauges
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 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
Peter Horn 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1668 mm = 5 ft 5$2/3$ in
 * 1672 mm = 5 ft 5$5/6$ in

Modification
Can, , 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)

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
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
Is it possible to add a parameter to give units in full, eg to expand 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  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 below. Peter Horn User talk 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please add & insert
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)

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

Spain + Portugal
please add |1664|1664mm|1.674|1.664m=1664 mm |1668|1668mm|1.676|1.668m=1668 mm |1672|1672mm|1.676|1.672m=1672 mm (dear admin, use edit mode to view correct source) TrackConnect (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be:
 * That would be:


 * 1664|1664mm|1.674|1.664m=1664 mm
 * 1668|1668mm|1.676|1.668m=1668 mm
 * 1672|1672mm|1.676|1.672m=1672 mm
 * 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)
 * ✅ —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please correct the conversions of the above templates as per List of rail gauges as follows
 * 1664 mm = 5 ft 5½ in
 * 1668 mm = 5 ft 5$5/6$ 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 5$2/3$in 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=1668 mm TrackConnect (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


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

Rail_gauge the following still have same imperial: -  TrackConnect (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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
Peter Horn 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Peter Horn 21:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1668 mm = 5 ft 5$2/3$ in (= 65.827 in)
 * 1672 mm = 5 ft 5$5/6$ in (= 65.669 in)

Please add & insert some more
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

more to come. Peter Horn User talk 02:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ruislip Lido Railway, 305 mm or
 * Glyn Valley Tramway, 724 mm or 2 ft
 * Nere we go.


 * Great Laxey Mine Railway, 1 ft
 * Herne Bay Pier Railway, 3 ft
 * Volks Electric Railway, 2 ft This is not the end. Peter Horn User talk 01:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 9+1/2 in
 * 9 in
 * 8+1/4 in
 * 7+1/4 in exists
 * 5 in exists
 * 3+1/2 in exists
 * 108 mm
 * From Ridable miniature railway

Peter Horn User talk 03:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 16 in
 * Volks Electric Railway,


 * 2 ft Peter Horn User talk 03:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again from Ridable miniature railway


 * Beale Park, Pangbourne, Berkshire Beale Park website 10+1/2 in gauge instead of  Peter Horn User talk 16:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From Ridable miniature railway


 * 2.5 in
 * ✅ Keith D (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

More oddball rail gauges
3 ft 2 ft 16+1/2 in
 * British industrial narrow gauge railways
 * British industrial narrow gauge railways
 * British industrial narrow gauge railways
 * British industrial narrow gauge railways

4 ft 2 ft

vs 2 ft, a 1 mm discrepancy
 * British industrial narrow gauge railways
 * And it is still there! Peter Horn User talk 22:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you want 700 changing to 699 and what happens to existing usages? Keith D (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 27.5 in, my 33'/10 m measuring tape that features metric and imperial side by side visibly shows 699 mm rather than 700mm. Change it and all existing usages will change automatically. An actual steel measuring tape comes in handy at times. Peter Horn User talk 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Transporter wagon 802 mm

Peter Horn User talk 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) And yet some more 3 ft vs
 * British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways

3 ft vs
 * British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways

4 ft vs

2 ft vs
 * British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways

450 mm, 450 mm vs Peter Horn User talk 21:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently 457mm is used as the conversion for this. Keith D (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's more than 1/4 in difference!!! Let's try 450 mm or 450 mm Peter Horn User talk 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just changed this and spotted the using the convert template gives 18 in as per usage in heading on Royal Arsenal Railway Keith D (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 450 mm vs, nah nah, or 17.72 in vs 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)
 * , as it appears in Royal Arsenal Railway, is wrong, compare 450 mm. 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 vs

3 ft vs
 * British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways

3 ft vs
 * British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways

2 ft vs
 * British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways

2 ft vs
 * British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways

1 ft vs
 * British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways

Peter Horn User talk 00:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC) 1 ft vs
 * British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways

2 ft vs

Peter Horn User talk 03:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC) 3 ft vs
 * British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways

Peter Horn User talk 21:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC) 1 ft vs
 * British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways

2 ft vs

Peter Horn User talk 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC) 3 ft vs
 * British narrow gauge slate railways

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

Yet more oddball rail gauges
3 ft vs 4 ft vs
 * British narrow gauge railways
 * Lake Lock Rail Road
 * Surrey Iron Railway

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

2 ft vs
 * Penrhyn Quarry Railway

Peter Horn User talk 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC) 4 ft vs
 * Monmouthshire Railway and Canal Company

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

And yet more oddball rail gauges
Narrow gauge rail transport Köping-Uttersberg-Riddarhyttan Railway: or,  and. Vs 1093 mm, 1217 mm and 1188 mm. I could have done 1093 mm, 1217 mm and 1188 mm or even 1093 mm, 1217 mm and 1188 mm. Peter Horn User talk 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1,440 mm or 4 ft 8.69 in or from Brazil From Transport in the Dominican Republic:, Temporary fix: 558 mm or 558 mm. 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)
 * Porthgain Railway, Cwmclydach Colliery
 * 2 ft 10 in vs  Peter Horn User talk 18:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)é
 * Works now. Peter Horn User talk 23:19, 8 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)

1009 mm vs Missing signature. Peter Horn User talk 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Narrow gauge railway
 * Just as I thought I would find no more I find:

Peter Horn User talk 22:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 3 ft vs Peter Horn User talk 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rail tracks, 4 ft vs
 * Kilmarnock and Troon Railway

Standard gauge
 * 1410 mm vs
 * 55.5 in vs or
 * 4 ft vs or
 * 4.63 ft vs or
 * 4 ft vs Peter Horn User talk 12:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or 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 vs, Transport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rail transport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Matadi-Kinshasa Railway Talk:Matadi-Kinshasa Railway 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
 * 254 mm. vs
 * 4+3/4 in vs
 * 2 in vs Peter Horn User talk 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 00:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just spotted that there is a problem with this one as it conflicts with the existing use of 2 being 2 ft. You will need to check on all articles that use 2 ft gauge and change them to one of the other options such as 24. If you can let me know when you have done this I can remove the entry that it never reaches now. Keith D (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with that search procedudure as I have never used it, but I can see the potential for royal foul-ups. Peter Horn User talk 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you post the list on my talk page I'll make the changes the next time I go to the public library. My computer at home is out of commission. Peter Horn User talk 20:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rail transport modelling scales

Peter Horn User talk 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 22:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 45 mm vs
 * 45 mm vs
 * 32 mm vs
 * 14.28 mm vs
 * 16.5 mm vs
 * 0.649 in vs
 * 0.650 in vs
 * 18 mm vs
 * 18.2 mm vs
 * 9 mm vs
 * 12 mm vs
 * 4.5 mm vs
 * 0.177 in vs
 * 4 mm vs
 * 14.2 mm vs
 * 15.76 mm vs
 * 14.125 mm vs
 * 13.5 mm vs
 * 19 mm vs
 * 63 mm vs
 * Rail transport modelling standards


 * 22.5 mm vs  Peter Horn User talk 22:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rail transport modelling standards

Peter Horn User talk 23:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 13 mm vs
 * 16.5 mm vs
 * 20.5 mm vs
 * 24 mm vs
 * 35 mm vs
 * 3 mm vs
 * 4.8 mm vs
 * 6.5 mm vs
 * 0.256 in vs
 * 0.257 in vs
 * 6.53 mm vs


 * Rail transport modelling scale standards

Peter Horn User talk 21:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 9.42 mm vs
 * 18.83 mm vs
 * 33 mm vs Peter Horn User talk 23:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rail transport modelling scale standards

Peter Horn User talk 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 22 mm vs
 * 23 mm vs
 * Rail transport modelling scale standards

Peter Horn User talk 17:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 20:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 16:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 17:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 0.413 in vs
 * 8.97 mm vs
 * 0.353 in vs
 * 0.257 in vs
 * 0.177 in vs
 * 0.256 in vs
 * 0.353 in 0.353 in vs
 * 0.470 in (12.0 mm) 0.470 in 0.470 in vs
 * 0.472 in vs
 * 0.276 in (7.0 mm)	0.276 in vs
 * 0.649 in (16.5 mm)	0.649 in vs
 * 0.750 in (19.05 mm)	0.750 in vs
 * 0.563 in (14.3 mm)	0.563 in vs
 * 0.883 in (22.4 mm)	0.883 in vs
 * 0.500 in (12.7 mm)	0.500 in vs or
 * 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)

Peter Horn User talk 21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 0.750 in (19.05 mm)	0.750 in vs
 * 1.250 in (31.8 mm)	1.250 in vs or  Peter Horn User talk 02:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1.125 in (28.6 mm)	1.125 in vs
 * 1.766 in (44.85 mm)	1.766 in vs
 * #1-track	narrow gauge
 * 2.781 in vs
 * is not quite correct! 70.62 mm Peter Horn User talk 19:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling scale standards Peter Horn User talk 16:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 0.250 in vs

More modelling scales
H0 scale OO gauge Peter Horn User talk 19:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 10.5 mm vs
 * 16.2 mm vs

16 mm scale model trains Peter Horn User talk 20:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 ft vs

1 gauge
 * 1.75 in vs Peter Horn User talk 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

2 gauge
 * 64 mm vs

Garden railway Peter Horn User talk 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 64 mm vs
 * 49 mm vs
 * 48 mm vs
 * 42 mm vs
 * 34 mm vs
 * 30 mm vs
 * 29 mm vs

Wide Gauge Peter Horn User talk 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2.125 in vs

16 mm scale model trains Peter Horn User talk 19:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 ft vs

1 gauge
 * 1.75 in vs

O scale 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)
 * 2 ft vs
 * 750 mm Peter Horn User talk 19:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4 ft vs
 * 1.25 in vs, Peter Horn User talk 15:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed this one - check if OK now Keith D (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1.26 in vs

On2 scale Peter Horn User talk 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 12.7 mm vs
 * 0.5 in vs

S gauge
 * 22.42 mm vs

S gauge Peter Horn User talk 18:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 14.3 mm vs

P4 gauge Peter Horn User talk 19:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 21 mm vs

Rail transport modelling scale standards
 * 19.4 mm vs (?)

HOe scale & OO9 Peter Horn User talk 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 783 mm vs

N scale Peter Horn User talk 15:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 8 mm vs

Modelling 3' gauge railroads
 * 14.3 mm vs
 * 19.05 mm vs

Modelling 3' gauge railroads Peter Horn User talk 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 21 mm vs

Rail transport modelling scale standards
 * 0.250 in vs

Rail transport modelling scale standards
 * 0.865 in vs
 * 1.772 in vs

Rail transport modelling scale standards Peter Horn User talk 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1.177 in 1.177 in vs

Rail transport modelling scale standards
 * 0.473 in 0.473 in vs

Rail transport modelling scale standards Peter Horn User talk 14:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 14 mm vs

O scale
 * 32.96 mm vs

The anomalies are still there!!!
Surely they can be corrected??? Peter Horn 21:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Peter Horn 22:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Iberian gauge, Broad gauge, Rail gauge & Template:Rail gauges
 * is really (5 ft 5$7 9/16$ in
 * is really (5 ft 5$5/6$ in
 * is really (5 ft 5½ in


 * 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

 * 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
It might be desirable and usefull to add the optional parametres disp=/ and/or disp=s e.g.   (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. 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 ), Switzerland ( Brünigbahn) and Sweden (gauges 802 mm, 891 mm, and ). 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
editprotected

This template should use frac instead of the unicode fractions.


 * ½ &rarr; $2/3$, using $1/2$
 * ⅓ &rarr; $1/2$, using $1/3$
 * ⅔ &rarr; $1/3$, using $2/3$
 * ¼ &rarr; $2/3$, using $1/4$
 * ¾ &rarr; $1/4$, using $3/4$
 * ⅛ &rarr; $3/4$, using $1/8$
 * ⅜ &rarr; $1/8$, using $3/8$
 * ⅝ &rarr; $3/8$, using $5/8$
 * ⅞ &rarr; $5/8$, using $7/8$

They are much more readable. It also harmonizes them with non-unicode fractions used (such as $7/8$).Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – 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 {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – 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. &mdash; 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 &rarr; $1/16$ (and similar). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – 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 {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – 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)

(&larr;) Alright, should be good now. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – 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 {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! Amalthea  05:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Vulgar fraction characters?
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)


 * 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 {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Error
editprotected compare to 1 ft Some one please correct this anomaly. Peter Horn User talk 00:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Keith D (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Template broken in Lynx
In the Lynx browser, 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
Adjust
 * see (1,520 mm/4 ft 11 in) or 1520 mm or 1520 mm
 * see or 1945 mm Peter Horn User talk 19:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is not very accurate 76.75 in or 76+3/4 in vs 76.575 in which means a 4 mm discrepancy. This needs tweeking. Peter Horn User talk 00:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 76+3/4 in 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)
 * 1945 mm, or one could make that 1945 mm (6 ft 4$1/2$). Peter Horn User talk 16:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Keith D (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

121.102.122.122 (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * , and  are really.
 * , and  are really.
 * , and  are really.
 * ,, and  are really.
 * , and  are really.
 * and are really.
 * ,, , and  are really.

Vulgar fractions
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 . 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,, 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)

Request for interlink to other type of specific gauge terms
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
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
in Rail transport modelling scale standards:


 * 0.865 in vs (0.03 mm)
 * 2.781 in vs (0.02 mm) Peter Horn User talk 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 vs 0.865 in, 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 Peter Horn User talk 15:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Some ideas are put forth on Template talk:Convert Peter Horn User talk 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Change to vulgar fractions for consistency
& are already vulgar. , and  change the decimal fraction to 2 ft $23/40$ in, 2 ft $6 1/2$ in and 2 ft $6 9/10$ 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 change to 2 ft $7 3/5$ in Peter Horn User talk 15:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Keith D (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks Peter Horn User talk 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Missed out : {{ & {{RailGauge|35.1in}} (2 ft $9 3/4$ in) Peter Horn User talk 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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: {{RailGauge|1009mm}} to 3 ft $11 1/10$ in, {{RailGauge|1100mm}} to 3 ft $3 11/32$ in, {{RailGauge|1188mm}} to 3 ft $7 7/16$ in, {{RailGauge|1217mm}} to 3 ft $10 4/5$ in, and {{RailGauge|1440mm}} to 4 ft $11 9/16$ in as well as their respective imperial first counterparts, if any. There is also {{RailGauge|558mm}} which should be {{convert|558|mm|ftin|3|abbr=on}}, make that 1 ft $8 11/16$ in. I think I spotted them all. Peter Horn User talk 01:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean {{RailGauge|1188mm}} to 3 ft $9 31/32$ in and {{RailGauge|1217mm}} to 3 ft $10 4/5$ in. I have done with my assumptions. Keith D (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct. To reverse check {{convert|1|ft|9+31/32|in|mm|abbr=on}} (can't win), {{convert|1|ft|10|in|mm|abbr=on}} {{convert|1188|mm|ftin|abbr=on}} {{convert|1217|mm|ftin|abbr=on}} 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
For the sake of consistency and uniformity let all rail gauges from, 1 ft and up to be given in feet and inches consistently e.g. 457 mm & 1 ft instead of  &. The use of "convert" is for the sake of illustration only. Peter Horn User talk 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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 below. Peter Horn User talk 16:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just when I thought I had found everything
In Breitspurbahn & Template:Rail gauges
 * 3,000 mm (9 ft 10$11 9/10$ in) or 3000 mm vs . Oh, that exists already. But sorry, 3 m is obviously NOT 10 ft, rather 1+7/8 in short of that!!! Peter Horn User talk 20:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Keith D (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 3000|3000mm|3m=

220.210.143.190 (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 120|120in|120"|10ft|10'|118.11|118.11in|118.11"|9ft10.11in|9'10.11"=


 * 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)
 * , or  =
 * ,, , , , , , , or  =
 * 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"= 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, , , . 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'- $1⁄8$", 9 ft-10 $10 1⁄8$ in, 9 ft - $1⁄8$ in and any possible variation there off. Peter Horn User talk 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

and

 * is really.
 * is really.

121.102.122.122 (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * and are really.
 * and are really.
 * ✅ I have used straight quotes in last example as per the rest. Keith D (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please add
Please add rail gauge specifications. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * , and  are really.
 * , and  are really.
 * , and  are really.
 * ,, and  are really.
 * , and  are really.
 * and are really.
 * ,, , and  are really.

Please correct
Please correct. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * , and  are really.
 * , and  are really.
 * ,, , and  are really.
 * Sorry my fault in inserting last changes. Keith D (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifteen inch gauge
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 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, It did not take all that much time. Peter Horn User talk 02:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As well as and  Peter Horn User talk 03:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * & OK Peter Horn User talk 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

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