Template talk:Track gauge/Archive 4

Module:RailGauge
Hello all. I've just finished writing a Lua version of this template at Module:RailGauge. The gauge data is stored at Module:RailGauge/data and the test cases are at Module talk:RailGauge/testcases. (You need to ignore the big red crosses on the test cases page and check the actual output - it looks like this is a bug in Module:UnitTests rather than actual failed test cases.) I converted the data from the template code using Module:User:Mr. Stradivarius/RGConvert. The Lua version looks to be a lot quicker than the current template. I did a quick and very unscientific speed comparison by testing the all test cases in my sandbox, and MediaWiki processed the Lua version in 0.66 seconds, and the current template in 2.83 seconds. Please have a play around with it, and see if you find any errors. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've just realised why the test cases page is showing the crosses - the template uses  to encode spaces quite a few times, but in the module I've converted these to normal spaces, so there is a difference in the wikitext, but not one that should affect the output in any way. Similarly, I've also changed a few of the named gauge links, from e.g.   to , which makes the wikitext simpler but doesn't change the output. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have beaten me. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How did you solve my thoughts: the "factual definition" (in imperial or metric) vs. "id" vs. what to "mention first" by default? -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * now I see. You use the mm for id. Great idea! ;-) -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But no: no ever one can use "id=1588" twice. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The ids are just the ones that were in the template code already, although they weren't being used for anything. In the module I'm only using them in the checking script to make the gauges easier to find on the data page - the id isn't used at all in the main script. I tried to stick exactly to how the template works, so it should all work in the way that you are used to. Having said that, I could make the ids unique if you want. How about splitting them up into "1588imp" and "1588met", etc.? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Second thought: just leave them as they are. Indeed they are intended as you describe: identification of a gauge, irrespective of its presentation. Is the most stable definition. Presentation (imperial or metric first) is defined independently in a different parameter (and can be overruled by imp). -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to ignore the big red crosses (In the testpage) - sure. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that helpful. -DePiep (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear: just make the move template -> module crisp and clear. All target is testcases only. No personal "won't have any effect" edits please. Prove your thing as a pro. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * See testcase 1000mm with onon: a difference occurs. Old template overrules al, module does not. The input is not consistent or regular, but can occur. -DePiep (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * About maintenance category: if not data then. Is arg[ 1 ] trimmed, when used as catsort argument (%s)? Note that we cannot test this categorisation outside mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not trimmed, as it wasn't trimmed in the existing template. Probably trimming it would make sense though - I'll change it. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I right that the num-and-den error checks in formatImp could be dropped since it is tested in checkData? -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes, that's probably for the best. If the error is triggered then it would cause a script error, which is ugly, but if we drop the error checks then it will just skip the fraction part of the output, which is a neater fallback behaviour. I've changed it already. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Live now. Compliments & congrats. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Code change proposals

 * Split into new section to separate from earliest module talk. Now that it is live, we can make change proposales (as opposed to copy-old-behaviour requirements). -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Auto document functions
 * Thank you! I did a spot check on a few of the live pages, and everything seemed to be working ok. Let me know if you spot any issues. I think the next stage in development should be to add functions to automatically generate the tables in the documentation. In particular, Template:RailGauge/doc, Template:RailGauge/doc and Template:RailGauge/entry check look like they would benefit from automatic generation from the /data subpage. For the entry check table we have all the relevant data in the /data subpage already; for the other one we would need a new "notes" field for each gauge. Do you think we could get away with just having one "notes" field, or do we need separate notes fields for the "all input options" and "named gauges" tables? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't see a knot either.
 * Yes, auto documentation would be great. I thought this just before: create a function say dataOverview that takes the arg[1] input and returns all data (in wikitable columns). Probably the Aliases per gauge will still make a cell-list as is today, not a separate row. Imp and met aliases absolutely most preferably in different columns. The input better be in a loop, not manual ;-). Indeed we'd like very much a separate note field say sources to point to the sources (as I have started recently for the scaled gauges). Another note column should be for free use. I don't think the sources should be in data file, but free addition (there goes the loop?). Other columns: id(mm)-to-inch calculated (Template:RailGauge/entry check could go, unless we want tech info out of sight from /doc readers). If a Named gauge option exists, it could be in a separate column (the wikitable is sortable of course), or the function could filter on this. You know what? Better set up a demo-table here. To be continued. -DePiep (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * These tables below are in development and may change over time, following this talk


 * setup A : one id row per two (met, imp) outputs


 * {|class="wikitable sortable"

! id !! metric aliases !! imperial aliases !! name alias !! dflt1 (first) !! returns !! name link !! mm-to-inch calculated !! source !! rounding & normalisation note !! note
 * + RailGauge documentation: table setup A
 * + RailGauge documentation: table setup A
 * 1435 || 1435 1435mm || 56.5in 4ft8.5in || standard usstandard ... || met imp ||  || standard gauge || 56.496 in || Standard gauge || ||
 * 406 || || 16in 16" 1ft4in 1'4" || || imp || ||  || 15.984 in || || ||
 * 1668 || 1668 1668mm 1.668m || || Iberian || met || || Iberian gauge || 65.669 in || || ||
 * }
 * 1668 || 1668 1668mm 1.668m || || Iberian || met || || Iberian gauge || 65.669 in || || ||
 * }
 * }


 * setup B : one row per (id, dflt1) combination
 * {|class="wikitable sortable"

! id !! dflt1 !! aliases !! name alias !! returns !! name link !! mm-to-inch calculated !! source !! rounding & normalisation note !! note
 * + RailGauge documentation: table setup B
 * + RailGauge documentation: table setup B
 * 1435 || met || 1435 1435mm || standard sg ... ||  || standard gauge || 56.496 in || Standard gauge || ||
 * 1435 || imp || 56.5in 4ft8.5in || usstandard ussg ... || || standard gauge || 56.496 in || Standard gauge || ||
 * 406 || imp || 16in 16" 1ft4in 1'4" || || ||  || 15.984 in || || ||
 * 1668 || met || 1668 1668mm 1.668m || Iberian || || Iberian gauge || 65.669 in || || ||
 * }
 * Up for improvement. -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1668 || met || 1668 1668mm 1.668m || Iberian || || Iberian gauge || 65.669 in || || ||
 * }
 * Up for improvement. -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Up for improvement. -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we somehow need to do something with the primary definition/converting/rounding thing. Made it a column for now.
 * Optionally, to create the "Named" table (~25 rows), that could be a reduced subset of this one (not a completely new one). In other words, if we have created the big one, the small can follow (by eliminating row & cols). -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We could add named input option id too, which might make it easy to add notes unambiguously. -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have created Setup A and Setup B. Setup A merges two variants id (dflt1=met,imp) into one row. Setup B splits a double id (met, imp) over two rows. At the moment I prefer Setup B, because it reflects the "double id" better. Also sort & search works more usefull. -DePiep (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In documentation, aliases without unit (like "1435", "50") should be mentioned last, not first, to discourage usage a bit. Also helps recognising the size (unit is in the first alias of the list). Probably requires reordering in their alias set before automation. -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest column add: "what was the original input for 1"? (basically very good for checking purposes; not for an editor reading the documentation). -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Rail gauge pages can be categorised by size (and by country, separately and independently). See for example: Category:Narrow gauge railways and Category:3ft gauge railways. Such a category may be defined for a range of sizes (see text on the 3ft category page). The category names, especially the heavier used ones, are quite stable (I remember but currently cannot find a closed discussion that lead into general consensus). Suggestion: we add to the template+data: option sizecat=on that adds the correct (range) size category. It should be used only in topic pages (about a line with that gauge, pref in the infobox), not on overview pages like "Narrow gauges ...". -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Option category-by-size
 * Adding: of course automated category adding had backdraws, esp. since an avarage editor cannot 'get' to the addition. OTOH, since the category is defined as a range of gauges, such grouping may be beyond basic editing (one needs to know or find the correct cat name (size, fmt and sp) for the gauge one is entering in an article). That is why this might be an improvement. it could us its own maintenance category for checking (cat for pages that use on)? -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We need a table first on how these categories are defined. I expect that in fringes there are issues (e.g., borders narrow--ridable model--scaled). Alseo there may be a imp-defined vs. met-measure issue (to illustrate: there are cats like "rail gauges in imperil measure"). But hey, once we solved this for our 270 gauges, we can go ahead with this one! -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Parameter on sets the units (ft, in, mm, m) to wikilink. Recently, we (I) have added a check for pages that do so (see maintenance cat, catsort:U). All article pages that showed up (~12?) were edited because it was overlinking (agree there are better ways to check this, e.g. a bot or AWB). Remaining pages are non-mainspace. Background: some 6 months ago I disentangeled the params al, allk and lk in the template. They were confusingly interacting. Remaining is the overload of al and allk, but without conflict. I propose: 1. Rename the parameter to be on for clarity. It is and should be a very low-used option. 2. Old name not supported any more (linking is not a major target for the template). 3. rm from code the maintenance cat for this one lk=on. 4. fwiw: current link Foot (length) is an R to Foot (unit). -DePiep (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename parameter lk
 * ✅ in the sandbox. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If I read code correct, check for error( 'Non-number mm value detected' ) in formatMet can be in checkData. -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Error check elsewhere
 * ✅ in the sandbox. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As it is now, in _main there is a loop to find if alias == searchKey. I wonder, is thare not a slolution that targets the alias straight away, say id = data.alias([searchKey]). It seems simple that a try for data.alias([searchKey]) would give a hit or not. How to get to the id for that alias's single data set I cannot suggest. -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Find the Alias without a loop
 * You could do it if you changed the alias table format to e.g.


 * Then you could find if the alias exists or not with:


 * With the data table in the current format though, you need both  loops. I'm not sure if changing this would have an appreciable effect on performance though. If you're interested in reading about Lua performance, then this seems to be the most widely-read paper on the subject. I did have a look for something comparing performance of   and   to direct table lookup, but I couldn't find anything specific. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and no, I don't want to imply to change the data structure. -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a checkData check to detect unwanted whitespace from the /data subpage values. It detects whitespace surrounding the  and   values, and whitespace anywhere in the other values. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whitespace error checks

I've changed the search key whitespace trimming so that it trims all whitespace, rather than just spaces. For example, this code now works: — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Trim whitespace from search key

It appears that the next rules are only implicit.
 * Implicit rules
 * No feet fraction. Output like "$2 1/2$ ft" cannot be added. Will have to look like.
 * In this example, "30 in" is the commonly used name so its OK. I do not know of examples/hidden requests.


 * Input unit corresponds with dflt1 definition. If input is in imperial, imp will be the dflt1.
 * Intuitive for editor. Cannot remember an exception. Always possible to overrule with met of course. Make it an explicit rule (document)? No code change (or in dataCheck).


 * $0 1/4$ in possible? Though not used any more, we could check for technical possibility. -DePiep (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Split entry into three
 * I have added alias "Victorian" to give a third option (next to 1600mm/Irish and 5ft3in). The difference is in the wikilink: Victorian &rarr;.
 * This is not a code change, but it is a new use of the existing data scheme (a third definition). See also below, current gauge additions, about this. -DePiep (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ See new input options below. -DePiep (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there situations where accepted metric input does not match id? What would that mean? -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * id = metric input always?
 * ❌ not a code issue. -DePiep (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to have the option to have the id returned when entering a gauge. Also, secundary, the input's first could be usefull, and adding the name id ("Victorian") would make the identification complete. (input id = {mm, first, name}) -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Return the full id
 * -DePiep (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I entered twice a unit name: ["id"]=10, ["id"]=11 (in the same id). Wrong by fact, worth checking? -DePiep (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Double unit, check?

Ugly fractions
As the greatest usage of this template is as ussg, is there some reason it has to display the fractional half as a superscript 1 / subscript 2 rather than just ½? It looks ugly on the page and forces non-standard line spacing before and after.Afterbrunel (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You ask about writing ½ versus $1/2$ (if I understand you well). This way of writing is described in MOS:FRAC. It concludes we better not use the single-character sign you suggest. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 October 2013

 *  Request: Please copy all code from module:RailGauge/data/sandbox into module:RailGauge/data (diff)
 * Changes are descibed in.
 * Testcases for all changes are in RailGauge/testcases.

DePiep (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Documentation todo. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A subtle difference
For Track gauge make,  read like 7 ft or  7 ft, and thus distinguish it from  ,   Peter Horn User talk 01:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both are called "Brunel gauge". As I understand its history, it was originally defined 7ft by Brunel. Later on, but not much later on, that same gauge definition was stretched to 7ft $0 1/4$ in. Still it's name was used being "7ft" (nominally then), e.g. in Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act 1846. Today sources and we use "7ft $0 1/4$ in" and "7ft" interchangeable both to mean that same gauge (the true measure being "7ft $0 1/4$").
 * If we want to point to the exact "7ft" gauge, e.g. when describing the earliest Brunel tracks, we should give it a different name in the template, for example "original 7ft" or "exact 7ft". So that produces gauge 7 ft (new), and 7ft produces the gauge  unchanged.
 * Since "7ft" is used to identify the Brunel gauge, correctly as I wrote, we do not have the freedom to switch its meaning or measure.
 * Concluding, we could add "original 7ft" (or "exact 7ft") to produce that gauge measure. It can be used whereever needed, always being specific (not unknowingly). -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I propose keep current Brunel options and add that exact one (sandbox examples):
 * keep
 * 7ft &rarr;
 * 7ft 0.25in &rarr;
 * add
 * 7ft exact &rarr;
 * exact 7ft &rarr;
 * 7ft 0in &rarr;
 * This one has no named link and the "0 in" is added to be clear.
 * -DePiep (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again: September 2013

 * Links with "/sbox&rarr;" are pointing to current RailGauge/sandbox version
 * Sandbox data is in Module:RailGauge/data/sandbox -DePiep (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Demo & tests are in RailGauge/testcases -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 8200mm /sbox&rarr;
 * 8200mm &rarr; $322 26/32$ in or $322 27/32$ in -- since we do all larger sizes by $1/32$ in units.
 * By convert, it would be: 8.2 m
 * 26ft 11in would yield 8204 mm. Would that fit? We write 8.2m (not 8200mm)? Help. -DePiep (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Go with the nearest $1/32$ or use another suitable fraction, see Iberian gauge and Russian gauge below. Peter Horn User talk 15:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See Funicular instead of 8.2 m Peter Horn User talk 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 8ft /sbox&rarr;
 * By convert: 8 ft
 * 8ft &rarr; 2438.4 mm
 * 2438 mm &rarr; 95.98 ~ 12ft.?? You meant ~8 ft??? Peter Horn User talk 15:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By conversion logic (including sigfig) we stick to 2400mm. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Johnstown Inclined Plane, Peter Horn User talk 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1850mm /sbox&rarr;
 * 1850mm = 1850 mm
 * By convert: 1850 mm
 * Falls Incline Railway, Peter Horn User talk 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 68in /sbox&rarr;
 * 68in = 68 in -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait. 68in=1727.2mm. Why the rounding? Why not: "68in=1730mm" (rounds OK when from mm to in). In general: a mm is (Order)10x more precise than an inch. Solved. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't round to 1730 mm but 68 in
 * As found by Peter Horn:
 * In the mean time I need  for Fisherman's Walk Cliff Railway. Peter Horn User talk 20:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As well as for Babbacombe Cliff Railway Peter Horn User talk 01:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I need for Babbacombe Cliff Railway as well Peter Horn User talk 01:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1300mm /sbox&rarr;
 * 1300mm = 1300 mm (by convert)
 * $51 6/32$ in makes 1300.1625 mm. So $51 3/16$ in is our fact. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As found by Peter Horn:
 * And for Funiculars of Lyon and Funiculars of Lyon 1300 mm ---> Peter Horn User talk 16:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 985mm /sbox&rarr;
 * 985mm = 985 mm (by convert)
 * 985mm &rarr; $38 25/32$ in. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Zugerbergbahn funicular


 * 1638mm /sbox&rarr;
 * 1638 mm = 1638 mm (by convert)
 * 64.5 in = 64.5 in (by convert)
 * Rounding to 64.5 in is precise enough, since we can round the 0.3 mm consistently (sigfig). Also, the source says 64.5 in.
 * So added: 1638mm &rarr; 5 ft $4 1/2$ in. -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For Tram track gauge and Baltimore Streetcar System instead of 1638 mm or 5 ft

General topics
I reorganised gauges: 8200mm, 8ft, 1850mm, 68in sourced by Peter Horn. -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC), adding 86in: -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all larger sizes are increased by $1/32$ inch units, e.g. and, any suitable fraction will do. Peter Horn User talk 13:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1850mm = 1850 mm, 0.2 in is more than $1/32$ or 0.003125 inch. And 8 ft, 1.6 mm which is about $1/16$ or 0.0625 inch. Peter Horn User talk 15:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Fractions of inches are traditionally $1/2$, $1/4$, $1/8$, $1/16$ etc. The examples you mention, $1/10$ or $1/3$ and such others, are to be replaced. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ... I propose here (clarity). -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Scales (rulers) calibrated in $1/6$ and $1/12$ of an inch do exist, rare though they may be. I have a North American triangular engineer's scale that is calibrated in $1/10$, $1/50$, $1/20$, $1/40$, $1/30$ and $1/60$ (in pairs per side) of an inch. The unusual fractions may just be a tad more accurate or realistic. Best to leave well enough alone. In the mean time I need  for Fisherman's Walk Cliff Railway. Peter Horn User talk 20:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "68inch" now deserves its own entry (in sandbox too). I noted it is a PH finding. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As you write, Peter Horn, about these $1/10$ inches: "rare". So why would we use them here? I propose we turn them into $1/32$ according to their mm correspondence. One exception: if there is a source that defines a gauge in these rare fractures -- I am the first one to go with it. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter Horn, please understand. First, I have put your new (well sourced) gauges in our /sandbox. That gives us a test check. Within days or weeks, we will put them into live. Some five new ones in a bunch. OK? -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I will periodically watch this discussion. Peter Horn User talk 01:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Into $1/32$ units
List of entries, over 2in, that are not by $1/32$ units:
 * 785 mm live:
 * /sbox:
 * 785 mm convert: 785 mm
 * reverse calc: 30+29/32 in


 * 802 mm live:
 * /sbox:
 * mm convert: 802 mm
 * reverse calc: 31+9/16 in


 * 891 mm live:
 * /sbox:
 * mm convert: 891 mm
 * reverse calc: 35+3/32 in


 * 1050 mm live:
 * /sbox:
 * mm convert: 1050 mm
 * reverse calc: 41+11/32 in


 * 1188 mm live:
 * /sbox:
 * mm convert: 1188 mm
 * reverse calc: 46+25/32 in


 * 1217 mm live:
 * /sbox:
 * mm convert: 1217 mm
 * reverse calc: 47+29/32 in


 * 1520 mm live:
 * /sbox:
 * mm convert: 1520 mm
 * reverse calc: 59+27/32 in


 * 1668 mm live:
 * /sbox:
 * mm convert: 1668 mm
 * reverse calc: 65+21/32 in


 * 1672 mm live:
 * /sbox:
 * mm convert: 1672 mm
 * reverse calc: 65+13/16 in

Over 2in, still using decimal

 * 63 mm live:
 * /sbox &rarr;
 * reverse calc: 2+15/32 in


 * 64 mm live:
 * /sbox &rarr;
 * reverse calc: 2+17/32 in


 * 2.781in live:
 * /sbox &rarr;


 * I seriously propose to drop this one. Let's see where it is used. Removed from sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Affected pages will show up in the maintenance category, for review. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

7ft 0in exact
See below, here for overview:
 * keep
 * 7ft &rarr;
 * 7ft 0.25in &rarr;
 * add
 * 7ft exact &rarr;
 * exact 7ft &rarr;
 * 7ft 0in &rarr;
 * This one has no named link and the "0 in" is added to be clear.
 * (copy added here) -DePiep (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Conclude
Concluding, we can say & propose:
 * 1) Nine new rail gauges are proposed, as we do regularly here.
 * 2) 7ft 0in exact gauge is possible. It differs from nominal 7ft (with or without +$1/4$ inch) Brunel.
 * 3) All gauges over 2 inch are represented in $1/32$ inch. Three were written in decimals, nine were in fractions like $1/6$ (including Russian and Iberian gauge I must note).
 * See Template:RailGauge/testcases.
 * All proposals are in /sandbox and /testcases page (see thread top). If we agree, I'll write an edit request here. -DePiep (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , do you still want us to leave alone the measurements that are not $1/32$, as you stated above? If so, pls explain. Example: . -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Gauge proposals, October 2013

 * Sandbox data is in Module:RailGauge/data/sandbox
 * Demo & tests are in RG/testcases
 * See also Category:Pages with incorrect use of RailGauge template‎


 * $15 1/4$ in
 * Track gauge (writes 387mm), Yunnan-Burma
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * 15.25in = 15.25 in
 * Input
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ in /sandbox, see RG/testcases -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * $39 3/10$ in
 * Is mentioned; . Ever constructed?
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * 39.3in = 39.3 in
 * Input
 * Could this be a conversion from 1000mm?
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks like a small conversion error by the source (the paper). Esp since it was not build there, we can assume it is not an existing gauge. -DePiep (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks like a small conversion error by the source (the paper). Esp since it was not build there, we can assume it is not an existing gauge. -DePiep (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 2.781 in, 70.64 mm, 70.69 mm
 * in List of rail transport modelling scale standards (scale: F or 15 mm)
 * Source: proto scale "proto:20.3" says 2.781 in or 70.64 mm (2004). By NMRA
 * Elsewhere NMRA says: fine scale "F" equals 1:20.3 NMRA 2010: 70.69mm (given in metric; would be 70.69 mm.
 * Note that the same source gives two different definitions in metric.
 * Input options should be metric and imperial, as the source defines them both too.
 * We could/should fold the two mm-sizes input into one output.
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * Usually, sizes over 2 inch we turn into $1/32$ inch fractions or larger ($1/16$ etc.). But since this one is sourced in decimal inches, we maintain the decimals.
 * To be reintroduced, was deleted recently (my suggestion, could not find source then). -DePiep (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Elaborated -DePiep (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ in /sandbox with four input options, see RG/testcases -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

For List of track gauges    and others to come. Peter Horn User talk 18:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Or   . OK, this will do. Peter Horn User talk 18:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * not yet supported. Peter Horn User talk 18:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All these are used? Please note pages here. Or better, write in the page like so it will show the right value and the page is listed in our maintenance category. -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, here is the list;

Peter Horn User talk 17:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 00:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Carmelit,, not yet supported. The article itself gives !
 * Hollandsche IJzeren Spoorweg-Maatschappij,, supported
 * Ligne de Sceaux, but appears as  (1.75 m instead of 1700 mm) and thus needs correction.
 * Proto Iberian gauge (Spain), supported
 * More to be added later


 * 1700mm
 * 1700 mm
 * $66 15/16$ in or 5 ft $6 15/16$ in
 * in Ligne de Sceaux (to be?)
 * ❌: misreading: 1700mm is not the gauge for Ligne de Sceaux; french Ligne de Sceaux says 1750mm without source. Anyway, 1700mm not used, not needed.
 * Removed from /sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌: misreading: 1700mm is not the gauge for Ligne de Sceaux; french Ligne de Sceaux says 1750mm without source. Anyway, 1700mm not used, not needed.
 * Removed from /sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1980mm
 * 1980 mm
 * $77 15/16$ in or 6 ft $5 15/16$ in
 * in Carmelit (Haifa) (to be added there?)
 * Doesn't look like a 2m gauge. Not even standard. Where does the 1980mm figure come from? -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * needs source or will not be included in template. (currently in RG/testcases) -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1945mm
 * Already available. What is the question?
 * I understand that the article text should be changed, to include this correct gauge.
 * ✅, already in the template. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1750mm
 * Already available. What is the question?
 * I understand that the article text should be changed, to include this correct gauge.
 * ✅, already in the template. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1672mm
 * Already available. What is the question?
 * I understand that the article text should be changed, to include this correct gauge.
 * ✅, already in the template. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I get it. -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Already available. What is the question?
 * I understand that the article text should be changed, to include this correct gauge.
 * ✅, already in the template. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I get it. -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I get it. -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

For Santos tramways, and the articles linked to it, Santos The Tramways of Santos  Retrieved on 26 June 2008. Peter Horn User talk 03:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Make that Peter Horn User talk 03:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Linked to it are:

Peter Horn User talk 18:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC) .
 * List of track gauges
 * Rail transport in Brazil
 * Tram track gauge
 * None of these pages have "1350" in them. Why not enter the value today (with or without conversion)? We must have a source. -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. I found that says 1350mm indeed in Santos_tramways. (Interestingly, the source converts it to "45 $1/3$ inch", though it is 4 ft 5 in ...) So here we go.
 * It is also found in [Santos The Tramways of Santos Retrieved on 26 June 2008, the link that I gave before (See above). Just scroll DOWN. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] User talk 02:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I could not find it (not using search "1350", not by rereading it today), sorry. It helped me finding the excellent site of Allen Morrison, though. -DePiep (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1350mm
 * 1350 mm
 * so $53 5/32$ in or 4 ft $5 5/32$ in
 * in Santos_tramways
 * in Santos_tramways
 * in Santos_tramways

-DePiep (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Still needed instead of,  Peter Horn User talk 01:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ in /sandbox with input option 1350mm, see RG/testcases -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * re Peter Horn: ready for deployment, just waiting for two gauges (1009mm, 1800mm) to be sourced. If these sources do not appear, we'll go ahead without these two. -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter Horn@undefined. General notes. Better always use the construct like (good) for gauges. That way the page is listed in the category, and so can be found, checked and corrected when the new gauge is in. The same for conversions like  (good) and questions  (good): these are listed in the tracking category and so can be addressed later.
 * Also, in the future please describe a request here more specific, in a regular sentence, and answer follow up questions. Just throwing in some words leaves it to others to investigate elaborately what you already know. Same for responding to questions like "what do you mean" or "where did you see this". I will not go into researching such sloppy talks any more, while you are sitting on the answers. -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The article metre gauge mentions a temporary gauge of 1,013 mm ($3 7/8$) in for the Sofia Tramway Peter Horn User talk 01:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So it was temporally in history, but it was defined and maintained so we should add it permanently to the template. I suggest (we have lots of gauges that are obsolete). It could be mentioned in the Sofia Tramway article too. Will work on this, now busy IRL. -DePiep (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1013mm
 * 1013 mm
 * so $39 7/8$ in or 3 ft $3 7/8$ in (check: 39+7/8 in
 * Should be named "metre gauge" nominally for its history.
 * in metre gauge when about Sofia Tramway -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This one still needs a source. -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * needs source, or will not be included (is present in RG/testcases). -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This one still needs a source. -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * needs source, or will not be included (is present in RG/testcases). -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1009mm
 * Should be named "metre gauge" nominally, given its history.
 * In: Sofia Tramway (see also 1013mm) -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Something strange: source says that the rolling stock ordered was 1009mm, and the gauge was 1000. This story needs more description. -DePiep (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ added name "metre gauge" to existing 1009mm option; outgoing only. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Something strange: source says that the rolling stock ordered was 1009mm, and the gauge was 1000. This story needs more description. -DePiep (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ added name "metre gauge" to existing 1009mm option; outgoing only. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

✅ -DePiep (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Gauge proposals, November 2013

 * Sandbox data is in Module:RailGauge/data/sandbox
 * Demo & tests are in RG/testcases
 * See also Category:Pages with incorrect use of RailGauge template


 * Not sourced yet (see ):
 * 1013mm
 * 1980mm
 * -DePiep (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 7mm
 * 7 mm
 * In HOe scale: HOn2 -- 1:87 -- 7 mm (0.276 in) -- 2 ft (610 mm)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In HOe scale: HOn2 -- 1:87 -- 7 mm (0.276 in) -- 2 ft (610 mm)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 30in, 2.5ft See below, about "imperial gauge" and "2 ft 6 in gauge"
 * Add option "2.5ft"
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 14 in, 14" to add
 * Chicago Tunnel Company (sourced, book)
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * 14 in --convert
 * 356 mm -- return calc
 * Rounding mm's to 3 figures is OK then. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 22.2 mm
 * On30 Source:
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * 22.2 mm --convert
 * 0.874 in -- return calc
 * Source = "BEMO" -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

2 ft 6 in

 * 2ft 6in, from imperial gauge name change (page move)
 * Page imperial gauge has been moved to Two foot six inch gauge railways recently by . To me, it looks like an improvement, and a stable one (no more move expected). Now this template should adapt the changes.
 * Current (old) RailGauge:


 * old {RailGauge|imperial|allk=on}} &rarr;
 * old {RailGauge|imperial}} &rarr; -- no link asked, so ok
 * old {RailGauge|2ft6in|allk=on}} &rarr;
 * old {RailGauge|2'6"|allk=on}} &rarr;
 * old {RailGauge|30in|allk=on}} &rarr;
 * old {RailGauge|two feet six inch|allk=on}} &rarr; -- not recognised in old
 * old {RailGauge|762mm|allk=on}} &rarr; -- does not link by design
 * New RailGauge/sandbox (testcases) :


 * new {RailGauge/sandbox|imperial|allk=on}} &rarr;
 * new {RailGauge/sandbox|imperial}} &rarr;
 * new {RailGauge/sandbox|2ft6in|allk=on}} &rarr;
 * new {RailGauge/sandbox|2'6"|allk=on}} &rarr;
 * new {RailGauge/sandbox|30in|allk=on}} &rarr;
 * new {RailGauge/sandbox|two feet six inch|allk=on}} &rarr;
 * new {RailGauge/sandbox|762mm|allk=on}} &rarr; -- link this one? (change designed behaviour)
 * new {RailGauge/sandbox|30in|allk=on}} &rarr;
 * new {RailGauge/sandbox|2.5ft|allk=on}} &rarr; -- new input option for this
 * new label text: "2 ft 6 in (762 mm) 2 ft 6 in railway" -- what label text for the link?
 * new, different format: "2 ft 6 in (762 mm)" -- do we expect it to be like this, when set on?
 * new {RailGauge/sandbox|Two foot six inch gauge railways|allk=on}} &rarr; -- eponymous should be available
 * Ideas? -DePiep (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Bosnian gauge

What should be the output for bosnian and 760mm input? There seems to be a connection with, but there is also a ~2 mm (~$1/32$ in) difference. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the difference is only 2mm, each gauge has a specific own history. See Narrow gauge railway--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So we keep treating them as totally different gauges, and no changes in the Bosnian one. Is there, from the age of more tolerance, an overlap & mixing of these two gauges? (I got the impression from wp here, but did not research that). If that's not common, I guess your link should describe that enough. Glad to learn that "imperial" refers to England, not the Hungarian-Austrain one. -DePiep (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * and stock was interchanged between the networks of metric South-West Africa and imperial South Africa. This doesn't seem the case with  and . --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Any comments about the new 2 ft 6 in formattings above? What to make? -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the distinction between imperial gauge and Bosnian gauge, but perhaps imperial gauge could be renamed "British imperial gauge". Peter Horn User talk 21:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from. Full title is too long to use inline. -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Only keep the following as output: . Looks sufficient to me. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even when on? I mean, it is a "named link" now: . But OK, can do it. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. on now shows no name and no link. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again Nov 2013
For Chicago Tunnel Company  instead of 14 in 14 in Peter Horn User talk 01:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Changed the Chicago page. -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Gauge proposals, January–March 2014

 * Sandbox data is in Module:RailGauge/data/sandbox
 * Demo & tests are in RG/testcases
 * See also Category:Pages with incorrect use of RailGauge template

Added: multiple suggestions, as entered in documentation page:. These additions have been turned into requests here. All were added Jan/Feb by IPs. See below for process issues. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Add 3.2 mm request
 * Used on page(s): ?
 * Source, usage: noted "s.g. by 1:450; 1520mm gauge by 1:480; 1600mm gauge by 1:500"
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * 3.2 mm -- convert
 * 0.126 in -- return calc
 * -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Add 9.6 mm request
 * Used on page(s): ?
 * Source, usage: "s.g. by 1:150; 1520mm gauge by 1:160"
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * 9.6 mm -- convert
 * 0.378 in -- return calc
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Add 15mm, 0.591in, 0.591" request
 * Used on page(s): ?
 * Source, usage: ?
 * From mm:
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * 15 mm -- convert
 * 0.591 in -- return calc
 * From inches:
 * -- live
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * -- sandbox
 * 0.591 in -- convert
 * 15 mm -- return calc
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Add 20 mm request
 * Usage: ?
 * Source: ?
 * Demos: todo
 * DePiep -11:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Add 24.7 mm request
 * Used on page(s): ?
 * Source, usage: "2140mm gauge by 1:87"
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * 24.7 mm -- convert
 * 972 in -- return calc
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Add 25.4 mm request
 * Used on page(s): ?
 * Source, usage: "3000mm gauge by 1:120"
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * 25.4 mm -- convert
 * 1 in -- return calc
 * 1 in -- return calc sigfig=3
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Add 26.4 mm request
 * Used on page(s): ?
 * Source, usage: "1676mm gauge by 1:64"
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * 26.4 mm -- convert
 * 1.04 in -- return calc
 * 1.039 in -- return calc
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Change 2.781 in/70.69 mm to show imperial measure first?
 * 2.781 in &rarr; -- live
 * 70.69 mm &rarr; -- live
 * 2.781 in &rarr; -- sandbox
 * 70.69 mm &rarr; -- sandbox
 * is error, will be done
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Add 1: Russian=60in, 60", 5', 5ft . Add 60in options for this gauge existing for metric input.
 * Used on page(s): ?
 * Source, usage: ?
 * on
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * 60 in -- convert
 * 1524 mm -- return calc
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Change Russian 2: inches are primary request 2: change 'Russian' from metric into inches as the primary definition.
 * Used on page(s): ?
 * Source, usage: ?
 * on
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * Removed the "metRussian" addition, since it does not exist and is misguiding.
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Add Russian, 3: 5ft exact, 60in add thisas being the "original Russian gauge"
 * Used on page(s): ?
 * Source, usage: ?
 * on
 * From inches
 * -- live
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * -- sandbox
 * 5 ft -- convert
 * 1524 mm -- return calc
 * Input 60 in can result in only one defined gauge measure output (in a mm/in pair), not two (mm/in pairs). Similar to original exact Brunel gauge, the historical one best be named like 5 ft exact. That is, when sourced.
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Add 1.676m (meter) option for existing 1676mm option.
 * Source: ?
 * Used: ?
 * (no changes) -- live
 * -- live
 * -- sandbox
 * Meter input only when commonly used. Otherwise it would add confusion as to which meter input is available.
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Add 118.11in, 118.11", 9ft10.11, 9'10.11" (imperial measure for Breitspur)
 * Usage: Did the Nazis really define this in imperial inches?
 * Source: ?
 * DePiep -11:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Add 84.0in for 7 ft exact = brunel. Source: ?
 * Add Nazi. Source: ?
 * Add Stephenson. Source: ?
 * Add metBrunel ❌ - Even if option met/imp were added, not by this input
 * No sources for actual usage. 84.0in was never written this way in Brunels time. No need to introduce an arbitrary circumscribing option next to the clear obvious one. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs source. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Imperial gauge remove completely
 * See Talk:Two foot six inch gauge railways (formerly page Imperial gauge). That name is not found in sources
 * Todo: remove from RailGauge list, catch usages in articles in maintenance cat. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Notes about the process of these proposals
Changes by IPs 180.199.41.157@undefined, 180.199.36.78@undefined, 180.199.48.148@undefined, 180.199.41.6@undefined, 180.199.32.49@undefined.

All requests were added by IPs in the documentation page, as edits. Of course, a change to the documentation does not change the template. This time I have turned the edits into full requests here, including conversion calculations etc. Next time, a change proposal must be written on this talkpage first (document changes this way will be reversed, beacause doc is for existing code, not requested code). Also, the unsourced notes and examples that were added must be sourced, or they will be deleted. They are tagged for this. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

al=on or allk=on - request for partial nowrap output
When the al or allk parameter is on, and especially when the RailGauge template is being used in an infobox, the "[name] gauge" output sometimes wraps (or breaks) in the middle (ie between "[name]" and "gauge"). See, eg, the infobox in Trams in Mainz, in which there is a wrap (or break) between "metre" and "gauge". A wrap (or break) at that point makes the overall output look much less attractive than a wrap (or break) between the figure and the "[name] gauge" portion would do. Could an administrator or template editor please therefore place the Template:Nowrap around the "[name] gauge" outputs that emerge when the al or allk parameter is on? Thanks in anticipation, Bahnfrend (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'll work on this . -DePiep (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These days not much time to do so. If someone else likes to pick it up: fine. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

demo: -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC) ✅. See. . -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Including article links with RailGauge templates
I have been editing several articles over the past three months related to narrow gauge railways (mostly gauge,  gauge, and  gauge) and making links for the rail gauges themselves to their relevant articles listing multiple railways using the same gauge. Below are examples of the links I have been adding on each individual page one-by-one: Three foot gauge railways Two foot six inch gauge railways Two foot and 600 mm gauge railways Someone on my talk page suggested that this work could be decreased if links to these article links appeared automatically simply by only typing the rail gauge template itself. Is this possible to do? If so, could this be done for some of the more common rail guages, such as the ones in the track gauge sidebar? Also, if this can be done, perhaps the less common gauges could simply be directed to the List of track gauges article by default, and the very small ridable gauges (say, 500 mm and below, for example) could be directed to the Ridable miniature railway article by default?  Jackdude 101  ( Talk ) 18:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Only track gauge templates having a corresponding page should be linked, in my opinion.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's reasonable.  Jackdude 101  ( Talk )  18:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, very nice. A month ago Aaron-Tripel's edits also lead to this idea (see above). At the moment it can produce link this way (in named gauges):
 * {RailGauge|1435|allk=on}} &rarr;
 * (allk from "alternative name to link").
 * Your suggestion is OK, and for those article pages only. Just keep the list up to complete I'd say, right here.
 * Unfortunately, I am buzy in RL next weeks. If someone else comes along to do it: fine. Else I'll be back in March. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Links to be made this way: Why not link all gauges this way, inclusing the named gauge:
 * Three foot gauge railways for
 * Two foot six inch gauge railways for
 * Two foot and 600 mm gauge railways for and
 * standard gauge (standard gauge)
 * -- instead of current

-DePiep (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Metre gauge needs to be a link, rather than 1,000 mm. This could be an option or a default though. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take a look below, and add this idea. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I copied this remark to the section below. -DePiep (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

✅. See. . -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great work! I noticed something unusual happening at about the same time that you completed this.  Check the opening statement for the Bosnian gauge article.  The links for the Two foot six inch gauge railways article and the 750 mm gauge railways article with the embedded RailGauge templates no longer function as links and are displayed in the article the same way as they would appear on the edit screen (brackets are visible).  This is also the case on all the other pages with these same links.  So far, only links to these two pages seem to be effected.    Jackdude 101  ( Talk )  21:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops! Yes, a bad effect of my changes. What happened? First some good news. I have added a new tracking category for all Bosnian/750mm/762mm gauges: they are listed in Category:Articles with template RailGauge that may need attention. So from there you all can check each and every article that mentions these gauges (through {RailGauge}). Also all those Cape/3ft6in/1067mm pages are listed, under 'Y'. So we can do a full check.


 * But then: that category text comes with the template onto the page. When it is in your wikilink label (as it is used there, to get that link), the Category-codetext disrupts the text before being put at the bottom of the page. e.g.

Code in article: ... 750 mm gauge railways ... Produces bad text now. Corrected: ... ... OK?
 * Solution

This happens only in these kind of wikilinks. And in articles only, not categories or so. If this is a big problem, l'll have to switch that listing category off... -DePiep (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent proposals
More requests:


 * Examples:
 * Metric input:
 * Imperial input:

180.199.48.216 (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any request. You expect others to search for your edits? Just name the proposed gauge to add, provide a source and a article link. For each. If you are the same editor active earlier here, there are some questions to be answered above in . -DePiep (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

New feature: link the gauge size itself

 * In RailGauge/sandbox there is a new feature in development: link the railgauge size to an article.
 * &rarr;.

These are the rules:
 * 1. Switch on by on (when that gauge has a link defined)
 * 2. Only the definition measure (imperial or metric) will be linked.
 * 3. Forget about on and those named gauge links. ❌
 * 4. To be sure: do forget about those named links right now. ❌
 * 5. We will not accept badly defined links (such as "Cape gauge" for generic 3ft 6in).


 * Questions
 * Which gauges should have such an option?
 * To which page should it link?

This table lists some candidates. Any suggestions? -DePiep (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This table will evolve. You can add & edit suggestions! Please discuss below.

After sugestions by, , section above. More sandbox effects are shown in RailGauge/doc/sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Metre gauge needs to be a link, rather than 1,000 mm. This could be an option or a default though. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC) (originally posted above by   -DePiep (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As with all gauges, we use {RailGauge} to show a formatted size+conversion size first. That is where the is from. A link the the gauge name can be added like this: on:.
 * Proposed is, to link the measure to an article: . So that option is arriving soon. I do not support writing the name (+link) in place of the size. -DePiep (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ for the clear ones. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Code and data change 07 March 2014

 * Remove visible space in fraction. Follow frac.


 * Forbid wrapping halfway in named gauge like 'Standard&lt;br>gauge'
 * See above


 * Removed input option 'Imperial'
 * -- name does not exist any more in WP. See 2ft6in.


 * Removed input option '89'. Usage will show in maintenance category
 * -- use 89mm or 3.5in.


 * Gauges 2.781in and 70.69mm: swap first mentioning (when in then in etc.).


 * Add option on to link the defined gauge to an article
 * -- not done
 * See
 * -- not done
 * See
 * -- not done
 * See
 * -- not done
 * See
 * -- not done
 * See
 * -- not done
 * See
 * -- not done
 * See
 * See
 * See


 * Added maintenance categories:
 * Category:Articles with template RailGauge with unrecognized input -- Input errors
 * Category:Articles with template RailGauge that may need attention -- Lists tracked RailGauges


 * Category deprecated, to be deleted:
 * Category:Pages with incorrect use of RailGauge template‎ --- bad name
 * in preparation. -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

. A bad effect occured after this change in some situations. What happened? First some good news. I have added the new tracking category for all Bosnian/750mm/762mm gauges: they are listed in Category:Articles with template RailGauge that may need attention. So from there you all can check each and every article that mentions these gauges (through {RailGauge}). Also all those Cape/3ft6in/1067mm pages are listed, under 'Y'. So we can do a full check.
 * Side effects

But then: When the {RailGAuge} template adds that category, it is first in the wikilink label (where the template sits). The Category-codetext disrupts the wikitext before being put at the bottom of the page. Code in article: ... 750 mm gauge railways ... Produces bad text now. To correct: ... ... OK? This happens only in these kind of wikilinks, and only in tracked articles (tracked gauges like 762mm; see category). If this is a big problem, I can switch that listing category off (remove it from the template). -DePiep (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Solution
 * I have gone back and manually corrected the screwy RailGauge links in all of the articles linked to the primary Two foot six inch gauge railways article, as well as all of the other articles that I can recall where I also posted those links prior to this coding change. I also skimmed through some of the articles linked to the 750 mm gauge railways article and corrected the few bad links that I found.  I never did a top-to-bottom RailGauge linking process for 750 mm gauge railways or for any of the other non-imperial-measurement-based track gauge articles, so I am assuming that the errors for the  gauge and  gauge are now more-or-less eradicated.   Jackdude 101  ( Talk )  6:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm sorry for the inconvenience (I saw 2500 pages are listed as potential problems ...). To be improved in next code change. -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Been sifting through the 2500 potential problem pages, no shocking errors.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Even better. I had to make these two bad edits though:, . Plan to reverse them when it's safe again. -DePiep (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored the better texts, now that {RailGauge} can handle being in a wikilabel. (Using no). -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Gauge links, March 2014

 * Category:Track_gauges_by_metric_unit
 * Category:Track_gauges_by_imperial_unit

-DePiep (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Gauge proposals, March 2014

 * 89mm: existing gauge?
 * See 89mm from Europe - a film title. Difference between gauges (gauge break).
 * Does not seem to be a (model) gauge at all. Delete.
 * --live
 * --/sandbox
 * --live 3.5in
 * --/sandbox


 * -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * removed, see sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 78in, 6ft6in, 1981mm - to research
 * Mentioned in Scarborough_funiculars. Check Category:6 ft 6 in gauge railways
 * --live
 * --/sandbox
 * 6 ft -- check
 * 1981 mm -- check
 * -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 90in, 7ft6in
 * To check Category:7 ft 6 in gauge railways
 * See Scarborough_funiculars
 * --live
 * --/sandbox
 * 90 in --check
 * Needs source(s) -- see article ✅
 * -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 108in, 9ft
 * To check Category:9 ft gauge railways
 * See Knoxville Incline. Has sources.
 * --live
 * --/sandbox
 * 9 ft --check
 * -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 68 in add option 5ft8in. fmt "ft in" not "68in"
 * Category:5 ft 8 in gauge railways
 * --live 68in
 * --live
 * --/sandbox
 * Will not add " and ' input options - not standard wiki anyway (not convert, not plain text)
 * -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 5ft 3.5in 1613 mm
 * See Category:5 ft 3½ in gauge railways
 * --live ftin
 * --ftin sbox
 * --sbox mm: not covered.
 * 5 ft check
 * -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1040 mm
 * Festungsbahn (Salzburg)
 * --live
 * --sbox
 * 1040 mm --check
 * +40+30/32 in --check 15/16 that is ❌
 * -DePiep (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * or 3ft 5in, or 3ft4.75in ?
 * --live
 * --sandbox 3ft5in
 * 3 ft --check
 * --live. ❌
 * -DePiep (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1040 mm as 3 ft 5 in. More precise in ft in is not sourced (3ft5in is 1.4 mm off = < 1%).
 * In sandbox, both imp and metric. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 783 mm by imp frac, not .83 in
 * --live
 * --sbox
 * 783 mm --check
 * +30+27/32 in --check
 * +30+26/32 in --check so 13/16 it is
 * -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 5ft4.5inBaltimore must be imperial only defined, not met
 * --live
 * --sbox
 * --live
 * --sbox
 * --live
 * --sbox lk=on
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * sg names following standard gauge more or less: accept  As always, A=a.
 * --live
 * --live
 * --live
 * --live
 * --live
 * --sandbox EUsg
 * --sandbox UICsg
 * --sandbox metsg
 * --sandbox UKsg
 * --sandbox impsg
 * -DePiep (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Added to sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 915mm equals 914mm. 915mm is defined by the Chemnitz, early on. Shold mean 3ft.
 * See Trams in Chemnitz, and its German page+talkpage de:Straßenbahn_Chemnitz.
 * --live 914mm
 * --live 915mm
 * --sandbox 915mm
 * In sandbox -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

General changes (not gauge-specific)

 * Make sure that category ns pages also are tracked for new gauges.
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * fmt imperial: '2 ft 4 in' not "28 in" above 2ft. Below: ask WP:TRAIN.
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * All mm input must have unit ("mm"). rm all mm shortcuts like "123" for "123mm". help the next editor, less code more explicit.
 * Pages will be listed in maintenance category (input not recognised).
 * Kept for rounded oblivious ones, like 800 for 800 mm.
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * -- expect multiple listings in "unrecognised" category. Pages to edit.


 * Deprecate ' and " for ft in.
 * rm from documentation, don't advertise.
 * Some have been removed already from the input list.
 * -- removal from list will list pages in the 'unrecognised' category.
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Check 699 mm, 27.5in, 1581mm, 1588 mm (Penn), 1680mm=near Indian?
 * maintcat ="X"
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Italian gauges (like 700mm) is not a worldwide id. To check: Use size page to link to, not the cultural name.
 * DePiep (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * removed links from the three 'Italian' gauges (700, 950, 1445 mm - no target pages for now). -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Anchor here option
 * In keyboard/ascii text.
 * -DePiep (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. Later maybe. -DePiep (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't track option: don't categorize pages from/by gauge infobox template &tc.
 * -05:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Same for individual calls. -DePiep (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This option must be available before doing any more categorize-in-wikilink. -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * no will skip the maintenance categorization. Allows code like:
 * History of Panama . (otherwise, the category would disrupt the wikilabel).
 * . In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Todo research these few gauges that are still on the list (see category unrecognised).
 * -DePiep (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ postponed. Issues now in archive 4. -DePiep (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Allow comma in input. like
 * -- live
 * -- sbox
 * -- sbox
 * -- 0,800 m ❌ (won't work)
 * to sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Allow 'disp==' and 'disp=/'  to express the definition: "1524 mm = 5 ft" and direct slash.
 * -- == live
 * -- == sbox
 * -- =/ live
 * -- =/ sbox
 * -- =s live
 * -- =s sbox
 * -- = live
 * -- = sbox
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * in sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)