To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, most talk pages of subtemplates and modules redirect here
Template:Track gauge is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit template-protected)) to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
((Convert|11+1/2|mi|km|0|adj=on)) section (in body)
expct:11+1⁄2-mile (19 km) section
shows: 11+½-mile (19 km) section
That is: the "+" and "½" (fraction character) are unexpected. This also happens within ((Infobox GWR)).
Research & reproduce: I found that when ((Infobox GWR)) is removed (absent), the output is regular. To reproduce: in Special:ExpandTemplates put the lede (and the ((Convert)) code from body), and check with/without ((Infobox GWR)).
This is as far as I could get. Has to do with TS? @Izno: -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is due to the specific template first using this module when the module is wrapping the gauge in a link and is fundamentally this issue. Let me see if I can fix it here. Izno (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is in formatImp. I think I can do a limited fix though I hate that I must do it the way in question. Let me tweak the sandbox. Izno (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First fix works. I will see if I like one of the other solutions I was thinking about. Izno (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: I'm still seeing the + (but not the fraction character) at Track gauge#Early track gauges ("the Dundee and Newtyle Railway (1831) in the north-east of Scotland adopted 4 ft 6+1⁄2 in (1,384 mm)"). The correct output appears in preview. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hairy Dude:. OK here. Did you try to Purge the article (=click on clock topright on the page)? (Could be you have an old version in the cache). Anyway, I have made a minor edit, so the article should reload anyway. OK now? -DePiep (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was the first thing I tried after I saw the preview was correct. And I also made a minor edit to check. Are you not seeing it? Maybe it's some quirk of the mobile interface. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ah, mobile. Yes wrong on my mobile device too. Don't know from here. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: Done, added 2023-01-01 [1]. Todo, separately: formally merge 1 ft 11 in (584 mm) and 1 ft 10+3⁄4 in (578 mm) as similar, for example in categorisation. 08:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
References
^Quine, Dan (December 2022). The Hendre Ddu Tramway: Blue Stones and Green Trees. Lightmoor Press. ISBN9781915069153.
I'm kind of surprised this one isn't already on the list. Still: Grachester (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Grachester:, great report! I understand this one is in the source. If so, a well-defined one.
I have a question though: could you check whether this one is the same as:
What we want to have is the definition of a gauge, say: the size as ordered. So when in practice, when it is ~1⁄4 inch off, it might be the same gauge (but source is imprecize).
Then, when these are the same, that explains why you were surprised: they are present under a different size.
OTOH, if these are not the same (i.e., they are absolutely defined to be different by original order), this is an unique gauge railway.
Hi @DePiep:. The source gives the gauge of the tramway as 1ft 11in, as distinct to other close variants, so I believe it is the definition of the gauge. I'm surprised this gauge isn't used more, since it would be an obvious variant of "near-2ft" gauges. Anyway, I do believe this is a unique (or at least rare) gauge that should be separately defined in the template. Thanks, Grachester (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, yes that is plausible. Now the other part of my (confusing) question is:
Are the other, nearby gauge sizes possibly the same as this 1 ft 11 in, but only more sloppy researched/documented?
Because, it is very likely that these are originally defined the same. Why would there be such small variations? Why would the Hendre-Ddu Tramway have an unique gauge by itself? (surprising indeed, as you said yourself). So the 2nd question is: could you take a look at the other lines, whether their gauge is well-sourced to be different? DePiep (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep:it's entirely possible that there are other railways at 1ft 11in. Those listed above as 1 ft 10¾ in gauge are correct. There are a lot of tramways and railways in Wales that served mines and quarries that were "around" 2ft gauge. Most of these are either undocumented, and/or were roughly laid and their gauge varied by +/- an inch or even two. So stating a precise gauge for them is difficult. I don't have a list of other known 1ft 11in gauge railways, but there certainly would have been some. These small differences didn't matter for horse/human worked tramways, but did make a difference once the railways were locomotive-worked, as the Hendre Ddu was from 1921 onwards. So I do think it is meaningful to list this specific version of "2ft gauge" even if the Hendre Ddu is the only (so far) documented example. Grachester (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that interested where an error comes from ;-), which answers nothing. I'd like to see a confirming source :-).
At first, a new metro way in the 1960s(!) in France(!) would hardly have a non-standard gauge. However, since the city has a history in fr:Tramway de Rennes from 19th century, a distinct gauge could be plausible. That is, the new metro would have chosen the same gauge as their old tramways...
For now, finding a source is best, probably frwiki is better positioned. If in say a few months a source is not found, we'll have to remove any gauge number as not-verifiable. DePiep (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! The process I refer to is WP:VERIFY: "material likely to be challenged" — which we do at this point. Good luck with your French. DePiep (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Don't think we should list this in/as ((Track gauge)). I propose you use simple ((Convert)) in the infobox (here, enwiki), and maybe note this detail with it. DePiep (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you already did ;-) DePiep (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This template admits a parameter comma which is described almost nowhere in the description. By "almost nowhere", I mean that the only place where I found it mentioned is at the bottom of the TemplateData rollout, as "Parameter: comma; Description: no description; Type: Unknown; Status: optional". That's rather uninformative, don't you think ? After having seen that parameter in use in several places in the article Dual gauge, I wanted to know what it did, and after reading the above, I still didn't know. Then I guessed that comma=no suppressed the thousands comma in the gauge widths, but after trying to add an example as part of this comment, the preview still separated the thousands with a comma. So please, someone, complete the description of the comma parameter at the bottom of the TemplateData rollout, and also add some examples of its use here and there in the rest of the description.
— Tonymec (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]