![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please add these specifications.
121.102.122.122 ( talk) 11:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The alternate name given for 1600 gauge is Victorian broad gauge, which redirects onto Rail gauge in Australia. There is an Irish gauge article, which gives due prominence to its use in Victoria (Australia) and Brazil. Curiously, the Rail Gauges in Australia article fairly consistently refers to it as Irish gauge, and redirects back to Irish gauge. So, could the alternate name be change to Irish gauge, please? Tim PF ( talk) 01:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
railgauge|1600|al=on|lk=on}}
→ 1600{{
railgauge|63|al=on|lk=on}}
→ 63{{
railgauge|5'3"|al=on|lk=on}}
→
5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm)Hiya
Is there a good reason for having the between the two measurements (I understand its presence between the numbers and the units). Could we have an option to have a plain space instead? I'm having trouble formatting List of steam locomotives in Slovenia because of the extra space taken up by not wrapping the gauges. Railwayfan2005 ( talk) 20:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
wrap
parameter to allow for wrapping before the parentheses if the space available is insufficient for it to display on a single line. Just add wrap=y
to the template to allow it to output a normal space. You will have to try it out to see if it solves your problem.
Keith D (
talk)
22:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
al=on
/wrap=y
combination work as well. I'd suggest using {{
Nowrap}} if you've not already found it, then going back to normal spaces. What was the reasoning behind the templates current behaviour? I would normally expect wrapping to be on, not off.
Railwayfan2005 (
talk)
23:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
al=on
/wrap=y
combination to work.
Railwayfan2005 (
talk)
22:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that someone with template expertise (at
WP:WPT perhaps?) change {{
RailGauge}} so that
Standard gauge ({{RailGauge|ussg}} and {{RailGauge|1435mm}}
) is displayed as 4 ft 8 ½ in (1,435 mm) or 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 ½ in) instead of 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) or 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) Using ½
(or some similar other character) is more legible and doesn't interfere with the
interline spacing. Thanks.
67.101.7.14 (
talk)
16:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Please add these specifications.
58.138.55.55 ( talk) 12:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Please add these specifications.
58.138.55.55 ( talk) 07:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Please add the broadest of the three Italian gauges, namely 1445 mm. It is used on some urban networks in Italy (eg the Milan tram network, about which I am presently creating a new article), and also in some other countries. The other two Italian gauges, 700 mm and 950 mm, are already covered. Thanks, Bahnfrend ( talk) 14:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
For List of railway companies in Switzerland#Companies in operation today (standard gauge), (1200 mm gauge) vs 1,200 mm (3 ft 11+1⁄4 in). I thought I had found them all. Peter Horn User talk 20:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Could we have an additional option to wikilink the alternate name, without wikilinking the unit labels (as per WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK, etc.)? I would suggest this should be "lk=al" (with or without the "al=on"), or alternatively using "al=lk" if that's easier to implement.
Whilst on the subject of alternate names, I notice they all start with a capital letter, including 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge, which is more commonly written all lower-case, as standard gauge (the others are all [based on] proper names, and rightly start with a capital letter in English). Could that be changed, or might it be better to implement a new option, eg "al=lc"? Tim PF ( talk) 11:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
infobox locomotive}}
and {{
infobox rail line}}
, where, for example, {{
RailGauge|sg|al=on|lk=on}}
has been used to get a link to
standard gauge, but the links to the units are merely regarded as a side effect.
|allk=
which can be used to wikilink just the gauge name when set to "on". If |allk=
is not present and |lk=
is set to "on" then both the gauge name and units will be linked.Please add 530 mm -> 21 inch OR 1 ft 9 inch TrackConversion ( talk) 22:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a problem with the templates for the gauges between 1 ft & 2 ft. These templates currently produce the rather strange output of "1 ft X in" (the variable X changing according to the gauge) even though that is NOT how people speak when referring to these gauges. We all know that in common speech nobody talks about the "1 foot 3 inch gauge" - the term used is always (in my experience) "the 15 inch gauge". Railways of this gauge refer to themselves as "15 inch gauge" and not as "1 foot 3 inches gauge". It is confusing and misleading to have this output from the template that fails to match common parlance. This obviously applies particularly to the more common gauges where the name in inches only is commonly heard, especially 15" and 18" gauges. Interestingly, railgauge 12.25 already conforms, by producing an output of "12 & a quarter inch" rather than "one foot and a quarter inch"! It would be good if the others between 1 foot and 2 feet could do likewise please. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I did a websearch earlier on, and found loads of them, but the top ones were all derived from WP, even though many of them neither acknowledged WP, nor the CC licence. Once I'd bypassed the WP derived occurrences by comparing "1ft 3in" with "15in", I got About 1,130 results against About 4,460,000 results, although I didn't check them all. Tim PF ( talk) 23:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the template to show gauges between 12" and 20" inclusive to be shown in inches only. I've chosen 20" as the maximum rather than the requested <24", for two reasons: Firstly 20" is the largest
miniature railway (the
Scarborough North Bay Railway), and secondly, some nominally 2 ft railways are actually 1' 11½" or 1' 113⁄4", and it seems odd (at least to me) to describe them as e.g. 23½". However, if there is consensus to change these distances as well, let me know, or update
Template:RailGauge/sandbox and request the changes to be updated using {{
editprotected}}
(remember, there are probably very few, if any, administrators who watch this page).
I've also created a test cases page, which displays all the different combinations currently in the sandbox. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 08:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
If memory serves, we did have an article at Fifteen inch gauge railway a few weeks ago, because I linked the Far Tottering article to it. It was an article, although maybe a stub, and mentioned Heywood & Greenly. In the TC moves, this article has now been lost - no idea what it was last called, maybe 381mm track gauge or somesuch. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
In order to reduce the size of this template, I've removed a significant number of unused options. I realise this leaves a lot of one-way conversions (e.g. {{
RailGauge|4.8mm}}
works but {{
RailGauge|0.189in}}
doesn't), however as there are no articles which use the latter conversion, this shouldn't be a problem. Anything that's required in future can be re-instated, but please don't add entries unless they're going to be required, otherwise this template will just grow unnecessarily again. —
Tivedshambo (
t/
c)
17:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Please add these specifications.
{{railgauge|59.06}}
, {{railgauge|59.06in}}
and {{railgauge|59.06"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=1|den=16|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1500}}.{{railgauge|59.843}}
, {{railgauge|59.843in}}
and {{railgauge|59.843"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=5|den=6|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1520}}.{{railgauge|76.575}}
, {{railgauge|76.575in}}
and {{railgauge|76.575"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=4|num=23|den=40|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1945}}.{{railgauge|1980}}
, {{railgauge|1980mm}}
, {{railgauge|1.98}}
and {{railgauge|1.98m}}
are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1980|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20}}.{{railgauge|77.95}}
, {{railgauge|77.95in}}
and {{railgauge|77.95"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1980}}.{{railgauge|1981}}
and {{railgauge|1981mm}}
are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1981|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|78}}
, {{railgauge|78in}}
, {{railgauge|78"}}
, {{railgauge|6ft6in}}
and {{railgauge|6'6"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1981}}.{{railgauge|118.11}}
, {{railgauge|118.11in}}
, {{railgauge|118.11"}}
, {{railgauge|9ft10.11in}}
and {{railgauge|9'10.11"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=9|in=10|num=1|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=3}}{{railgauge|59.06}}
, {{railgauge|59.06in}}
and {{railgauge|59.06"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=1|den=16|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1500}}.{{railgauge|59.843}}
, {{railgauge|59.843in}}
and {{railgauge|59.843"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=5|den=6|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1520}}.{{railgauge|76.575}}
, {{railgauge|76.575in}}
and {{railgauge|76.575"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=4|num=23|den=40|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1945}}.{{railgauge|1980}}
, {{railgauge|1980mm}}
, {{railgauge|1.98}}
and {{railgauge|1.98m}}
are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1980|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20}}.{{railgauge|77.95}}
, {{railgauge|77.95in}}
and {{railgauge|77.95"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1980}}.{{railgauge|1981}}
and {{railgauge|1981mm}}
are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1981|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|78}}
, {{railgauge|78in}}
, {{railgauge|78"}}
, {{railgauge|6ft6in}}
and {{railgauge|6'6"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1981}}.{{railgauge|6.35mm}}
is really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=6.35|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|in=0.25|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|7mm}}
is really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=7|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|in=0.276|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|16.48mm}}
is really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=16.48|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|in=0.649|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|21.97mm}}
is really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=21.97|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|in=0.865|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|0.189in}}
and {{railgauge|0.189"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.189|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=4.8}}.{{railgauge|0.315in}}
and {{railgauge|0.315"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.315|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=8}}.{{railgauge|0.354in}}
and {{railgauge|0.354"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.354|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=9}}.{{railgauge|0.709in}}
and {{railgauge|0.709"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.709|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=18}}.{{railgauge|0.741in}}
and {{railgauge|0.741"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.741|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=18.83}}.{{railgauge|0.748in}}
and {{railgauge|0.748"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.748|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=19}}.{{railgauge|0.866in}}
and {{railgauge|0.866"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.866|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=22}}.{{railgauge|69in}}
, {{railgauge|69"}}
, {{railgauge|5ft9in}}
and {{railgauge|5'9"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=5|in=8|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.75}}.{{railgauge|1.8}}
, {{railgauge|1.8m}}
, {{railgauge|1800}}
and {{railgauge|1800mm}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=5|in=10|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.8}}.{{railgauge|71}}
, {{railgauge|71in}}
, {{railgauge|71"}}
, {{railgauge|5ft11in}}
and {{railgauge|5'11"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=5|in=10|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.8}}.{{railgauge|0.512}}
, {{railgauge|0.512in}}
and {{railgauge|0.512"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.512|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=13}}.{{railgauge|0.551}}
, {{railgauge|0.551in}}
and {{railgauge|0.551"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.551|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=14}}.{{railgauge|0.945}}
, {{railgauge|0.945in}}
and {{railgauge|0.945"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.945|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=24}}.{{railgauge|1.339}}
, {{railgauge|1.339in}}
and {{railgauge|1.339"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=1.339|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=34}}.{{railgauge|1.89}}
, {{railgauge|1.89in}}
and {{railgauge|1.89"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=1.890|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=48}}.{{railgauge|2.52}}
, {{railgauge|2.52in}}
and {{railgauge|2.52"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=2.52|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=64}}.{{railgauge|118}}
, {{railgauge|118in}}
, {{railgauge|118"}}
, {{railgauge|9ft10in}}
and {{railgauge|9'10"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=9|in=10|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=2997}}.{{railgauge|84.25}}
, {{railgauge|84.25in}}
and {{railgauge|7ft0.25in}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=7|in=0|num=1|den=4|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=2140}}.{{railgauge|84}}
, {{railgauge|84in}}
and {{railgauge|7ft}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=7|in=|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=2134}}.{{railgauge|2134}}
and {{railgauge|2134mm}}
are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=2134|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=7|in=|num=|den=}}.58.138.55.55 ( talk) 14:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
For List of rail gauges#Medium gauge (Bulgaria): 1,009 mm (3 ft 3+23⁄32 in) however 1,009 mm (3 ft 3.72 in) (3ft 3+18⁄25 in), and 3 ft 3+11⁄32 in (0.999 m), please correct. Peter Horn User talk 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
, and, as is well known,
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Is there something outside Wikipedia that refers to these figures of 1009 mm; 3 ft 3+11⁄32 in; 3 ft 3+18⁄25 in, etc.? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)I'd like to propose that all requests for additional gauges should be accompanied by evidence that such gauge really did exist, or that such conversion is quoted in reliable sources. This is primarily to prevent a repeat of the problems which we had earlier this year. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=
and |2=
(
help) as well as
"Lijst van spoorwijdten". nl.wikipedia. {{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=
and |2=
(
help). In addition there is
Jane's World Railways
[1]. Unfortuantely the info is available by paid subscription only
[2] &
[3]. Perhaps Wikipedia could become a subscriber.
Peter Horn
User talk
14:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been ask to add "For Georgian Railways#History please add (912mm) to replace (912 mm (2 ft 11.91 in) *)" by Peter Horn but the source in the article is a dead link. Can anyone verify this entry? Keith D ( talk) 09:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
More missings:
HTML2011 ( talk) 22:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
For Pakistan Railways#Gauge: (1676) ({{tl:RailGauge|1676|disp=or}}) instead of (1,676 mm or 5 ft 6 in) etc & for ALCO MRS-1#Development {{tl:RailGauge|ussg|disp=or}} instead of 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in / 1,435 mm etc. Peter Horn User talk 16:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems a bit perverse that we don't have an alternate name and link for metre gauge, which must be one of the most common gauges world-wide, and certainly more common than some (like Cape) gauges that do already have them. Or at least my attempt to request them doesn't work.
Thus:
But:
Any chance of adding this, or telling me what I'm doing wrong?. -- chris_j_wood ( talk) 11:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The "Railgauge|900" template ( 900 ) produces an incorrect result, since 2 ft 11 1/2 in would convert back to 902 millimetres.
The correct result would be 2 ft 11 7⁄16 in ( 2 ft 11+7⁄16 in (900 mm) ).
Could this please be fixed.
André Kritzinger 18:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
For Dublin tramways#Dublin and Lucan Steam Tramway and Dublin and Lucan tramway#Closure 62+3/16in or 62.1875 instead of 5 ft 2+3⁄16 in (1,580 mm) gauge. Yet this gauge may be not authentic and may really be 63 gauge [4]. There is also Track gauge in Ireland. Peter Horn User talk 16:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
For DB Class V 51 and V 52#Development and design 860 instead of 860 mm (2 ft 9.86 in). 23:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk
For Washington Metro 56.25 and/or 4ft8+1/4in instead of 4 ft 8¼ in (1429 mm). Peter Horn User talk 03:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
For articles dealing with lines in the Toronto area, background information, including that noted at http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/TSR/junction.htm, mention that there was a horse car track gauge of 4 feet 10 3/4 inches in use on some lines in that area prior to 1917. I believe that works out to 1492 mm. Please add this to the selection, as it would be useful in articles such as that for the Toronto Suburban Railway. Raellerby ( talk) 14:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Can someone take care? They had 23.25. It's called
Ffestiniog Railway, but in Welsh:
Rheilffordd Ffestiniog (not redlinked?) [redirect]. -
DePiep (
talk)
23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
23.25
be included or be edited elsewhere? -
DePiep (
talk)
20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Compare 760 with 760 mm (2 ft 6 in) or 760 mm (29.92 in). Me thinks the output should be 2 ft 5 15⁄16 in. Peter Horn User talk 22:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
RailGauge|1429mm}}
.Peter Horn User talk 03:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
For Wuppertal-Vohwinkel–Essen-Überruhr railway, 820 Peter Horn User talk 23:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Could we add " Russian gauge" 1,520 mm (4 ft 11+27⁄32 in) Russian gauge both as recognised input as outgoing allk link to the page (outgoing link possibly also in 1,524 mm (5 ft), as it can be a range of gauges?). If the habit here is such, the short "Russian" could be added too. Since the name is obiquous, it could have been discussed before but I could not find it. - DePiep ( talk) 10:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Since 1524 is Russian too, I propose adding: 1524 also returns the named link Russian gauge (as does 1520). - DePiep ( talk) 03:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
For Dresdner Verkehrsbetriebe#Tram network 1450 instead of 1,450 mm (4 ft 9.09 in). Peter Horn User talk 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that, when the template is used, it displays with unnecessary "internal" spaces as well as with a space following it. The result is that, when one (naturally) types a space between the template and the following word, it causes a double space.
Examples are 2 ft (610 mm) and 600 followed by double spaces.
Examples are 2 ft (610 mm) and 600 mm (1 ft 11... (Typed out to compare).
(It looks like "ft" is followed by a double space, but not "mm".)
It even happens when the template is followed by a comma or fullstop as in 2 ft 6 in (762 mm), and 2 ft 6 in (762 mm).
It even happens when the template is followed by a comma or fullstop as in 2 ft 6 in (762 mm), and 2 ft 6 in (762 mm). (Typed out).
At least here "internal" double spaces don't happen - compare the punctiation marks after (these), (brackets).
Examples with the "al=on" option omitted display as 2 ft (610 mm) with double "internal" and single end spaces.
Examples with the "al=on" option omitted display as 2 ft (610 mm) with double "internal" and single end spaces (Typed out to compare)
(Again it's the "ft"...)
The problem does not occur when an alternative name exists, for example:
with 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) and others.
with 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) Cape gauge and others. (Typed out to compare)
(Unfortunately I cannot offhand think of a named imperial-to-metric conversion from a round foot value with no inches to see if the "ft" would screw up again....)
While I'm at it, should 11 ½ have a space in in, or should it be 11½ with no space?
André Kritzinger 01:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1 ft 11... (Typed" and "
the "ft"...)"), and one of a quadruple period ("
screw up again....)"), but these are all from your plain text, none are generated by
{{
railgauge}}
. Does anybody else see any double periods?
{{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on}}
. → 2 ft (610 mm).{{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on}}
text → 2 ft (610 mm) text{{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on|wrap=y}}
. → 2 ft (610 mm).{{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on|wrap=y}}
text → 2 ft (610 mm) text{{
RailGauge|2ft}}
. → 2 ft (610 mm).{{
RailGauge|2ft}}
text → 2 ft (610 mm) text{{
RailGauge|2ft|wrap=y}}
. → 2 ft (610 mm).{{
RailGauge|2ft|wrap=y}}
text → 2 ft (610 mm) text|al=on
since there is no alternate name to show? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC){{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on}}
expands to <span class="nowrap">2 ft (610 mm)</span>
which displays as "2 ft (610 mm) "{{
RailGauge|600mm|al=on}}
expands to <span class="nowrap">600 mm (1 ft <span class="frac nowrap">11<sup> 5</sup>
⁄<sub>8</sub>
</span>
in)</span>
which displays as "600 mm (1 ft 11 5⁄8 in) " 
are in fact
non-breaking spaces,
; one characteristic of these is that when several occur, the same number are displayed - by contrast, more than one successive normal spaces always shrink to a single one. The case of
seems to be because the gauge is whole feet - there are no inches. If you put {{
RailGauge|2ft6in|al=on}}
this gives 2 ft 6 in (762 mm) and there is no double space. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC){{
RailGauge|2ft6in|al=on}}
template and, for example, a full stop. For example, 2 ft 6 in (762 mm). Instead ofThanks for that. I made some comparisons:
{{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on}}
{{
RailGauge/sandbox|2ft|al=on}}
{{
RailGauge|2ft}}
{{
RailGauge/sandbox|2ft}}
{{
RailGauge|3ft|al=on}}
{{
RailGauge/sandbox|3ft|al=on}}
{{
RailGauge|3ft}}
{{
RailGauge/sandbox|3ft}}
The double space after "ft" is fixed, thank you, and it doesn't look like there's any new problem. The double space from the unnecessary use of "|al=on" still happens, though.
(While you're tweaking, remember to also check the "Railgauge|900" and "Railgauge|900mm" template result: "2 ft 11 1/2 in" instead of "2 ft 11 7⁄16 in")
André Kritzinger 23:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
#default
line. It now says:{{#switch:{{{1}}}|...
For correctness, it should be:
{{#switch:{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|...
As it is now, capitalised input like "Standard" is not recognised here. - DePiep ( talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
al=on
does not fire (there is no alternate name found), the template produces a final space (that would preceed the alt name). This is not preferred. I have proposed, in the {{
RailGauge/sandbox}} (
this edit), to only produce the space when an alt name is found. The sandbox also has the lc-issue solved. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)I propose to put the full {{ RailGauge/sandbox}} code into the live template. It should solve both issues. - DePiep ( talk) 18:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Could we add "Iberian" gauge as a gauge by name, and linkable to Iberian gauge? Currently only numeric input is available: 1668. - DePiep ( talk) 15:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Tatra K2 & Tatra T2 mention(ed) a gauge of 1,535 mm (5 ft 0.4 in). Does such a gauge actually exist? And if so, where? I have changed it to 1524. Peter Horn User talk 23:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 23:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Issue: Currently, they have a leading space in some situations (actually an nbsp). This space shows in tables (like {{ RailGauge}} documentation) and infoboxes. Examples:
Cause: It happens when 1. imperial units are put first, and 2. no ft is defined or shown, and 3. the inch measure has a fraction (not decimals).
Solution: I have adjusted the subtemplate {{
RailGauge/imperial/sandbox}} (in its sandbox;
this version). Note: the main {{
RailGauge}} is not altered.
Testcases: Sandbox checks:
See alse {{
RailGauge/testcases}}: the issue is gone, and no new issues arise. Being a technicality, I think this is not controversial.
Edit request replace {{
RailGauge/imperial}} with all code from {{
RailGauge/imperial/sandbox}} (
this version). Do not touch main template RailGauge.
-
DePiep (
talk)
10:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
|wrap=y
now covered too. See testcases. -
DePiep (
talk)
16:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please add these specifications.
121.102.122.122 ( talk) 11:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The alternate name given for 1600 gauge is Victorian broad gauge, which redirects onto Rail gauge in Australia. There is an Irish gauge article, which gives due prominence to its use in Victoria (Australia) and Brazil. Curiously, the Rail Gauges in Australia article fairly consistently refers to it as Irish gauge, and redirects back to Irish gauge. So, could the alternate name be change to Irish gauge, please? Tim PF ( talk) 01:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
railgauge|1600|al=on|lk=on}}
→ 1600{{
railgauge|63|al=on|lk=on}}
→ 63{{
railgauge|5'3"|al=on|lk=on}}
→
5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm)Hiya
Is there a good reason for having the between the two measurements (I understand its presence between the numbers and the units). Could we have an option to have a plain space instead? I'm having trouble formatting List of steam locomotives in Slovenia because of the extra space taken up by not wrapping the gauges. Railwayfan2005 ( talk) 20:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
wrap
parameter to allow for wrapping before the parentheses if the space available is insufficient for it to display on a single line. Just add wrap=y
to the template to allow it to output a normal space. You will have to try it out to see if it solves your problem.
Keith D (
talk)
22:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
al=on
/wrap=y
combination work as well. I'd suggest using {{
Nowrap}} if you've not already found it, then going back to normal spaces. What was the reasoning behind the templates current behaviour? I would normally expect wrapping to be on, not off.
Railwayfan2005 (
talk)
23:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
al=on
/wrap=y
combination to work.
Railwayfan2005 (
talk)
22:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that someone with template expertise (at
WP:WPT perhaps?) change {{
RailGauge}} so that
Standard gauge ({{RailGauge|ussg}} and {{RailGauge|1435mm}}
) is displayed as 4 ft 8 ½ in (1,435 mm) or 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 ½ in) instead of 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) or 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) Using ½
(or some similar other character) is more legible and doesn't interfere with the
interline spacing. Thanks.
67.101.7.14 (
talk)
16:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Please add these specifications.
58.138.55.55 ( talk) 12:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Please add these specifications.
58.138.55.55 ( talk) 07:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Please add the broadest of the three Italian gauges, namely 1445 mm. It is used on some urban networks in Italy (eg the Milan tram network, about which I am presently creating a new article), and also in some other countries. The other two Italian gauges, 700 mm and 950 mm, are already covered. Thanks, Bahnfrend ( talk) 14:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
For List of railway companies in Switzerland#Companies in operation today (standard gauge), (1200 mm gauge) vs 1,200 mm (3 ft 11+1⁄4 in). I thought I had found them all. Peter Horn User talk 20:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Could we have an additional option to wikilink the alternate name, without wikilinking the unit labels (as per WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK, etc.)? I would suggest this should be "lk=al" (with or without the "al=on"), or alternatively using "al=lk" if that's easier to implement.
Whilst on the subject of alternate names, I notice they all start with a capital letter, including 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge, which is more commonly written all lower-case, as standard gauge (the others are all [based on] proper names, and rightly start with a capital letter in English). Could that be changed, or might it be better to implement a new option, eg "al=lc"? Tim PF ( talk) 11:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
infobox locomotive}}
and {{
infobox rail line}}
, where, for example, {{
RailGauge|sg|al=on|lk=on}}
has been used to get a link to
standard gauge, but the links to the units are merely regarded as a side effect.
|allk=
which can be used to wikilink just the gauge name when set to "on". If |allk=
is not present and |lk=
is set to "on" then both the gauge name and units will be linked.Please add 530 mm -> 21 inch OR 1 ft 9 inch TrackConversion ( talk) 22:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a problem with the templates for the gauges between 1 ft & 2 ft. These templates currently produce the rather strange output of "1 ft X in" (the variable X changing according to the gauge) even though that is NOT how people speak when referring to these gauges. We all know that in common speech nobody talks about the "1 foot 3 inch gauge" - the term used is always (in my experience) "the 15 inch gauge". Railways of this gauge refer to themselves as "15 inch gauge" and not as "1 foot 3 inches gauge". It is confusing and misleading to have this output from the template that fails to match common parlance. This obviously applies particularly to the more common gauges where the name in inches only is commonly heard, especially 15" and 18" gauges. Interestingly, railgauge 12.25 already conforms, by producing an output of "12 & a quarter inch" rather than "one foot and a quarter inch"! It would be good if the others between 1 foot and 2 feet could do likewise please. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I did a websearch earlier on, and found loads of them, but the top ones were all derived from WP, even though many of them neither acknowledged WP, nor the CC licence. Once I'd bypassed the WP derived occurrences by comparing "1ft 3in" with "15in", I got About 1,130 results against About 4,460,000 results, although I didn't check them all. Tim PF ( talk) 23:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the template to show gauges between 12" and 20" inclusive to be shown in inches only. I've chosen 20" as the maximum rather than the requested <24", for two reasons: Firstly 20" is the largest
miniature railway (the
Scarborough North Bay Railway), and secondly, some nominally 2 ft railways are actually 1' 11½" or 1' 113⁄4", and it seems odd (at least to me) to describe them as e.g. 23½". However, if there is consensus to change these distances as well, let me know, or update
Template:RailGauge/sandbox and request the changes to be updated using {{
editprotected}}
(remember, there are probably very few, if any, administrators who watch this page).
I've also created a test cases page, which displays all the different combinations currently in the sandbox. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 08:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
If memory serves, we did have an article at Fifteen inch gauge railway a few weeks ago, because I linked the Far Tottering article to it. It was an article, although maybe a stub, and mentioned Heywood & Greenly. In the TC moves, this article has now been lost - no idea what it was last called, maybe 381mm track gauge or somesuch. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
In order to reduce the size of this template, I've removed a significant number of unused options. I realise this leaves a lot of one-way conversions (e.g. {{
RailGauge|4.8mm}}
works but {{
RailGauge|0.189in}}
doesn't), however as there are no articles which use the latter conversion, this shouldn't be a problem. Anything that's required in future can be re-instated, but please don't add entries unless they're going to be required, otherwise this template will just grow unnecessarily again. —
Tivedshambo (
t/
c)
17:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Please add these specifications.
{{railgauge|59.06}}
, {{railgauge|59.06in}}
and {{railgauge|59.06"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=1|den=16|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1500}}.{{railgauge|59.843}}
, {{railgauge|59.843in}}
and {{railgauge|59.843"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=5|den=6|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1520}}.{{railgauge|76.575}}
, {{railgauge|76.575in}}
and {{railgauge|76.575"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=4|num=23|den=40|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1945}}.{{railgauge|1980}}
, {{railgauge|1980mm}}
, {{railgauge|1.98}}
and {{railgauge|1.98m}}
are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1980|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20}}.{{railgauge|77.95}}
, {{railgauge|77.95in}}
and {{railgauge|77.95"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1980}}.{{railgauge|1981}}
and {{railgauge|1981mm}}
are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1981|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|78}}
, {{railgauge|78in}}
, {{railgauge|78"}}
, {{railgauge|6ft6in}}
and {{railgauge|6'6"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1981}}.{{railgauge|118.11}}
, {{railgauge|118.11in}}
, {{railgauge|118.11"}}
, {{railgauge|9ft10.11in}}
and {{railgauge|9'10.11"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=9|in=10|num=1|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=3}}{{railgauge|59.06}}
, {{railgauge|59.06in}}
and {{railgauge|59.06"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=1|den=16|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1500}}.{{railgauge|59.843}}
, {{railgauge|59.843in}}
and {{railgauge|59.843"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=5|den=6|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1520}}.{{railgauge|76.575}}
, {{railgauge|76.575in}}
and {{railgauge|76.575"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=4|num=23|den=40|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1945}}.{{railgauge|1980}}
, {{railgauge|1980mm}}
, {{railgauge|1.98}}
and {{railgauge|1.98m}}
are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1980|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20}}.{{railgauge|77.95}}
, {{railgauge|77.95in}}
and {{railgauge|77.95"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1980}}.{{railgauge|1981}}
and {{railgauge|1981mm}}
are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1981|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|78}}
, {{railgauge|78in}}
, {{railgauge|78"}}
, {{railgauge|6ft6in}}
and {{railgauge|6'6"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1981}}.{{railgauge|6.35mm}}
is really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=6.35|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|in=0.25|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|7mm}}
is really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=7|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|in=0.276|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|16.48mm}}
is really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=16.48|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|in=0.649|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|21.97mm}}
is really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=21.97|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|in=0.865|num=|den=}}.{{railgauge|0.189in}}
and {{railgauge|0.189"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.189|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=4.8}}.{{railgauge|0.315in}}
and {{railgauge|0.315"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.315|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=8}}.{{railgauge|0.354in}}
and {{railgauge|0.354"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.354|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=9}}.{{railgauge|0.709in}}
and {{railgauge|0.709"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.709|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=18}}.{{railgauge|0.741in}}
and {{railgauge|0.741"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.741|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=18.83}}.{{railgauge|0.748in}}
and {{railgauge|0.748"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.748|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=19}}.{{railgauge|0.866in}}
and {{railgauge|0.866"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=|in=0.866|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=22}}.{{railgauge|69in}}
, {{railgauge|69"}}
, {{railgauge|5ft9in}}
and {{railgauge|5'9"}}
are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=5|in=8|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.75}}.{{railgauge|1.8}}
, {{railgauge|1.8m}}
, {{railgauge|1800}}
and {{railgauge|1800mm}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=5|in=10|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.8}}.{{railgauge|71}}
, {{railgauge|71in}}
, {{railgauge|71"}}
, {{railgauge|5ft11in}}
and {{railgauge|5'11"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=5|in=10|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.8}}.{{railgauge|0.512}}
, {{railgauge|0.512in}}
and {{railgauge|0.512"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.512|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=13}}.{{railgauge|0.551}}
, {{railgauge|0.551in}}
and {{railgauge|0.551"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.551|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=14}}.{{railgauge|0.945}}
, {{railgauge|0.945in}}
and {{railgauge|0.945"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.945|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=24}}.{{railgauge|1.339}}
, {{railgauge|1.339in}}
and {{railgauge|1.339"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=1.339|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=34}}.{{railgauge|1.89}}
, {{railgauge|1.89in}}
and {{railgauge|1.89"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=1.890|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=48}}.{{railgauge|2.52}}
, {{railgauge|2.52in}}
and {{railgauge|2.52"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=2.52|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=64}}.{{railgauge|118}}
, {{railgauge|118in}}
, {{railgauge|118"}}
, {{railgauge|9ft10in}}
and {{railgauge|9'10"}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=9|in=10|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=2997}}.{{railgauge|84.25}}
, {{railgauge|84.25in}}
and {{railgauge|7ft0.25in}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=7|in=0|num=1|den=4|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=2140}}.{{railgauge|84}}
, {{railgauge|84in}}
and {{railgauge|7ft}}
are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=7|in=|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=2134}}.{{railgauge|2134}}
and {{railgauge|2134mm}}
are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=2134|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=7|in=|num=|den=}}.58.138.55.55 ( talk) 14:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
For List of rail gauges#Medium gauge (Bulgaria): 1,009 mm (3 ft 3+23⁄32 in) however 1,009 mm (3 ft 3.72 in) (3ft 3+18⁄25 in), and 3 ft 3+11⁄32 in (0.999 m), please correct. Peter Horn User talk 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
, and, as is well known,
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Is there something outside Wikipedia that refers to these figures of 1009 mm; 3 ft 3+11⁄32 in; 3 ft 3+18⁄25 in, etc.? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)I'd like to propose that all requests for additional gauges should be accompanied by evidence that such gauge really did exist, or that such conversion is quoted in reliable sources. This is primarily to prevent a repeat of the problems which we had earlier this year. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=
and |2=
(
help) as well as
"Lijst van spoorwijdten". nl.wikipedia. {{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=
and |2=
(
help). In addition there is
Jane's World Railways
[1]. Unfortuantely the info is available by paid subscription only
[2] &
[3]. Perhaps Wikipedia could become a subscriber.
Peter Horn
User talk
14:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been ask to add "For Georgian Railways#History please add (912mm) to replace (912 mm (2 ft 11.91 in) *)" by Peter Horn but the source in the article is a dead link. Can anyone verify this entry? Keith D ( talk) 09:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
More missings:
HTML2011 ( talk) 22:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
For Pakistan Railways#Gauge: (1676) ({{tl:RailGauge|1676|disp=or}}) instead of (1,676 mm or 5 ft 6 in) etc & for ALCO MRS-1#Development {{tl:RailGauge|ussg|disp=or}} instead of 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in / 1,435 mm etc. Peter Horn User talk 16:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems a bit perverse that we don't have an alternate name and link for metre gauge, which must be one of the most common gauges world-wide, and certainly more common than some (like Cape) gauges that do already have them. Or at least my attempt to request them doesn't work.
Thus:
But:
Any chance of adding this, or telling me what I'm doing wrong?. -- chris_j_wood ( talk) 11:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The "Railgauge|900" template ( 900 ) produces an incorrect result, since 2 ft 11 1/2 in would convert back to 902 millimetres.
The correct result would be 2 ft 11 7⁄16 in ( 2 ft 11+7⁄16 in (900 mm) ).
Could this please be fixed.
André Kritzinger 18:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
For Dublin tramways#Dublin and Lucan Steam Tramway and Dublin and Lucan tramway#Closure 62+3/16in or 62.1875 instead of 5 ft 2+3⁄16 in (1,580 mm) gauge. Yet this gauge may be not authentic and may really be 63 gauge [4]. There is also Track gauge in Ireland. Peter Horn User talk 16:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
For DB Class V 51 and V 52#Development and design 860 instead of 860 mm (2 ft 9.86 in). 23:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk
For Washington Metro 56.25 and/or 4ft8+1/4in instead of 4 ft 8¼ in (1429 mm). Peter Horn User talk 03:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
For articles dealing with lines in the Toronto area, background information, including that noted at http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/TSR/junction.htm, mention that there was a horse car track gauge of 4 feet 10 3/4 inches in use on some lines in that area prior to 1917. I believe that works out to 1492 mm. Please add this to the selection, as it would be useful in articles such as that for the Toronto Suburban Railway. Raellerby ( talk) 14:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Can someone take care? They had 23.25. It's called
Ffestiniog Railway, but in Welsh:
Rheilffordd Ffestiniog (not redlinked?) [redirect]. -
DePiep (
talk)
23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
23.25
be included or be edited elsewhere? -
DePiep (
talk)
20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Compare 760 with 760 mm (2 ft 6 in) or 760 mm (29.92 in). Me thinks the output should be 2 ft 5 15⁄16 in. Peter Horn User talk 22:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
RailGauge|1429mm}}
.Peter Horn User talk 03:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
For Wuppertal-Vohwinkel–Essen-Überruhr railway, 820 Peter Horn User talk 23:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Could we add " Russian gauge" 1,520 mm (4 ft 11+27⁄32 in) Russian gauge both as recognised input as outgoing allk link to the page (outgoing link possibly also in 1,524 mm (5 ft), as it can be a range of gauges?). If the habit here is such, the short "Russian" could be added too. Since the name is obiquous, it could have been discussed before but I could not find it. - DePiep ( talk) 10:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Since 1524 is Russian too, I propose adding: 1524 also returns the named link Russian gauge (as does 1520). - DePiep ( talk) 03:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
For Dresdner Verkehrsbetriebe#Tram network 1450 instead of 1,450 mm (4 ft 9.09 in). Peter Horn User talk 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that, when the template is used, it displays with unnecessary "internal" spaces as well as with a space following it. The result is that, when one (naturally) types a space between the template and the following word, it causes a double space.
Examples are 2 ft (610 mm) and 600 followed by double spaces.
Examples are 2 ft (610 mm) and 600 mm (1 ft 11... (Typed out to compare).
(It looks like "ft" is followed by a double space, but not "mm".)
It even happens when the template is followed by a comma or fullstop as in 2 ft 6 in (762 mm), and 2 ft 6 in (762 mm).
It even happens when the template is followed by a comma or fullstop as in 2 ft 6 in (762 mm), and 2 ft 6 in (762 mm). (Typed out).
At least here "internal" double spaces don't happen - compare the punctiation marks after (these), (brackets).
Examples with the "al=on" option omitted display as 2 ft (610 mm) with double "internal" and single end spaces.
Examples with the "al=on" option omitted display as 2 ft (610 mm) with double "internal" and single end spaces (Typed out to compare)
(Again it's the "ft"...)
The problem does not occur when an alternative name exists, for example:
with 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) and others.
with 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) Cape gauge and others. (Typed out to compare)
(Unfortunately I cannot offhand think of a named imperial-to-metric conversion from a round foot value with no inches to see if the "ft" would screw up again....)
While I'm at it, should 11 ½ have a space in in, or should it be 11½ with no space?
André Kritzinger 01:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1 ft 11... (Typed" and "
the "ft"...)"), and one of a quadruple period ("
screw up again....)"), but these are all from your plain text, none are generated by
{{
railgauge}}
. Does anybody else see any double periods?
{{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on}}
. → 2 ft (610 mm).{{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on}}
text → 2 ft (610 mm) text{{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on|wrap=y}}
. → 2 ft (610 mm).{{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on|wrap=y}}
text → 2 ft (610 mm) text{{
RailGauge|2ft}}
. → 2 ft (610 mm).{{
RailGauge|2ft}}
text → 2 ft (610 mm) text{{
RailGauge|2ft|wrap=y}}
. → 2 ft (610 mm).{{
RailGauge|2ft|wrap=y}}
text → 2 ft (610 mm) text|al=on
since there is no alternate name to show? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC){{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on}}
expands to <span class="nowrap">2 ft (610 mm)</span>
which displays as "2 ft (610 mm) "{{
RailGauge|600mm|al=on}}
expands to <span class="nowrap">600 mm (1 ft <span class="frac nowrap">11<sup> 5</sup>
⁄<sub>8</sub>
</span>
in)</span>
which displays as "600 mm (1 ft 11 5⁄8 in) " 
are in fact
non-breaking spaces,
; one characteristic of these is that when several occur, the same number are displayed - by contrast, more than one successive normal spaces always shrink to a single one. The case of
seems to be because the gauge is whole feet - there are no inches. If you put {{
RailGauge|2ft6in|al=on}}
this gives 2 ft 6 in (762 mm) and there is no double space. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC){{
RailGauge|2ft6in|al=on}}
template and, for example, a full stop. For example, 2 ft 6 in (762 mm). Instead ofThanks for that. I made some comparisons:
{{
RailGauge|2ft|al=on}}
{{
RailGauge/sandbox|2ft|al=on}}
{{
RailGauge|2ft}}
{{
RailGauge/sandbox|2ft}}
{{
RailGauge|3ft|al=on}}
{{
RailGauge/sandbox|3ft|al=on}}
{{
RailGauge|3ft}}
{{
RailGauge/sandbox|3ft}}
The double space after "ft" is fixed, thank you, and it doesn't look like there's any new problem. The double space from the unnecessary use of "|al=on" still happens, though.
(While you're tweaking, remember to also check the "Railgauge|900" and "Railgauge|900mm" template result: "2 ft 11 1/2 in" instead of "2 ft 11 7⁄16 in")
André Kritzinger 23:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
#default
line. It now says:{{#switch:{{{1}}}|...
For correctness, it should be:
{{#switch:{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|...
As it is now, capitalised input like "Standard" is not recognised here. - DePiep ( talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
al=on
does not fire (there is no alternate name found), the template produces a final space (that would preceed the alt name). This is not preferred. I have proposed, in the {{
RailGauge/sandbox}} (
this edit), to only produce the space when an alt name is found. The sandbox also has the lc-issue solved. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)I propose to put the full {{ RailGauge/sandbox}} code into the live template. It should solve both issues. - DePiep ( talk) 18:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Could we add "Iberian" gauge as a gauge by name, and linkable to Iberian gauge? Currently only numeric input is available: 1668. - DePiep ( talk) 15:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Tatra K2 & Tatra T2 mention(ed) a gauge of 1,535 mm (5 ft 0.4 in). Does such a gauge actually exist? And if so, where? I have changed it to 1524. Peter Horn User talk 23:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 23:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Issue: Currently, they have a leading space in some situations (actually an nbsp). This space shows in tables (like {{ RailGauge}} documentation) and infoboxes. Examples:
Cause: It happens when 1. imperial units are put first, and 2. no ft is defined or shown, and 3. the inch measure has a fraction (not decimals).
Solution: I have adjusted the subtemplate {{
RailGauge/imperial/sandbox}} (in its sandbox;
this version). Note: the main {{
RailGauge}} is not altered.
Testcases: Sandbox checks:
See alse {{
RailGauge/testcases}}: the issue is gone, and no new issues arise. Being a technicality, I think this is not controversial.
Edit request replace {{
RailGauge/imperial}} with all code from {{
RailGauge/imperial/sandbox}} (
this version). Do not touch main template RailGauge.
-
DePiep (
talk)
10:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
|wrap=y
now covered too. See testcases. -
DePiep (
talk)
16:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)