User talk:Aaron-Tripel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Aaron-Tripel and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking Insert-signature.png if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! KennethSides (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

Two foot gauge railways in South Africa[edit]

Very nicely done! I have studied the United States two-foot gauge lines for half a century now, and the first world war trench railways for several decades, but information on the South African lines has been hard to find. I applaud your work.Thewellman (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

South African narrow-gauge rail weight[edit]

As you may be aware, Maine two-foot gauge lines were somewhat heavier than Decauville and military light railways, but apparently less extensive and of lighter construction than the South African lines. Standard rail weight in Maine was 35 pounds per yard (~17 kg/m) with a few miles of rail weights up to 30 kg/m. Do you know what rail weights were used for the South African lines? The heaviest locomotives on the Maine lines were 2-4-4 tank locomotives weighing 35 to 38 tons restricted to the heavier rails. There was a less successful 2-6-2 type weighing 32 tons (not including the weight of a separate tender). It appears the latter locomotive (built in 1913) may have been influenced by the 1911 OMEG HD class 2-8-2 types which appear to have been of similar size. Do you have any information about other possible South African prototypes of that era which might have been built by Baldwin Locomotive Works, or known to Baldwin's designers?Thewellman (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Thewellman, after the last upgrade the Port Elisabeth - Avontuur railway had 60 lbs/m rails, the heaviest of all two foot networks. Allmost all rails used on the 2 foot networks were 2nd hand cape gauge light rails (lighter than 60 lbs), not sure about the weight. The Maine two footers also share my interest but I am not able to clarify your locomotive questions. Aaron-Tripel (talk)
Thank you for the rail information. I wonder if you might have South African narrow gauge car dimensions for comparison with those used on the Maine lines. As you may know, the Maine goods wagons were usually a bit less than two meters wide and 8 to 10 meters long. Nominal capacity was typically 10 tons for 19th century cars and 12 to 15 tons for cars built during the 20th century. Passenger coaches were typically about 12 meters long.Thewellman (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Enclosed a link to a diagram of a typical goods wagon for dimensions:

The largest two foot garratts were 7 ft (2.134 m) (wide???)

See Rail weights. Tabletop (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Links in headings[edit]

You can leave the links in the headings, but sooner or later some Bot will do the rounds and remove them again - been there, got the T shirt. Better to have the links in the text only.
André Kritzinger (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand. I will move the link from the title to the body text soon. Thank you for your assistance Aaron-Tripel (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


I now see it is more of a more elaborate intro than a move - re Cape Gauge - thanks SatuSuro 22:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:950 mm gauge railways in Eritrea[edit]

Why do we need this category? There's only one railway in Eritrea, so the category can have only one member. That means that anyone going down the tree is going to have to load an extra page after going to Category:950 mm gauge railways. The same is true of Libya and Somalia. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to mecontribs) 12:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all rail gauge categories were in line with each other. The metre and cape gauge categories for example, already had subcategories for countries while other categories didn’t.
For example, the two foot rail gauge category had a flat list over 100 entries (let alone the fact that this particular category contained some other gauges).
So I decided to extend the country hierarchy already present in metre and cape gauge (and a couple of other gauge) categories to all gauge categories for the sake of uniformity.
So that's why some categories ended up with 250 pages like Japan, Switzerland with 58 and countries like Eritrea / Libya with only one. I don't think a single pageload is more annoying than ending up with a list of dozens of railways without knowing which country they belong to. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could have a Category:950 mm gauge railways in Africa which would pick up a line in Somalia.
Similarly Category:1000 mm gauge railways in Africa, etc. Not to many and not too few. Tabletop (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu Express[edit]

I am not very sure the Tamil Nadu Express belongs in the night trains category as it takes 2 nights to reach its destination. The other moves to the category were good. You may also consider moving other trains such as Indore Duronto, Jaipur Duronto Express,Vidarbha Express,Nagpur Duronto express,Allahabad Duronto Express & Avantika Express to that category. Think about it,it was just a thought. Superfast1111 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Superfast1111, I only sorted the Category:Night trains into some countries as the category had grown very large. I agree that Night Train, a disambiguation page, gives a very narrow definition: A train that runs at night. When a train has sleeping accommodation and runs overnight for only a part of its journey, many consider it as a night train--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

Hi Aaron
Please see Talk:Umzinto – Donnybrook narrow gauge railway#Decimal points please. Peter Horn User talk 19:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Railway Categories (United States)[edit]

I have been noting your changes as several pages that I watch have been changed by you. I struggle to understand what you are doing, and I have reached the conclusion that your changes are based on poor decision making. For example Streetcars in North America is now only reachable by going through a category for North American rolling stock, which is illogical. This page is a description of the systems, not the rolling stock. So your decision to remove Category:Rail transportation in North America was very poor (in my view). Anyone looking for pages on streetcar systems in the USA would have to know that it was under rolling stock, rather than through some more logical category. Please consider your actions more thoroughly, else I shall start to revert your changes, and then we shall see where that leads. I have similar views on other changes that you have made. - Bhtpbank (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bhtpbank, I admit I made mistake. What happened: I changed the child Category:Streetcars in North America from parent Category:Rail transportation in North America to parent Category:North American rolling stock, assuming the category was only about vehicles, not systems. After your message, I reverted the latter action.
I am currently cleaning up categories over the entire rail transport hierarchy (in compliance with (WP:SUBCAT) and noticed very few complaints or reverts after more than 2000 category edits. Therefore I'm eager to learn more about your other observations. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The creation of large amounts of categories, with no sign (yet or what I have seen) of applying the correct project tags on the talk pages is one I would have brought up very early on, however I have developed over time a somewhat cynical and somewhat who cares attitude towards AWB style editing, specially when dealing with cats.
There are indeed quite a few conventions that WP:Trains and WP:UK Trains - that might in fact put some potential taggers off (requirements to actually look at the cats before tagging... can be probleamtic for some awb processes)
Very people watch cats for changes, and a multitude of weird re-inventing the wheel stuff often goes under the radar until it is too late and rather obscure conversations eventuate between far too few people at CFD. It is even worse when people argue to keep parent and child cats and other variations, ostensibly to help the reader.
Happy new year anyways. satusuro 04:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Dear MO7838,

Concerning your category reverts on Downer EDI Rail GT46C ACe and Downer EDI Rail GT46C‎:

The Category:Diesel locomotives of Australia had become very large, therefore I diffused this category according to the WP:DIFFUSE policy. The locomotives don't have subset characteristics (nondiffusing cats) as described in WP:DUPCAT.

After diffusing, WP:SUBCAT applies (like I already mentioned in my edit summary). --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree Category:Diesel locomotives of Australia did need diffusing. However as the Downer EDI Rail GT46C and Downer EDI Rail GT46C ACe classes, like the NR class and VL class, operate across multiple Australian states, by only having the Aurizon and Pacific National categories, this ignores that they are operated by other operators who are not diverse enough to warrant categories.
If it has to be one or the other, I believe it should be Category:Diesel locomotives of Australia to reflect their broader operation, but ideally would be accommodated in both. Mo7838 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Understood and agreed. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cape gauge[edit]

See the nomenclature paragraph which perfectly explains local and historical differences in naming 3ft6in. + no real reference)

I have changed the cape gauge lead para and wording, hope you agree it might help. I dont agree with the above it does not explain perfectly anything, and fail to see why just because a word exists in another language that it has anything to do with the parts of the world where the term is never used. btw - when you creata a whole new swathe of gauge categories - have a thought for those who come after you and attempt to place the correct project tags on the talk pages. satusuro 02:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I will research this cape gauge issue and post my conclusions on the Talk:Cape gauge page this weekend.
Now for the project tags: The category policies are familiar to me. I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment and will read its contents. However, as a volunteer I am concerned with categorization, not assessing pages. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
research? - the point is the usage of the term is limited - and to present it as a universal usage - the term - is blatant 'one size fits all' editing that the earlier 'us-centric' editors would do to very early trains articles and categories. (Be thankful you started when you did - by a guess of the attitude and behaviour of editors about 4 - 5 years ago your gauge categories expansion would have been a very uncomfortable experience - it is editors like you who should be thankful for editor loss - less people watching, less people prepared to go into battle over a lot of issues that seem to get glossed over in the main these days and explains the curious nature of your observation above of I am currently cleaning up categories over the entire rail transport hierarchy (in compliance with (WP:SUBCAT) and noticed very few complaints or reverts after more than 2000 category edits. Therefore I'm eager to learn more about your other observations)

After a lot of edit wars and attrition, we now have categories and articles that acknowledge that there are differences between usages of terminology relative to locomotive parts, operations, and other aspects of railways (and railroads), to do with vocabularies, and we have separate usages for different parts of the world - north america, united kingdom, australia, europe and so on. To assume universal usage in all your gauge editing is nothing short of lack of research as well. If you were prepared to accept the fact that putting fixed labels on any one gauge is not helpful to the reader, and actually leave the measurement only, and put akas or variants in the articles, you'd understand what the issue I take over 'Cape' usage. Not every country uses the names for anything, although the world we live in has ISO's for almost everything, rail transport terms are never consistent and havent been for over a hundred years, you should be aware of that by now surely? As for placing project tags on talk pages, you misunderstand. I am not asking you to assess, to create the large number of category pages as you did, to put wikiproject trains on the talk page is hardly a big request, and the country tag as well, it is a small courtesy, at least. Volunteer or no. It is a small and very simple edit. satusuro 23:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Big thank you[edit]

Your recent edits of putting the appropriate project tags on talk pages of categories and articles recently are excellent! Thank you, it is appreciated to see someone has the time and dedication to do that, it really helps the trains project to know what it has within its scope - it is really something that so few people do anymore, best wishes - and keep up the good work!!! satusuro 04:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Other narrow gauge pioneers[edit]

Thank you for adding several names to Carl Abraham Pihl#Other narrow gauge pioneers.

Can/are these names be listed in a chronological order that suggests who influenced who?

For example, was Abraham Fitzgibbon of Queensland Railways influenced by Pihl, who did he invent 1067 gauge all by himself? Tabletop (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Tabletop, I need a couple of days to finish my research on the Cape Gauge topic. (History, influences/relations / nomenclature).--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Great to see the timeline - at one of my places of work today I was reading a version of what Fairlie was getting up to in the 1860's (possibly earlier) - supposedly in the Times (and was then picked up in the states in the Tribune) advocating the world take on 3'6 - also the problem with Fitzgibbon's idea was that engineers would be consulted elsewhere (at least one from New South Wales) they would come and speak to the Queensland government and they would say tht 4'8 1/2 was the only way to go - so Fitz - even though he lasted only a short time - is seen as a villain by many historians here in Australia - for creating the first 'break in gauge'. I think the fairlie article does not play on his activisim - specially pre 1865 - and the fuss that it created - due to the 1860's financial crash his 'more economical' gauge idea apparently was caught on by many journalists (cynical Australian rail historians tend to see the narrow gauge as costing a lot more in the end...) satusuro 10:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

and the main book - easy to find and referred to often - is happening in the 1870's -Fairlie, R. F. (Robert Francis) (1872), Railways or no railways : narrow gauge, economy with efficiency v. broad gauge, costliness with extravagance, Wilson, retrieved 4 March 2014  I havent been able to locate any earlier items that he as put together...(interesting fairlie was trying to lobby Queensland to take his double/articulated - there are even letters to the newspapers about it - and the great thing was - they actually sent them all the way back... they didnt like them one bit) satusuro 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Just found a good online version: --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Damn that publication date - if it was 10 years older...
Also thank you very much for the edit summary of ' If the term "cape gauge" remains controversial we should consider a rename to "3ft 6in gauge railways" and thouroughly rewrite intro, nomenclature and add history' - anyways getting back to the ladies Masters that i added to Fitz's article - her main gist which you can get in the summary of the thesis in trove - is the 'old boy network' amongst the engineers at the time was particularly strong - so there is a possibility of Fitz and Fairlie being mates - one way or other, I havent been able to get more on the rivals in Brisbane yet - but they last out until he was moved on... I think the weird references from some queensland rail historans that fitz was working on 3' 6 in New Zealand is really odd - I think it is a bit of gloss and incorrect. What interests me is whether there is a possible connection between Fitz and Fairlie - and whether they were cohorts... satusuro 10:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Fitz did survey and design some 3ft 6in railways in NZ but these lines were never built as far as I know.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your research and additions - my referring to some of the queensland material comes from Harding (Uniform Gauge) and the queensland state railway histories - if you havent ever used it - is brilliant. I have my hunch that the fairlie and fitz connection may be traceable - but the fairlie book what i have looked at is his arguments with others following a british committee of enquiry about guage issues in the 60's... it would be good if we could locate that as well - the point is fairlies loco got a big rejection from australia (at least they still run at ffestinog) he was probably on the nose for a while... satusuro 11:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
also some australian and queensland rail historians seem to be a varied bunch... the lack of adequate sourcing is frustrating in Harding is understandable as it was more polemic than careful history... my idea is that the British environment in the late 1850s and early 1860s need a closer look for the background to fairlies work of the 1870s - a commission or committee on gauages might be a clue (un less I havent looked closely enough and it is already written up here on wikipedia)... satusuro 11:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I cannot get Times refs for Fairlies activities for a few days, but the spectator archive is open - I left a ref at Tabletops talk - 1846 was a gauge commissioners report to parliament in the uk - and the standard gauge engineers won - i think - which makes the 3'6 thing of the 1870s odd... - clearly fairlie was trying for newspaper support if not sympathy, not engineers as most were for the standard gauge... satusuro 15:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
An imported railway - the background to construction of Queensland's early railway: After the collapse of the boom period of railway building in Britain, engineers and contractors began increasingly to work in other countries, taking British experience and British practices with them. They often had existing personal and professional connections which were maintained as they travelled around the globe. In the Australian colonies, these connections influenced some of the early decision-making...... Also interesting.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yup in her thesis summary - I suspect one of our Brisbane based editors is enrolled in that University at the moment or has access to the pdf... I will try - the detail in the thesis might well give some evidence on this...satusuro 15:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
another issues raised by one of my wednesday work place companions - 1861 was when steel started being rolled in sheffield - so that different weights and sizes of steel were possible - allowing for the development of longer railway systems not constrained by the earlier iron rail used prior to that date... it gets weirder as time goes on... satusuro 08:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian gauge links[edit]

To consider, Jackdude101@. Currently the 760 mm Bosnian gauge pages are categorized (under "L" [1], ~50). In the upcoming {{RailGauge}} update, I will add the link to Bosnian gauge for 760 mm (stable name, no confusion). That means that {RailGaige|760mm|lk=on}} wil function. Would you consider adding that switch to those 50 pages now? If and when, with the update, other gauges are listed that handy list could be gone. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I count only 28 pages (currently investigating this AWB software to solve this kind of issues)--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I count 36 pages now under L, not ~50. What would be wrong with AWB? I have put them in User:DePiep/sandbox9 and AWB'ed them carefully. So Yes check.svg Done.
Is there any suggestion or wish you have for the next version category listings? -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
At this moment, no suggestions--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll empty the category then for other uses. -DePiep (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

About "Articles that mentions rail gauge x mm" categories[edit]

About {{RailGauge}}, we need to look ahead. As you know, I am preparing the {RailGauge} code to fill categories by gauge size. Let me describe.

  • Every article with a {RailGauge} will be categorized in "Category:Article mentions gague x mm" (once for every x size mentioned in that article). The parent category is Category:Articles that mention a specific rail gauge. There will be some 220 subcategories. That is: the {RailGauge} knows 220 different gauge measures (gauge x mm with 220 different x's).
Because we use imperial/metric input options, there are actually ~300 different gauge descriptions. So there are (300 - 220 =) 80 gauges that take inch and mm for different description, but they lead to the same mm size (and to the same "mentions"-category). (for example s.g. has two descriptions, and has one category).
All clear so far? Or should I tell more?
  • My question is this. When I change {RailGauge} code to really fill these "mentions" categories, 12,500 pages are woken up. A few of these could have a problem (400 bad pages is 'a few' too ...). Some issues we do not know now.
One predictable problem is code we saw a month ago, with these 6ft/600mm gauges:
[[Narrow gauge railway|{{RailGauge|1000mm}}]]. All such pages go bad when {RailGauge} adds the "mentions" category in there. It can be switched off on that page by adding |addcat=no to that page, OK. But still, we don't know which page we should edit for this (out of 12,500).
I plan to not categorize the s.g. pages for now, to reduce the possible issues (Category:Articles that mention rail gauge 1435 mm will be empty).
What do you think? Can we handle 7500 articles appearing auto-categorized, needing a check? -DePiep (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Great! All clear. Now for the issues. I think I tweaked my AWB filters good enough to know what issues lie ahead.
  • As I already covered most of Britain's narrow gauge articles, containing the majority of the more obscure gauges, I think my AWB filters can handle the rest, with a few tweaks to the standard gauge templates.
  • [[Narrow gauge railway|{{RailGauge|1000mm}}]] estimation is that this is already solved for at least 80%.
  • I need an estimation for the s.g. 7500, I will answer this later.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I feel supported.
re AWB: I think that is not relevant for this. I will not change alias issues in the near future, to keep it simple. Yesterday's change was useful, removing the "9" inch/mm? confusion. Input variants supported now: 4 ft 6 in, 4'6", 52in, 52". And all 500mm, 1m. These are easy & clear & not confusing. (On plain number input: later more). Your AWB edits I saw these days do not interfere with my Mention-cat plans at all.
re "solved for at least 80%" -- that would leave 20%, could be 100's to 1000's of pages in a surge of 5000 or 7500? pages affected (pages that use {RailGauge}). But OK, we both see the possible issues and their number of pages: it is not alarming (this is what this post is about). We see the risk and oversee & accept possible consequences as being within our handle. Added, -DePiep (talk)
re "an estimation for the s.g. 7500"?? I think you misunderstand. I meant to say there might be 7500 non-s.g. pages popping up. (s.g. pages =pages with {{RailGauge|sg}} or ussg will not be categorized to reduce risk of disruption. Maybe in May I say, so we can look at the Scotch tracks first). My number of 7500 pages was a number of pages that could appear in the Mentions-categories, when s.g. is not categorised. Of course, when s.g. is catgorised in "next May", then all 12,500 pages will appear in the Mentions-catgories. Multiple times))

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Next steps

  • I will proceed with the development, happily feeling supported. The auto-documentation will go ahead too. (I don't know why any more, but the topics are tied somehow. It's about mastering the data).
  • When the "Mentions"-categorization and auto-documentation is stable and ready, I will propose introduction into live. Good thing: there is no time pressure. If we don't trust the quality, we can postpone freely. Talk best be at Template talk:RailGauge. After going live, would be good if we have some time available right after that to see the effects.

Have a nice edit, -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Bored of clicking AWB?[edit]

Hey, if you are bored of seeing & clicking AWB, there is this. At the moment I am developing {{RailGauge}}} to produce documentation links to categories:

Category:900 mm gauge railways (existing, content) Green tickY
Category:Articles that mention rail gauge 900 mm (under construction; maintenance overview not content) YesY

What is also needed (I think) is to fill the one category for all sizes (looks like Category:Narrow gauge railways by size, but without the size limits). No subdivision for "Narrow gauges". So Category:Track gauges by size shows all. This is called an "up-categorize" or "up-merge" I think. All rail gauge sizes are in this one cat, presented as in the narrow subcat. Category:Track gauges by imperial unit‎ will stay (for those culturally challenged). Category:Track gauges by metric unit‎ will go.

In one or ten weeks, when my new {{RailGauge}} is gong fine, I will propose this at CfD. But if you like, you can do it right now. I will support, but I can not initiate right now. -DePiep (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it started becoming pretty boring. The good news is that I just finished the last major rail transport category hierarchy this afternoon (railway lines, rolling stock, track gauges, etc). During this process I discovered numerous interesting articles. Spring is the air so I'm intending to spend more time outdoors from now on.
Now for the categories: I didn't fully participate in the train gauge categories discussion and your Naming rail gauge articles proposal on the Wikiproject Trains talk page as I am thinking about a more "integrated approach" involving the gauge category structure you propose, the list of track gauges page and the individual pages concerning a particular gauge.
I would like to suggest (with your one to ten weeks "roadmap" in mind) to wait a couple of weeks before we make a proposal at CfD. I also intend to tackle some more "cultural issues" in the meantime. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

List them all?[edit]

Hi. I have prepared Category:Articles that mention a specific rail gauge. Next week I plan to change code (module:RailGauge) to fill them. Once we change, those RailGauge articles may need a check. I'd like you to be present, to follow this. Are you wiki online, next week? -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'll have time during the weekdays, so I propose that you release the code during the weekend (or on Friday 19:00 CET). To be sure: After the code release the Category:Articles with template RailGauge with unrecognized input still functions and will be populated with an unknown amount of pages (the process which you called earlier "waking up"). I'll commit myself fixing the unrecognized input category pages during that weekend.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, no freetime or sleeping for us next weekend May 2-3-4 then ;-). Change planned shortly after the time you mention.
  • The "cat:unrecognised" principle is unchanged. But after this code change, it should be empty.
Background: it is re-populated after definition-changes in the data. The plan this time is: all four listed pages will be OK and will disappear. Because I will add their new gauges to the data list (in the same code change). If I would remove any data definitions from the /data list, articles would be added. But a removal is not planned this time. So I expect an empty "cat:unrecognised" after the change.
  • Now this is what I am afraid of. (Please read this part carefully, because it is about articles that may be damaged. Visible for our readers!. Ask me.)
About all the new size maintenance categories. Two months ago, we categorised all those Bosnian gauge pages (2500 articles). But when {{RailGauge}} was used in an article this way: [[History of Bosnia|{{RailGauge|Bosnian}}]], that article text showed wrong. For every reader! We had to look at every page to check that (you did!). Those articles cannot be listed in a category. So when we have 10,000 articles categorised next weekend, they all could have that bad text. So they all need a visual check.
Now Wikipedia won't explode for this. But a checking sweep would be nice, within the first week. (By the way, the solution is to add |addcat=no like this: [[History of Bosnia|{{RailGauge|Bosnia|addcat=no}}]]). This is my worry. So I ask your support to help with that visual check sweep. But only for the fun, no time pressure.

The rest is interesting too. But it can wait:

  • To reduce possible havoc, no "standard gauge" pages will be categorised now (whichever input variant is used).
  • Category:Articles with template RailGauge that may need attention will be empty. It will go (too complicated, and useless once we have the all individual gauges in their category).
  • As always, I will write a "change overview" on RailGauge (talk). There will also be a core introduction of the new categories. Once live, they are a great place to mine those gauges one by one. (my code errors could spoil this).

-DePiep (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries for your [[History of Bosnia|{{RailGauge|Bosnia}}]] concerns (and these 2500 are actually multiple gauges). The majority of this kind of links were already in my AWB search and replace dataset and I just added the following: Search for |RailGauge{{ and replace with: |RailGauge{{#$!?$#. Any hit I'll find will be added to AWB as another search and replace. I just ran an experimental run and although it generates a lot of false positives (when gauges are in tables or image links for example), very few pages are affected. As I know exactly where Jackdude101 and I directed these kind of links to, I plan to run all affected gauge articles with the "what links here" AWB list generator before next Friday evening. More comments tomorrow.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
OK for all of this. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The [[History of Bosnia|{{RailGauge|Bosnia}}]]-like links take a little more time as there more instances of such links than Jackdude and I introduced, even for standard gauge. It will be fixed before tomorrow evening (except for standard gauge, another 5000 pages to check, suggestion to postpone the standard gauge implementation for a month or two)
re: good plan (also to skip s.g.). Change of plan: code change only after you declare your AWB job complete. Could be later in the weekend. That is the sane sequence (your AWB action prevents disruption, simple). Please take your time (for quality & fun), and please drop important messages on my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • After the code change, I will focus on the smaller gauges first, and in general I will focus on the pages which don't look familiar to me)
We will wait until you finished your big AWB process. That should prevent most page disruptions. Then for visual checks (not AWB, not category listed), you can start at the 3mm side. I will start at the 8.2m side. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Now for the Category:Articles with template RailGauge with unrecognized input. (not to be confused with the cat "may need attention"). You said it will be empty after the code change and will only be populated after redefinition of a template. I have my doubts on this because of the following behaviour which I saw frequently happen for the last two months and I assumed it is part of the "waking up process" you mentioned earlier:
    • For some reason, there is an unknown amount of pages having an unrecongnized RailGauge template which do not appear on the Category:Articles with template RailGauge with unrecognized input page.
    • Such pages will only appear in the unrecognized category after someone edits that particular page (he doesn't necessarily have to change the template).
    • So what happens with all these dormant unrecognized pages and what happens to the six (or less after my fix) partly unrecognized which are currently listed?--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Curious. I'd expect that a week after a template change, all pages would have been reprocessed (cleared from the cache), and a category would be up to date. So you found it is not. Well, we can't change that, it is Wikipedia article cache processing. Look at it this way: the category is functioning as intended ;-).
Standard process for the category:unrecognised is to be used. That is: 1. try to fix it on page (check input spelling, unit, ...), or 2. add it to the open thread at Talk, currently Template_talk:RailGauge#Gauge_proposals.2C_May_2014. As always, we like an article + source for any gauge issue. If it appears after this weekend's change, any new data can be done in a next change batch (after some weeks, maybe a month).
Of course I follow that category & talkpage. Any undisputed (sourced) gauges, new or changed, I can add before this weekend. But I won't add them in a hurry, skipping serious check. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Good to see we have a uniform Standard process for the category:unrecognised. No further questions, I finish my current AWB exercise somewhere tomorrow evening.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Lol. While I wrote here, you cleaned up the category (now the same old 4 left). -DePiep (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Lol2: the standard process is a bit too secret I understand. Anyway, that is how I approach rail gauge issues. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep: All RailGauge templates enclosed in links have been fixed (except for standard gauge)--Aaron-Tripel
@DePiep:And here is a nice example of the caching issue. Garth Pier was edited today, the RailGauge template was untouched, and it appeared on the Category:Articles with template RailGauge with unrecognized input. Previous edit was on 17 December 2013. (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
OK. Will go for switchover. Saw Garth Pier, that's the way it is. I could edit it into OK, writing "36in". -DePiep (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep: Good. Almost done with the 5000 standard gauge AWB checks.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Afterthought. Garth Pier was not hidden since 17 December (its last edit). The input error was "30" instead of "30in". This was only an error since last April 9, because that is when I made those bare numbers invalid. So that is only three weeks, not five months. A bit less extreme. -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

After the code change[edit]

Yes check.svg Done -DePiep (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep: There seem to be only a fraction of all pages having RailGauge templates in the categories (1845). I identified some missing pages, and after performing a blank edit they have been subsequentely added.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, it may take three to seven days before we can even think of having compete categories. And then, there can be these sleeping pages that need to be awoken. btw, this is c called jobqueue WP:JQ and "cache". -DePiep (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep: More pages are dripping in, currently 2252 pages. Checked various pages, fixed the templates on the minimum gauge section of the list of track gauges, deliberately left untouched to see what happens. Other concerns, like Railgauge templates enclosed in nowrap templates for example haven't broken down.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep: Currently 3208 pages listed. I made numerous checks today and haven't found any Railgauge errors. As a matter of fact, I WAS puzzled by some other error found in the 2ft6in maintenance category: What does the standard gauge Empire State Express have to do with 2 ft 6 in (762 mm)? A first investigation indicated I made an AWB Railgauge change: [2] A few dozen of diffs earlier explained all:[3].--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I followed the counting to. Of course, undoubled there are 2119 pages listed. (This should become, when s.g. is added, to the total 13397 count for {RailGauge) [4]).
By intention also category pages are listed. But they show up as full subcategories, while actually they only should be named (IOW: their content should not be considered in that category). Maybe in the next edit, I'll have their category talk page listed as single regular page. -DePiep (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
About page counting, a refinement. {{RailGauge}} today has 13409 transclusions (+6 since my edit above; +2000 since I got involved a year ago). These are all pages. We are interested in content pages, that is article pages + category pages (13409 minus other namespace pages). Then, we do not categorize s.g. (minus ? pages).
Now about cat:mentionings. We categorise {RG} gauge mentionings: any article is categorised for each and every {RG} id (id=mm size). So a page that mentions two RGs, will be in those two mentions-categories. So those (13409 − s.g. − non-content ns =) 10000 pages appear 20000 times in the mentions-categories. We can count unique appearances. (I use AWB cat: list + filter to count). -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
If the cache is a question, just follow Category:Articles with template RailGauge that may need attention. It is programmed to be empty. (from ~900p?, now 140p) -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep:. Until now, I encountered some strange, odd gauges. For the moment I will put my remarks on the corresponding talk page of a particular article like Talk:Huntsville and Lake of Bays Transportation Company. What annoys me is that some artificial gauge definitions appear to have creeped in like Category:Articles that mention rail gauge size 783 mm due to model railroad scales not representing true track gauges.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I wanted! All those strange gauges exposed! Now we can systematically research, document, source, and describe gauges. This best be in an article, not in documentation.
And yes, the talk should best be at a target article talkpage. Preferably, one talkpage per gauge (when used in multiple articles). As for {RailGauge}, I want that article as the link-to article. That way, each gauge has a link-to page where it is defined & sourced. Great (there can be two: imperial, metric. Fine).
Of course weird gauges have creeped in. Non-existant even (empty mentionings category). Research should result in solving: delete from the {RailGauge} data list, or define & source in an article.
Now this is begging for a systematic approach, centralised maybe. But I am not in the mood to set up or promise such a coordination. Just pick a favorite gauge, and improve. Per-gauge research is OK; maybe look at neighbouring sizes (699mm and 700mm are not the same?). {RailGauge} can nicely reflect the result. -DePiep (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: Except for the scale model gauges, I finished checking the Category:Articles that mention a specific rail gauge for specific gauges, and updated the List of track gauges article, which has now 147 different track gauges (according to an Excel count).

The gauge of the Snailbeach has been variously quoted as 2’4” and 2’3 ¾”. In all the surviving engineering based paperwork 2’ 3 ¾” is used and this was almost certainly the actual gauge. 2’4” is usually used in public and official returns probably because Section 23 of the original Act specified, “The gauge of the railways shall be not less than two feet four inches”. Any admission of a narrower gauge might have attracted unwelcome official interest.

--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Great job list!
  • I suggest: the 3 gauges you listed here for more sourcing, should stay in the {RG} template list. Actual decision must be made in the article/talkpage, the {RG} can follow. I don't think I can contribute much to those 5 discussions for now.
  • 705mm and 711mm: dunno. I will take a look.
  • Shall we create an inline tag+category, like: 711 mm[rail gauge needs more research]? Looks nice, not an error-category.
  • I understand: List of track gauges is cross-checked, and exhausted too? Very good.
  • 783mm, 857mm and 1257mm theoretical scale gauges: I'm not sure. Maybe wait & keep until the scaled gauges are done? I expect that their scale will make us rethink their way of listing & categorising. btw, my sandbox has a lot of old gauge-to-scale-&-prototype notes, now disappeared from the documentation.
  • The five empty categories you listed (699mm, 1013mm, 1062mm(FEVE), 1130mm, 1460, 1580, 1680) are up for deletion then.
  • Minor point: My AWB (after the Filter) says 6096 unique articles in the category now. That would mean ~7000 pages with s.g. only.
Tired, -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


  • Yes, the three unsourced gauges should be retained.
  • 705mm and 711mm cannot be solved I think, the article needs a proper clarification for the difference.
  • I took a glance at all scale model gauges. If not sourced, enough info was found on the internet. May need a thorough investigation, but this is not my field of interest.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Aaron-Tripel@ Update.
  • I have created RailGauge/document article count per gauge to overview usage. A gauge popularity check! Category counts cannot be added to the base documentation table, because it would run over 500 "expensive functions" (parser limit).
  • I found that 4ft gauge has 70 uses, and no article. For now, I created Four foot gauge railways.
  • I have added gauges 783mm, 857mm and 1257mm gauges (you pointed to here) to the Gauges for Discussion list. They need some attention.
  • You think categorising standard gauge would be useful? That would be filling cat:mentioins in a next code change. Maybe 5000 to 10000 pages. (dewiki has 3100 standard gauge tracks listed in their content category). -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


  • Article count is a nice overview.
  • Four feet is on my todo list but apart from an ordinary rail list it deserves a decent textual historical overview.
  • I will respond to the 783mm, 857mm and 1257mm on the discussion list.
  • Yes, categorizing SG is useful as when cycling the list through AWB, numerous errors and interesting discoveries can be processed (the AWB campaign for narrow gauge proved to be very useful). Planned for a series of rainy autumn afternoons, no need to hurry with this implementation.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
All fine. s.g. will be categorised later on (not in next edit, there is enough to do in other gauges). The page is Four foot gauge railways, now a redirect. (Did I make it a plural? Jee. There is something with those names. Shouldn't there be a hyphen in the adjective? Will have to look at MOS:UNIT). -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI. I expect to change to new RG/data and new RG module code within a few days. Gauges are talked here of course, and code changes (like |disp=br) are on that page too. A preview is here, and in {{tl}RailGauge/doc}} soon. The changes are many (first effect of these categories), but not extreme. I'm just stabilising and checking the code (mostly, getting rid of my own typos ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Plus the testcases. -DePiep (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep: So there could be a couple of articles in the unrecognized category?--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I'll list them in my report on code changes (with a ⚠ Warning sign). Some specific entries will go (e.g. 63mm is not an existing gauge so is deleted and must be edited out of pages), and 67 numeric inputs will be removed (should be "35in" not "35"); these could be 615 pages max unrecognised (if *all* use "35" not "35in" &tc). I'll have my finger on the AWB trigger: those pages have a {{RailGaige|''number''}} to be caught & edited). -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Linking the gauges[edit]

In situations like this [5]. Would you consider to make it like: |gauge = {{RailGauge|21in|lk=on}}

That way, the infobox will link nicely to a definition page, when we have added one for 21 inch in the future. Until then, the number shows fine too (unlinked). It is my long term plan to provide for each gauge a source (definition) page. -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Is also my consideration but not in my AWB settings. Right now I completed over 60% of the |RailGauge{{ "trick". I will be offline until tomorrow evening and then I will comment further on the gauge maintenance category issues.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. -DePiep (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Now this, my topical editor friend.
Ever since we made the RG link look like:
600 mm (1 ft 11 58 in), instead of
600 mm (1 ft 11 58 in) Two foot and 600 mm gauge railways, this issue has bogged me (while solving it).
What we need is a link-to article for each railgauge. That could be a generic article. For example, 1668mm, 1664mm, 1672 mm all can link to Iberian gauge. Even to a section (Iberian gauge#1664 mm). We can specialize per input option (alias) if needed.
I ask that you think about & suggest any possible target link for each railgauge we know. The "Link" column should be full. It should be the page where the gauge is defined & sourced. -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Chattenden and Upnor Railway[edit]

I notice that you have removed the link to minimum gauge from the C&UR. Is there a reason? The template for 18in looks fine (you set it up about 4 edits back) and it used to link to the minimum gauge page. Would you prefer "{{RailGauge|18in}} gauge ([[Minimum gauge]])" instead? Please also see my remarks from 2012 on the talk page, the use of 18in is not covered by a citation and there is some reason to believe that it never was 18in. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this and linked the 18-inch gauge, now showing 18 in (457 mm). -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't see a need to introduce the term "minimum gauge", the redirect from 18in does it nicely. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield: the link to minimum gauge was added by User:Jackdude101, four edits back I only added "in" (inch) to the template as templates without units have broken down in the past. Yesterday, the minimum gauge link was removed due to planned code changes to the RaiGauge template, which affects templates enclosed in wiki links. See the User talk:Aaron-Tripel#List them all? section above, in particular the "Now this is what I am afraid of" bullet. My AWB edits only concern the templates and have nothing to do with the actual context/content --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I came at this from the article (it's on my watchlist having edited it earlier) rather than the template angle. In this case the redirect I mentioned to DePiep takes care of things nicely. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Good approach, Martin of Sheffield. Another detail: the option to link like "18 in (457 mm)" exists only for some weeks, not months. I think it is nice, but there is no style habit for adding "minimum gauge" or not in the text (and, link it?). WP says: it will be better later. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


Category:Articles that mention a specific rail gauge

Yes check.svg Done -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Russian gauge in England[edit]

I don't doubt that the Eastern Counties Railway and its associates were of 5 ft 0 in gauge early on - I've known this for over 30 years, and it's confirmed by e.g. Whishaw's The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland (1842), see pp. 91, 260, 363. What I doubt is that they were described as "Russian gauge railways": the Eastern Counties was opened (as far as Romford) on 18 June 1839, extended to Brentwood 1 July 1840; the London & Blackwall on 6 July 1840; and the Northern & Eastern (as far as Broxbourne) on 15 September 1840, all being before any 5 ft gauge railways had been built in Russia. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Without doubt you are absolutely right. Before I started working on the Russian gauge article it was written in such a way that it suggested that 5ft gauge originated from Russia. Nothing is farther from the truth. Right now I am in the process to make a strong case for proposing a rename of the latter article to something more neutral like "Five foot gauge railways" and a subsequent renaming of all related categories. Finding more non-Russian 5ft gauge railways to support this case is part of this process, by adding their corresponding (currently wrong-named) categories.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Bit of the same with Panama Canal Railway. Some disentangling of the categories is to be done. -DePiep (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Continued, with substance, at Template_talk:RailGauge#Russian_gauge:_review. -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Rail transport in Costa Rica[edit]

Hello and thank you for your edit on the Rail transport in Costa Rica article following the information I added yesterday. I appreciate that there was too much information in the overview as I had left it and it was always my intention to redact it further and move some of the information into other sections. However, as I'm sure you have noticed, there is a lot of information that is repeated throughout the article already and much of this information is out of date, unclear or otherwise inaccurate. It is my intention to completely overhaul the article. Unfortunately, I only have a couple of hours a day to spend on it. As you will also have noticed, I am new to editing Wikipedia and am therefore prone to occasional mistakes. I do appreciate your assistance in editing the article, however I would kindly ask you to be patient as I go about making my changes - otherwise we will have a situation where I make one set of changes and you immediately move things around and this will make improving the article more complicated. Hopefully we will be able to discuss the changes here or on my talk page. Thanks again, and be sure to visit Costa Rica soon! Apolo2400 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Apolo2400:. Yes, I called all the repeated info the "mess". I'll sit back patiently while you further enhance the article. It is better for article discussions to take place at the articles' talk page.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Gauge titles[edit]

I think the 15-inch better be reversed to its earlier title, that was not wrong. A lot of people are working with WP:trains, so it should be prepared & discussed thorough.

Then we should start a discussion for all these names (before a formal Move Proposal even!). The 15-inch one better be reversed asap, because once a discussion is perfomed and closed, it cannot be changed any more for a long time! So to prevent a unwelcome new outcome, better to shortcut that discussion. (from this: you best propose to Speedy Revert!).

This is the very big risk with Move Requests: everybody will come by and drop an argument. Then the closing admin comes along and closes it - without weighing Train people or Guuidelines heavier. A !vote "I don't understand it, so don't change" argument can convince an admin. Locking the title for a long time. So better to softly discuss it on WT:TRAIN. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Move proposal: template {RailGauge} into {Track gauge}[edit]

I initiated this move proposal in Template talk:RailGauge#Requested move. Please take a look and join if you are interested. -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of proposed railways/proposed rail infrastructure categories[edit]

Please see my proposal to rename Category:Proposed railways to Category:Proposed railway lines and to rename or upmerge some of the subcategories and related categories. Hugo999 (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

  • dates
  • years
  • commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
  • common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This applies to infoboxes, too.

Thanks, and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tony1:. I moved an existing text from PT Kereta Api (diff) to the new History of rail transport in Indonesia article: (diff). Also, an existing text from Rail transport in Indonesia (diff) was included. Except for Burma I didn't link to commonly known geographical terms. The rest of the links were already present or introduced by User:Lukmanganteng99 (diff). Is there a policy I should copyedit other users' contributions when moved to another article? I don't think so.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)