User talk:Jackdude101

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

Welcome!

Hello, Jackdude101, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NATO flags[edit]

It is against copyright to use NATO flags on wikipedia. EU, UN and OIC flags are copyright free so we can use them. Please refrain from using them in the future. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Lisbon[edit]

Could you please check the talk page before editing the Belgian section of the ratification table. Thanks! Sigur (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Whyte Lightning[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Whyte Lightning, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whyte Lightning. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whyte Lightning[edit]

It said, "If you don't let us keep this, we're not going to announce it, motherfuckers." Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Astros4477. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gemini (roller coaster), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cedar Point, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Cedar Point[edit]

I undid some of your recent changes at the Cedar Point article. While some of your points are notable, they shouldn't be inserted into the article to transform it into a debate. Instead, I encourage you to start a new discussion on the article's talk page. Once the issue is resolved there, we can then decide how to best change the statements in the article if necessary. It did have the highest drop, so that should be taken into account in the discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three foot gauge railways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three foot gauge railways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing RailGauge templates[edit]

Please do not remove the use of the RailGauge template from articles about 3 ft (914 mm) gauge railways. The template is a standard convention used throughout articles about narrow gauge railways. Thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Three foot gauge railways[edit]

You are attempting to link the type of trains at various locations around the world to this article, but the article itself doesn't have any reliable sources. Where are you obtaining this information from? TrainWeb.org? That web site would not be considered a reliable source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, only the first mention of a term should be linked. (Or on long articles the first mention of a term in a while). If someone has read 2/3rds of the article and has read the term "3 ft. railway" 8 times, there is no need to keep linking the term. If they wanted to visit the article for 3 ft. railway, they would have by reaching that point in the article. Cheers, Dave (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
What Dave said. Easy there. Choess (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it appears your inquiry at the RSN about TrainWeb.org has some consensus supporting its use as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Thanks for starting the discussion there. My concern is resolved. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Three foot gauge railways may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[White Pass and Yukon Route]] (crosses into [[Alaska|Alaska, United States]] (operating)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kings Dominion may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Dollywood, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.FirstDrop87 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The only change I made to the Dollywood article was one change a week-and-a-half ago that simply noted that the park's railroad has a three-foot track gauge and nothing else. It's a small, key piece of information that is very worthwhile on the subject of railroads. I see from that article's history that an anonymous person made an unrelated change within the past few hours that removed some editorial content. If that change is what you are talking about, that anonymous person is not me. I only make changes to articles under my screenname. Please do not revert any of my changes without discussing them with me first. Jackdude101 (Talk) 04:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Concerning your recent edits on three foot gauge railway articles[edit]

Dear Jackdude,

First of all, thank you four your latest contributions. I noticed that you:

  • Removed the bullets I provided. IMHO bullets make a text more readable, and, more important, more compact.
  • Provide numerous in-text external links where in-line citations are more appropriate.
  • Make a huge amount of small edits, making it very hard to track changes as only the latest edit appears in my watchlist. Before editing, consider placing an "Under Construction" or "Work in Progress" template, during editing use the "Show preview" button to check your results.

Keep up the good work!--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll make those changes regarding bullets and external links. The only reason I got rid of the bullets on the Three foot gauge sub-pages for the UK and the US was so that the pages would be styled the same way as the main Three foot gauge page, which has no bullets. I'll add bullets to that page, as well. Also, one option to see all of the recent changes to these articles is to observe my contributions page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jackdude101. Jackdude101 (Talk) 07:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Two foot and 600 mm gauge railways in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Great Bush Railway]] (located in [[Tinkers Park]] (operating)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Three foot gauge railways may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • reconstruction of the network in the early 2000s they were converted to {{RailGauge|1000|allk=on}}).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fairbourne Railway may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • It was converted in 1916 to [[Ridable miniature railway|{{RailGauge|15}}]] railway|{{RailGauge|15}}]] gauge, and again to its present gauge in 1986. Originally built to carry building materials, the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Replacing[edit]

Why are you replacing {{RailGauge}} instances with, for example, 30? This could be done inside the template so all articles using it can have the benefit of your edit—with almost none of the work. Also, that would result in more standardization across articles and be much easier to maintain consistency between the components. —EncMstr (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? The changes I made kept the RailGauge templates, but also linked them to a page listing 30 railways around the world. When you see them on the page after editing, they return the 2 ft 6 in (762 mm) text. All I did was add one or two links on both pages that you reverted (there were also some minor text changes). Reverting these very small changes I made is unreasonable. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
What I mean is that instead of editing a bazillion articles, you could simply update the template and achieve the same effect. If there are incidences of the template which should not be linked to Two foot six inch gauge railways, for example, the template could be enhanced to make that linkage conditional. —EncMstr (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I have make the appropriate inquiry on the {{RailGauge}} template's talk page. You need to have special template editor rights to make these sorts of changes. Jackdude101 (Talk) 18:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
In the case of this template, it is almost entirely implemented as a module and I see you found the right place to ask, Module talk:RailGauge#Including article links with RailGauge templates which is receiving positive feedback so far. After a few days, I might take a crack at making the edits, though I haven't done any LUA to date. —EncMstr (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Zephyr Railroad[edit]

In your edit summary, you said:

"Zephyr name changed back to "Zephyr Railroad" with source. Park websites are not infallible with the information they provide. They only care about accuracy with specific ride names or precise stats to the point that it will generate profits."

All you had to say was:

"Zephyr name changed back to "Zephyr Railroad" with source."

I wouldn't have reverted your edit if you had provided the source to begin with. The reason is that the chart already has a source, the park's Guest Assistance Guide. And although you had good intentions and were basing your change on a fact, other editors down the road may not see those comments in the edit summary and change it back. Now that you've provided a source, that shouldn't happen. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I made the wrong assumption that because the change I made was so small, no one would care about the change, or whether a source was provided. Sorry. Besides my recent research on narrow gauge railroads, I have been researching roller coasters for several years, and I have come across several instances where the information given by parks (usually for parks in lesser-known, non-Western locations) is not simply inaccurate; it's a straight-up lie. I recall seeing one roller coaster in Vietnam advertised as being around 100 feet tall with a top speed of over 120 mph (on level ground with a traditional chain lift). Hence, I am always skeptical with the information that parks provide in terms of very specific information that a normal, everyday park guest would not care about. Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three foot gauge railways in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice work[edit]

That's a lot of nice work in the gauge categories by you and Aaron-Tripel. I have one more bugging thing I keep seeing. IMO both Category:Track gauges by metric unit and Category:Track gauges by imperial unit could be cut out in the tree, resulting in one category for say the narrow gauges. Of course the subcategories must be sorted by size (irrespective of mm of ft.in), which looks not isdeal but is OK for a size cat (it's not a culture cat!). Maybe sort all like [[:Category:...| 0750.0]] (with space). -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ah, I was not even aware of those categories separating all track gauge categories into imperial-only and metric-only (actually, I personally do not pay much attention to category pages in general). Since equipment can be interchanged with one another in some cases and since some countries use both imperial and metric, yes separating the track gauges this way is not needed. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

List of track gauges[edit]

Linking the gauge width to the list of track gauges is not all that useful, nor particularly relevant to the article, which is what WP:OVERLINK seeks to avoid. The existence of other gauges is irrelevant to an article on the Johnstown Inclined Plane, as it is with most of the articles you are also adding the link to. One link for track gauge in the infobox and another for broad gauge in the article is fine. If there was an actual article for 8-ft gauge, then linking to it instead of the list would be preferred, but it doesn't. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 14:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed one of the links in that article. Also, I respectfully disagree that indicating the existence of other track gauges with different railways is not useful, ESPECIALLY with the Johnstown Inclined Plane. Look at the List of track gauges and see where it is located on the table. You will discover by looking at this article that this railway has the widest track gauge of any operating railway in North America, and the widest track gauge for an operating funicular railway in the world! I think that's fascinating. Jackdude101 (Talk) 15:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I think Niagara has a point here:
  • WP:OVERLINK does apply. We've gone through the process lately to change the RailGauge template linking to the corresponding article describing that particular gauge.
  • This was discussed before: User talk:Jackdude101#Replacing. Quote: ...and be much easier to maintain consistency between the components...
  • After the new templates had been implemented, your specific gauge links were all broken due to its syntax. And it will happen again if Railgauge templates are changed in the future (after the creation of new "gauge" articles).
  • Your links only direct to a page, not a particular section of the page like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links. It is impossible to directly link to a particular row in a table like the 8ft gauge. Therefore the link is not relevant to me.
  • The following categories in the Johnstown Inclined Plane article invite to a further investigation in the gauge/funicular topic we are interested in Category:8ft gauge railways in the United States, Category:Funicular railways of the United States. Far more precise than a general link to an article.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) If I could find a source, I would add more on its unique gauge. It was actually incredibly difficult to even find the gauge for Johnstown. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you check its official website? Its gauge is mentioned on its technical page. I wanted to confirm its track gauge yesterday, so I started by looking at its official website just in case they had this info, and they did. Jackdude101 (Talk) 17:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, no...I visited the incline instead and they had some printed info I was able to use. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Link spamming[edit]

  • Take a close look at the following diff for example and PLEASE ask yourself how you think this is an improvement: [[1]]
  • What is the reason behind changing railgauge templates from foot to inch in numerous articles?
  • And what is the significance of spamming various articles with the Rail transport in Disney Parks link like [[2]], [[3]] and [[4]]?

I don't understand this kind of overediting. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Item #1: these links were added prior to the conversation about the recent conversations about overlinking. Item #2: the only reason I have the imperial-based rail gauge templates in inches is to keep them all in the same format with inches listed. Only a handful have templates listed as feet (2 ft, 3 ft, etc.), but all have a template with the measurement in inches. Item #3: calling this spamming is a bit harsh. Disney rail transport consists of several monorails and narrow gauge railways, so it is logical to link to these articles. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. In spite of the discussions mentioned you just kept on overlinking. See the reverts of today.
  2. Listing in inches only deviates from the category structure and the articles covering gauges like Three foot gauge railways, Three foot six inch gauge railways, etc. Moreover it's a waste of time as the template formatting is the same.
  3. I still don't see any significance and logic in this.
  1. Is it logical to have only one link for an item that appears a few times on a page like the Three foot gauge railways in the United States article, for instance, that has several hundred lines of text? What if in the future, the one linked item gets deleted or moved to a more specific article? Then you have no links left on the page. Hence, the extra links serve as "back-ups" in this regard, and keeps the reader from having to scan the article for the one single link. In some cases, based on common sense, only having one link for an item in a long article is not practical.
  2. There are plenty of other imperial-based gauges without their own articles, such as 16-inch gauge or 14-inch gauge, and these are expressed only as inches in their rail gauge templates. The point is to keep everything in a format that is uniform with everything. Furthermore, if its a waste of time, then why are you changing them, then?
  3. To elaborate on why Rail Transport in Disney Parks "deserves" to be mentioned on those articles you listed, many of the Disney railway lines are among the most heavily-used forms of transport of their kind in the world and the Disney Park chain of parks has more guests combined per year than any other park chain. The Walt Disney World Monorail System, for instance, handles around 157K passengers per day. Also, some of the older Disney rail installations are several decades old now, and some of the locomotives on the traditional railroads are more than or close to 100 years old. It should be noted that these same locomotives could easily have been sold to scrap dealers if the parks didn't buy them. Just because these transport attractions/systems are not common carriers and located in theme parks doesn't automatically mean that they are not relevant or any less important.
  1. WP:OVERLINKING policy on Wikipedia:Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. If an article of 1,000 lines has a link repeated on line 600 there is no objection to keep te second link. A link repeated three times in the same paragraph is just plain overkill. Any undesirable future edits (removal of templates) should be adressed by closely monitoring your watchlist, not placing an excessive amount of duplicate links.
  2. ...is to keep everything in a format that is uniform with everything... In my opinion, that's just impossible. Imperial versus metric, inch versus foot and inch, alphabetic versus historical order, etc. Using other units for Railgauge templates than its corresponding categories and article titles makes it harder to recognise a particular Railgauge when editing or reading text, especially for people accustomed to metric systems. When the list of track gauges, navbox track gauges, article titles and categories all mention 3ft 6in it is odd to use the devious 42in RailGauge template. Moreover, the Railgauge templates are only for conversion purposes and not intended for sorting lists by size or alphabet. Uniformity for the sake of uniformity serves no purpose.
  3. Taking WP:NPOV, in particular WP:BALASPS in consideration, Rail transport in Disney Parks is not less or more significant than a randomly chosen rapid transit rail system, famous heritage railway, abandoned railway or extensively used common carrier railway. There are numerous other railways transporting huge numbers of passengers, preserving steam locomotives or having other notable features. And these aren't listed in the "see also" section either. I chose the "spamming" qualification for all your linking behaviour, not only the Disneyland links (see the section header).--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
...behaviour... Are you British, by chance? I'm American, if that was not already apparent.
Uniformity for the sake of uniformity serves no purpose. Uniformity is a part of creating order, which is what rules are meant to do. To suggest that it serves no purpose is to suggest that rules serve no purpose, which makes no sense. Instead of focusing squarely on rules, the focus should instead be applied to the result they are meant to create and how well they create order. If they do not create order or create disorder, they need to be changed or discarded entirely. What I am attempting to say, in summary, is the following: order > rules. Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I only partly agree that uniformity is a way to create order. I didn't suggest that it makes no purpose to achieve uniformity, I responded to your ...is to keep everything in a format that is uniform with everything... which gives me the impression that uniformity is your final objective instead of using it as a guideline to establish order. That's what I meant with "uniformity for the sake of uniformity". There is no "one size fits all" solution for the unique and diverse world we live in.
Im afraid the degree of uniformity you are trying to pursuit conflicts with the diversity present on wikipedia.
Have you ever considered changing all imperial railgauges to metric units for uniformity purposes? I hope not.
For example, your intention to change imperial railgauge templates to inches instead keeping "foot and inches" in some instances, results in what I call here "vertical uniformity", while my objective is to reach a "horizontal uniformity" in this domain by giving all elements of a particular gauge (like categories, titles and templates) a single identifying unit (as present in the list of track gauges or defined in an article). Using 3ft6in AND 42in is not uniform in my opinion. Needless to say our vision on uniformity conflicts in several area's.
If such a conflicting vision occurs, I first try to find and apply wikipedia policies as a guideline as these guidelines represent a consensus between Wikipedia users.
Wikipedia rules are not set in stone. If, in a particular case, applying common sense gives a better result than blindly following the rules, common sense should be the leading factor. However, when deviating from the rules, one should motivate this deviation and/or seek concensus.
I agree the focus must be on the result, not blindly following rules or applying impractical and rigid forms of uniformity.
In fact, order is very important to me. I put a lot of effort in the rail transport category structure. For example, I sorted the whole 3ft gauge category into countries and tidied all "rail transport by country" categories.
For a better understanding, which area's in the rail transport wiki project do you consider not uniform or disordered?--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
...which area's in the rail transport wiki project do you consider not uniform or disordered? The ones that you and I haven't touched yet. That's a very general statement, but it's not far from the truth from what I've seen. Jackdude101 (Talk) 18:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Rail gauges per size[edit]

Category:Articles that mention a specific rail gauge now is created & being filled. Check your favorite gauge! More at Template talk:RailGauge. -DePiep (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Images Two foot six inch gauge railways[edit]

When there is an abundance of whitespace next to the table, one should add images, not remove them. Never heard of any pattern guidelines for pictures--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If you observe all of the other articles, you will see that that is indeed the case. One pic per country, and on country-specific articles one pic-per-state/territory (why you have not noticed this until now feels strange to me). If more pics are to be added, pics from a variety of countries should be used. On a related note, FYI, one of the pics I removed was one that I had added myself months ago (the one for the Statfold Barn Railway). Jackdude101 (Talk) 18:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
BTW, have you considered making separate articles for two foot six inch railways in the United Kingdom and the United States like you did for a few of the other narrow gauges? There seems to be enough entries added now to each of the two countries to justify their own articles. Jackdude101 (Talk) 18:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very sensitive for this kind of patterns. When adding pictures I try to make a representation of all the various, diverse railways present for a particular track gauge. The UK for example has a great diversity of railways and if there would be five nice pictures on one page I would have no problem with that at all. For Taiwan, I like the contrast between the modern loco and the old shay (something quite extraordinary outside the USA). And when the amount of pictures exceed the table length we only have to remove the less interesting pictures. I already planned to put the UK, US and Japan into separate articles. You will only discover that there won't be much space on the left of the table, I have no problem if several US/UK will be retained on the main 2ft6in page. I will do this in the next hour. One last thing: Unbolding of hatnotes (the see more and main article links is more compliant with WP:MOS and will gradually be implemented in all track gauge pages.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Lead texts can follow later. I created an image gallery at the bottom. Maybe pixel size needs some tweaking. When patrolling my watchlist, I always restrict galleries to three. (as no empty whitespace is filled in this case). WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies. Extreme example: [5].--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)