Template talk:Track gauge sidebar

What to include

I removed Scotch gauge and added the worlds dominant gauges, as defined by the map. This I did with unbold links. Opinions? Maybe this also could be turned into an Infobox, like used for other series of articles. TrackConnect (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Iberian gauge, Indian gauge, Russian gauge, Meter gauge and Cape gauge ---- all are more important than Scotch. See the map of dominant gauges - but always it gets reverted. I don't understand why. Nobody brings concerns. All people interested can put their concerns here. We don't need pre-consensus for such clear improvement. What is Scotch nowadays? And than ask what is Cape and Russian. Look at the installed basis!!

The dominant rail gauge in each country shown

TrackConnect (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally I made the links small. TrackConnect (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not at all certain about these additions. If we include meter gauge, then why not other significant narrow gauges: 2 ft (610 mm), 2 ft 6 in (762 mm), 3 ft (914 mm), 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm), 750 mm (2 ft 5+1⁄2 in), 800 mm (2 ft 7+1⁄2 in) and others all have significant numbers of railways and mileages of track that should also be included. Why stop there? Why not 2 ft 3 in (686 mm)? Why not 950 mm (3 ft 1+3⁄8 in)? There are dozens if not hundreds of gauges in use around the world. The advantage of sticking to three basic categories: broad, standard and narrow gauge, is that this template doesn't simply become a repetition of List of rail gauges. If you go beyond this category scheme to listing out specific individual gauges, I see no principled way to keep any specific gauge off the list. Gwernol 22:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

so at least we agree that having Scotch alone was not so good? Have a look on the map, maybe then you see a principle? TrackConnect (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think the map addresses the issue at all. Are you saying the criteria for inclusion on the map? The map lists the following gauges: 1676, 1668mm, 1600 , 1524 , 1520 , 1435 , 1372 , 1067, , 1050, 1000 , 950 , 914 , 762 , 750, 610 and 600. Of course this list is incomplete, but assuming it were complete are you arguing that we should have each o those gauges in the template? Why these and not other gauges? There are several other criteria I could think of to use to decide which gauges go in the list: total number of railways to that gauge, total length of railways in a gauge, total number of passengers carried on railways of a gauge, totla value of goods carried, number of books written about railways, comprehensive list of gauges etc. etc. Just saying: the few gauges I chose from this map is not an adequate inclusion criteria. Whichever on you choose is going to make the template much larger. Gwernol 12:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that there are a lot of principles to create lists of gauges by importance. TrackConnect (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly -- I was just looking for the article on 2ft-gauge lines to add... -- EdJogg (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is 2ft any near as important as the others mentioned? The others have articles, where one can easily look up installations, what with 2ft? TrackConnect (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

They only have articles because you created them. I could just as easily create an article on 2 ft (610 mm) gauge railways, or any of the other gauges, and at least I would be able to source that. The presence or absence of an article today isn't a good argument for whether the gauge should be represented in the template. Gwernol 12:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, pls more articles for the top ten gauges by installed kilometres. TrackConnect (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why the top ten gauges only? Why by installed kilometers, rather than any of the other criteria? I think that number of railways may be a better measure (or at least, as good a measure) as installed track length. By "installed" do you mean "installed today", or "installed ever"? We may not know the latter and cannot use the former because we want to avoid recentism. Unless there are clear, non-arbitrary inclusion criteria, we are going to get into trouble here. The "top 10" is arbitrary. That's why the former arrangement worked well - by including the three major categories, but not the specific gauges, we avoided all this trouble and kept the template to a manageable length. Gwernol 23:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How about two templates - this one having:

• Rail gauge
• List of rail gauges
• Dual gauge
• Gauge conversion
• Break-of-gauge
• Rail tracks

Then a second one to go at the bottom of the page, with each and every rail gauge article linked in it? Wongm (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Footer template sounds good. I support this or having a Infobox for series, like they are out for other series of articles. TrackConnect (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wongm, thanks a lot for your constructive feedback. I would like more such stuff. I removed the additions (and kept Scotch removed), now there is footer Template:Rail gauges.

I still wonder whether this there is any Admin that could be so constructive and fix Template:RailGauge? See Template_talk:RailGauge#Spain_.2B_Portugal

TrackConnect (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

By "this admin" do you mean me? I'm afraid I don't know how - the suggested change you asked for does not work. You need to ask User:Slambo who created the template to help you. Gwernol 12:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I meant "there". Thanks for clarification that it didn't work, I wonder how you found out, since I can't see you trying? I already dropped a note to Slambo some time ago. TrackConnect (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I used preview, which showed that the template did not update correctly, so didn't save the change. Gwernol 23:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ah ok, I never use this, saw I completly forgot it. Thanks for trying. TrackConnect (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Error on diagram (file)

The Iberian gauge should be 1,668 mm (5 ft 5.67 in), 1668 or 5'5.67", NOT 5'5.85". Likewise 1,520 mm (4 ft 11.84 in) 1520, 1,000 mm (3 ft 3.37 in) 1000 and 600 mm (1 ft 11.62 in) 600 Peter Horn User talk 03:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. writing fractions. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Width in Chrome

There apparently is something wrong about width in Google Chrome. The infobox goes out of the screen to the right.--Kozuch (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii

The map shows Hawaii as standard gage but I believe Hawaii's limited rails-in-place are not standard gage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.117.228 (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed Breitspurbahn

I've removed the row for Breitspurbahn, this is an historical curiosity that was only planned and was never built. I think there are other gauges that would probably merit being in this table before this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.19.139 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

track gauges and color

• List of track gauges by size

color		size	name
style="background-color:#efffc6; width:50px"		3000	Breitspurbahn
style="background-color:#dceba3;"		2140	Brunel gauge
style="background-color:#bbdf94;"		1676	Indian gauge
style="background-color:#83dc76;"		1668	Iberian gauge
style="background-color:#5abf56;"		1600	Irish gauge
style="background-color:#148a37;"		1520	Russian gauge
style="background-color:#568dd0;"		1435	Standard gauge
style="background-color:#3e3d97;"		1372	Scotch gauge

180.199.38.30 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)