User talk:Peter Horn/Archive 2

Archiving

{{helpme}} Peter Horn 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see why you would want to archive ;) I'm going to be bold and set one up for you, OK? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See also

Hi - I have reverted your addition of a "see also" section at Adam Perry (rugby league). Linking to other people with the surname Perry is not relevant to the article and does not add to the reader's understanding of an Adam Perry who plays rugby league. Please refer to WP:See also for information on when and how to use a "see also" section. Cheers. •Florrie•leave a note• 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Express Ile-des-Soeurs 10

Hi Peter!

The information about the Chevrier / Nun's Island route is available on the same AMT page as the other Metropolitan Express Routes:

http://www.tec.amt.qc.ca/itec/pa1/circuits/express_lcirc.htm

Alex@MTRL (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of McGill Street

A tag has been placed on McGill Street requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

STTR

Hello Peter! I see you are working hard on updating tables showing bus routes for Société de transport de Trois-Rivières. Since there is some irregularity in the times and days of operation, this is perhaps a case where a unified more extensive table, might show the information better. It would look similar to the STTR table without specific hours. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Route				Days of operation
No.	Name and notes	Type	Map	Weekday	Evening	Saturday	Sat Eve.	Sunday
1	Saint-Jean-Baptiste	regular	Map		see 81		see 81
4	Boulevard des Forges	regular	Map
81	Saint-Jean-Baptiste (replaces 1 and 5 evenings)	evening	Map

Route				Days of operation
No.	Name and notes	Type	Map	Weekday	Evening	Saturday	Sat Eve.	Sunday
1	Saint-Jean-Baptiste	regular	Map		see 81		see 81
4	Boulevard des Forges	regular	Map
81	Saint-Jean-Baptiste (replaces 1 and 5 evenings)	evening	Map
Combined Maps, Except No. 10
Schedules, Except No. 10

Why can't you find route 10? It is on prominently on the web site home page. Tables have been combined to eliminate duplicate entry of routes. Link that you called "schedule" (which does includes Route No. 10) is now used as a reference against "Route" and "Days of operation" to authenticate the entire table. There is no need to have the complete system maps in the table, just single routes. All links work for me. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Metcalfe Street (Montreal) and McGill Street (Montreal)

Please see the stubs I created for Metcalfe Street (Montreal) and McGill Street (Montreal). -- Eastmain (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Absence

I'll be away from Oct 23 till Nov 19, 2008 Peter Horn 04:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

La Cueva del Indio

I'm not opposed to creating an article on La Cueva del Indio (or Cueva del Indio) if we've got some verifiable information about it. The article was deleted over two years ago because the article contained information from an unknown (probably first-hand) source. I'm not sure if the cave is special enough to warrant an article, but I'm not opposed to you recreating it and finding out what people think. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 21:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Deck (bridge)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Deck (bridge), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, see WP:NOT.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Truthanado (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk page re:references. The guidelines in WP:SOURCE and WP:CITE require verifiable sources as references. References and footnotes like on the Truss bridge article would be a good start. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the ref. That'll do it. Happy Holidays! Truthanado (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Dunedin Railway Station

Hi Peter - please be careful when dabbing links to make sure you know which target should be pointed to! :) Grutness...wha? 06:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of International Containers

A tag has been placed on International Containers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Catwalk

Hi peter - you wrote: is there any good reason for your turning cat walk into a redirect page? If you would but check the context in which it is used in the articles that link to it, you might possibly realize that this redirect to catwalk (disambiguation) is somewhat less than usefull. The use of the word "catwalk" in a building, structure or refinery etc. is probably older than its use in the fashion industry. Incedentally, I found two (2) more articles that had to be linked to "cat walk". However a solution would be to redirect cat walk to a new section called "Footbridge#Catwalk" in the article footbridge as is done in the case of Runway (fashion)#Runway.

Lots of reasons - the most important of which is that it makes little sense to have two disambiguation pages that would be virtually identical for what are frequently alternative spellings of the same thing. The term "cat walk" to describe accessways may be far older, but that is irrelevant for the purposes of disambiguation. The spelling most commonly encountered is catwalk, for any of the uses of the term - and by far the most commonly encountered meaning of the term catwalk is in the fashion industry. Given that you'd have to redirect cat walk to sections called footbridge#catwalk, scaffolding#catwalk, gantry#catwalk, skyway#catwalk and the like makes the other solution you suggest impractical. As to finding two more articles, two is a very minor problem, especially as they should now quite comfortably link to a disambiguation page from where it is easy to navigate to the correct page. That's one of the main purposes of disambiguation pages - to provide a "soft redirect" to any of several options where a single redirect (such as the one you suggest) is still likely to reach the wrong target. There's also the possibility that someone looking for a fashion catwalk may uses the term with the spelling "cat walk" (although not the standard spelling in this usage, it clearly does happen), in which case those articles would clearly link incorrectly. Having cat walk link to a dab page is, overall, a preferable situation. The only viable alternative would be to move the disambiguation page to catwalk, and have everything go to that. Given the huge preponderance of fashion articles that link to catwalk, though, makes that solution far less practical. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again - you wrote:While checking "What links here" for runway, I found Cindy Crawford "competing" with airplanes...There may still be more silly links like that. To check all of "What links here" for runway at a glance is a huge and tedious task.

Then don't check it. No-one can be expected to check some 8500 links by hand. There are bots and WikiProjects set up specifically to hunt for incorrect links like that, and it's enough that you change any you find by chance. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedestrian infrastructure

Hi. I notice you've been adding a number of articles to the Category:Pedestrian infrastructure. However, these articles all appear to be in a subcat of Category:Pedways, which itself is a subcat of Category:Pedestrian infrastructure. Typically, absent some unusual circumstance, you wouldn't include an article in both a subcat and the parent cat. I didn't want to revert any of these changes without first raising it with you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not really sure what your response means, or what you are trying to accomplish through the use of bold type. However, it's all a moot point because someone else has reverted all the changes, based on the issue set out above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New template

Can some one help me create a template User:Laval, Quebec? Peter Horn 02:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Hoge Vuursche

A tag has been placed on Hoge Vuursche requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bacchus87 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

CAA Quebec

This edit may be correct, but it makes for a much less interesting article subject.  :-) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Quebec Routes

Thanks for updating these articles. Although I am presently updating cities and towns of Quebec, I still add major intersections and distances when possible. Proactively setting up the reference is great. Good job! Gordalmighty (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference thing is okay because all I have to do is fill in the page numbers. Works for me! Gordalmighty (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

unbuilt routes

it was nominated for speedy, but I declined it, because you were obviously still working on it. I advise you to get some more content in quickly, because people can be a little fast on the trigger here. I put on an "underconstruction" tag, but people sometimes ignore it. DGG (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Compass on riding articles

Yeah I think we should put this compass which includes the northwest, northeast, southeast and southwest. I made the articles and added the compass to each one like almost two years ago and wasn't aware of a compass with the other four points until I looked at US cities article and lately I think some counties articles as well even though in the latter it sound redundant because it is mentionned in a section before. Eventually, I could or someone else can do the improvements. Maybe the same can be done with the streets bordering the riding too.--JForget 16:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Conversions

Peter, thank you for your sterling work on conversions. It's not my area of expertise so it's much appreciated! --Bermicourt (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Baden Mainline

Done! It was a bit of trial and error, but seems to have worked. There was a missing |} at the bottom of the table. Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:BS-daten

Peter, I think you changed the ‰ sign to a % sign in the template. I'm not sure of the logic for this, but it now shows railways having ten times their actual gradient! So for example the Zabergäu Railway now looks like a rack railway line! I am not sure about worldwide practice, but Template:Infobox rail line caters for ‰ and it is a recognised mathematical symbol, so why not leave it as ‰ for now? If it's standard practice in the English-speaking world as a whole to use % - and I don't think it is (e.g. Britain and Australia seem to use the "1 in 40" formula) - then it needs to be divided by ten. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I like what you've done with the rest of the table, but I'm not totally convinced about the merits of % over ‰. English Wikipedia is meant to cater for the whole English speaking world and certainly my dictionary has per mille as a normal (not foreign) entry and per mille gets lots of hits on English google. However, my focus is adding new material by translating articles with minimum nugatory effort, so I am inclined to leave infobox data where possible or fix the template to automatically translate it. Otherwise I now have to change every article as I move it over. Can we change the template to do the division into % automatically please? That would really help. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Jane's World Railways - thanks for the tip (but I suspect it's American!). What would be good then is to modify BS-daten to automatically add the conversions you've come up with. That way both our objectives are achieved. But I'm not an expert with tables, although I did manage to get Template:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug to translate fields and Template:Infobox Bahnhof to translate some of the data. More by luck than judgement, though! --Bermicourt (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug

Peter, I just had to chuckle at your comments! Anyway thanks for going through the template and correcting those links. I'm not entirely sure about the correct translation of Kesseldruck anyway. My understanding is that de.wiki shows the pressure over and above atmospheric i.e. 15 bar is really atmospheric plus 15 bar i.e. 16 bar total. So that's why I've translated it as "boiler overpressure". But if I'm wrong it's just "boiler pressure". --Bermicourt (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Coca-cola formula

Coca-Cola formula & Talk:Coca-Cola formula#Convert templates Move section to article taklk, with user's permission.

Cool that it's been fixed. They are nice guys over there. SimonTrew (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to Rail Link Inc.

Is there a reason you made this edit? --NE2 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, this edit is defintely bad, because it introduces false precision. --NE2 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your latter suggestion would not be a good idea; please read WP:R2D. --NE2 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It would go to the right article... unless someone writes a separate article on Rail Link. --NE2 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Intermodal cars/flatcars

Thank you for your edits to a couple of shipping container-related articles; I notice that one of the repeated changes involves converting of rail-related links to a link pointing to a sub-heading under flatcar. This sub-heading link (which is prone to break in future as it is not a redirect) states: "With the rise of intermodal freight transport-specific cars, and given the age of most of these flats, numbers will decline ".

In Europe (and especially the UK) it would not be possible to just loose-carry a shipping container on a flatcar. Ideally there will eventually be a specic container-on-rail article (eg. at container train or intermodal car) and which can linking to CargoSprinter and such-like. In the meantime, would it be possible to select one of the redirects, to enable easy repointing at a later date? —Sladen (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Telephone jack listed as a Stub

I have noticed your recent edits to Telephone jack. You have added the {{stub}} template. This is fine and your contributions are appreciated. But in future, to aid in the expansion of articles, such as this one, please use a more specific stub template. A list of stub templates can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs. Thank you. -- Patchy1^(talk) 11:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Translations from the German

Peter - Thank you for your note. I'll try to have a look at those as time permits - I had much more time last month due to a relatively slow time at my day job, but that situation has changed, and I have not had a chance to get back into the translation business as of late. Cheers, Concertmusic (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. It is German, but I have lived abroad for longer than in Germany at this point, and would consider my English to be better than my German. Concertmusic (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref: Tren a las Nubes

Hey Pete, how you doing, yea, regarding the train schedule, it makes no sense, remember that seasons are switched around in the Southern Hemisphere, in winter (summer up north) it´s usually closed cause of the weather, i´ll have to check that out, cheers – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, maybe avalanches, i know they used to close in winter, (July) but not in summer, i´ll be cheking that out, the area doesn't snow at sea level either, lol – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

List of bridges in Montreal

Do you think it would enhance the article if we were to include a list of crossings of the Lachine Canal and the Canal de l'Aqueduc? I'm not talking about fully developped entries, just a simple mention of each crossing, that's all. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you ever want to meet me in person (from your profile, it looks like I live about 6 kilometers north of you), you might find me at Starbucks Carrefour Laval working on my novel. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sand Hutton

Thanks for your query, but I'm afraid I can't help. Apart from enjoying parts of its stock transferred to Ravenglass, I don't know anything about this railway, and haven't been involved with the article previously (apart from adding the 15 in gauge railways infobox template, at a time when I was adding it to all 15 in gauge railway articles). Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Peter Horn. You have new messages at Yousaf465's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

yousaf465' 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Kars–Tbilisi–Baku railway#Gauge

See Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railway#4-rail dual gauge Tabletop (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Triple gauge in Afghanistan

Your constructive interest in this topic appreciated.

One just thought of potential problem is thermit welding of the twinned gauge rails.

See User talk:Tabletop#Triple gauge in Afghanistan. Tabletop (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very good to see a number of extra alternative solutions (and some data about rail sizes) since one of these is bound to be better than the others. I know about bullhead rail, and bullhead checkrail, but I have to say, I had not thought of using them for the Afghan multi gauge track. Tabletop (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pierre Le Gardeur Railway Bridge

When I browsed for sources stating its date of construction, I found that the actual name is Laurier Bridge. Also, the 1904 construction date seems a bit later than what I expected.

Should the name Laurier be the one used in List of bridges in Montreal? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, and for the fixes. By the way, I just made a Featured List nomination for List of bridges in Montreal. Your comments are welcome. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gauge of the Central Vermont?

Are you sure the Central Vermont Railway was originally Provincial gauge? This 1864 directory shows it as standard. --NE2 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting that the GT owned the CV at that time?

(There was, in fact, a break of gauge on the GT system at Port Huron/Sarnia, since the Port Huron-Detroit Chicago, Detroit and Canada Grand Trunk Junction Railroad was standard.)

--NE2 01:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Do you have any evidence or is it just a bunch of guessing on your part? --NE2 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you have absolutely no idea. (By the way, the GT did not control the CV until about 1885. Thanks for playing.) --NE2 01:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case both Central Vermont Railway and Grand Trunk Railway should be revised to show the date that the GT gained control, if the info is not already in those articles. I was acting in good faith and not "playing". Prior to 1873 the GT was 66 if the CV was standard gauge, so where was the break of gauge? Peter Horn User talk 02:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The break was either at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu or Montreal. --NE2 02:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

List of bridges to the Island of Montreal

You may add a star to your user page: the article just got promoted to Featured List status. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Peter Horn. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Here it is, right below my signature: -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at my user page and you'll several of these things, top-right. (Not bragging, just realised what you were trying to do, wondered if I could help.) -- EdJogg (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Coupling (railway)

Hi Peter. Where you add spaces between measurements and units, could you please use a non-breaking space (ie ' & nbsp; ' -- without the space after '&'!)? You will see from the edited gallery on Coupling (railway) that several of the gauge measurements are now split by line-breaks, which is probably more 'wrong' than having no space at all. Cheers. EdJogg (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Coupling (railway)#Gallery 1 The problem is fixed. Peter Horn User talk 21:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Peter Horn. You have new messages at Keith D's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Place Ville-Marie

Hi there,

I see on your user page that you live in Montreal. I am going to assume that you have heard of Place Ville-Marie in asking you this question. The reports of the number of floors in Place Ville-Marie vary from 43 to 46. Do you, with your Montreal expertise, know the actual number of floors in this structure, or could you possibly visit this building to find out? Thanks,

-Stuck in Edmonton 117Avenue (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello 117th,

Re number of floors in Place Ville-Marie: I'll try to find out the next time I go down town. In the mean time you could post your question on Talk:Place Ville-Marie, use the external links (Official website), find other Montrealers in the revision history of the article or go directly to "Google". Peter Horn User talk 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In the history PDF it gives 45 above the ground level. But other editors are saying 47. I already sent the same message to other Montrèalers I found in Category:Wikipedians in Montreal. 117Avenue (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Template RailGauge

Hi, sorry for delays in this but as you may have seen from my talk page that when I added the {{nowrap}} to the template it broke some limit and caused pages not to load. I have had to rewrite the template to avoid using the {{convert}} template which appears to be the main cause of the problems. I have used 2 sub templates to attempt to get round the problem but it still has problems if there is a large number of calls on a page. The version is in {{RailGauge/sandbox}} but will need lots of testing as it is all new code. I have implemented the {{nowrap}} and a disp=s parameter to put in the slash rather than the brackets. If you can test it out and let me know if there are any problems especially in the conversions. When you are happy with it then I can put it live. Keith D (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes will only be shown, for the moment until it goes live, when you use {{RailGauge/sandbox}} in place of {{RailGauge}}. I have the table from the documentation page using the test version at User:Keith D/sandbox4. Keith D (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have put the new version live & updated the documentation. I have had a look at a few articles and it looks OK, but if there are any problems then drop me a note. Keith D (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Peter Horn. You have new messages at WVRMad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Rail gauge 2

I could not find an easy way to search for the use of 2 in the template so I added a temporary category Category:RailGauge problem to the template and articles that use that should appear in that category when the server next caches the page. {I have not physically created the category so it is a red link). The articles in that category are the ones that need to be checked out. Keith D (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be awaiting new developments. Of course there is no conflict or confusion between 2ft and 2in. Peter Horn User talk 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is just the 2 entries for 2ft that need changing. Keith D (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Streetcars in Washington, D.C.

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Streetcars in Washington, D.C./GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:RailGauge‎

Just to let you know the I cannot update the template at the moment as I am having severe PC problems loading pages from the internet and the template will not load. It is taking several attempts to load a simple page. Unsure as to what the problem is as yet but will get round to further updates when I am back to normal with access. Regards. Keith D (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

cm vs mm

Template talk:Infobox Weather#cm vs mm Saw that. I was just in the process of replying when you left me the message. It took me a while to find the US guidelines. something lame from CBW 16:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The snowfall and the rainfall. It's also in the section just above yours. something lame from CBW 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's odd. The source has 49 cm for the year and 19.6 in. The chart ha 49 cm and 19.3 in. something lame from CBW 17:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

49 cm (19.3 in) 490 mm (19.29 in). Peter Horn User talk 17:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But which one? The inches or the centimetres? something lame from CBW 17:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I thought. something lame from CBW 21:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Why are you inserting convert templates in the marsh rice rat article? I decide not to use them in articles I write, because just typing out the conversions makes it easier to spot errors and inconsistencies and makes the wikitext more intuitive. Ucucha 01:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Because templates give almost always consitently more accurate and precise results i.e. 0.23 to 0.37 ha (0.57 to 0.91 acres) NOT (0.81 acres) as you, or some one else, gave originally. Peter Horn User talk 01:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that. I am more used to them giving false precision or inadvertently introducing inconsistent spellings. Ucucha 01:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Only on very rare occasions have I found a RailGauge template that gave wrong result, in which case I asked an expert editor to make the required correction. Conversion templates, when properly and correctly used, give exelent results. E.g. 0.23 to 0.37 ha (0.568 to 0.914 acres) may be "overkill" (too accurate). Peter Horn User talk 01:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is. Because I tend to proofread my articles from the edit window, I find it useful to have the conversions there instead of in a template, so that I can get the precisions right. More generally, I think it improves usability for people not too versed in wiki markup when we don't use templates for purposes like this. (That's also one reason why I don't use citation templates.)

I was interested to read that you, like me, are from the Netherlands and crossed the Atlantic. De tijden zijn veranderd sinds 1952—no Panama Canal for me, and the journey did not take a month. Ucucha 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To see if a conversion is reasonably precise, I always use "Show preview" and the make the necessary adjustments. Sometimes I use "Show preview" again just to make sure. It is the end result thhat counts. In my travels thru different articles I found some real lulus when templates were not used.

Peter Horn User talk 02:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see I am not alone. I carefully removed several the convert templates at Wagonway because they were giving an inappropriate level of precision which made rapid comprehension of the conversions a more than necessarily laboured read for 'metric users'. To get an appropriate accuracy of conversion I wanted to work to the nearest 5mm in most cases, and the template will not do that. You don't suppose that iron castings were made in the 1760's to an accuracy of 0.1 mm do you? Just because a template exist, and someone has had fun making it, does not mean that the rest of us are obliged to use it on every possible occasion. Globbet (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The nearest 0.1 mm may be too precise, but the nearest mm would have been OK. At any rate don't underestimate the accuracy which skilled people were able to attain at that time. Components of even a rudimentary steam engine would have to be accurate to the nearest 1⁄32 inch or 1 mm. Peter Horn User talk 02:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

2 in (51 mm), 3 in (76 mm), 3.75 in (95 mm) and 4 in (102 mm). Peter Horn User talk 21:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's another issue I sometimes encounter. I have removed the convert templates from the rice rat article, but incorporated the correction you noted. Ucucha 21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That correcrion would never have come to be without the use of the template. Peter Horn User talk 02:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Botswana#Geography and environment Sample of botched conversion corrected by use of template. 600,370 km² (231,804 sq mi) or 600,370 km² (231,800 sq mi) was 600,370 km², (231,788 mi²) Peter Horn User talk 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 14:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you decide just where you want to discuss this, we do not need to it here, User talk:Globbet and Talk:Wagonway. Globbet (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Saint-Martin, Laval, Quebec

I started an article on Saint-Martin, Laval, Quebec. I couldn't call it Saint-Martin, Quebec because that title is used by the community in Beauce. Could you please make any changes to the article that seem appropriate? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

DR Maritime Claims

I think those data on maritime claims for the Dominican Republic are correct; I am not completely sure because I do not have the updated laws. Jmarcano (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Convert

Hello, Peter Horn. You have new messages at Template talk:Convert.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Post to the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard

You posted the following to the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard:

Some wikipedians don't like conversion templates, see also Talk:Cyclone Gonu#Wind speeds and convert, User talk:Jason Rees#WPTC convert template policy, User talk:Jason Rees#Wind speeds, User talk:Peter Horn/Archive 2#Templates and Talk:Ship#Conversions. Peter Horn User talk 22:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite why you posted this here; the noticeboard is a place for Arbitrators and Clerks to make Arbitration Committee announcements. Did you mean to post this somewhere else? Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're invited!

Hello, Peter Horn,

You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.

The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ^{☎ call me!}

(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Meker-Fisher burner

A tag has been placed on Meker-Fisher burner, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed by a move. Peter Horn User talk 23:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Round temperatures by 5: disp=5

Use new option "disp=5" to round temperatures (only, does not work for other units). See full reply:

"Template_talk:Convert#Rounding temperature conversions to the nearest 5°"

Rounding by 5 is a good idea but might become complicated. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

But someone managed to do the job. Peter Horn User talk 23:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Holla (Hello) Peter Horn

earlymen from Nigeria.I am also interested in Wikipedia cameroon climate article.I have seen your edits.There is a very rainy spot in cameroon located by the south western foot of mount cameroon.I wonder,India has Mawsynram, cherrapunji rainy places in India and world captured on Wikipedia.Debundscha rainiest place in africa and world located in cameroon foot of Mount Cameroon not having its special wikipedia page. Thanks. Earlymen 01:41, (Talk) 23 june 2010 ,(UTC)

Since I was not the original contributor of the article, I can't really answer your question. But feel free to start an article Debundscha not Debundcha [1] following the Wiki guide lines for a new article. Peter Horn User talk 17:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(Talk)?? No, no. It should be like this: Earlymen or Earlymen talk. Peter Horn User talk 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wagonway

Wagonway I see no objection to the use of the "convert" template, as long as it is set up so that the original units appear. I am possibly less happy with the appearance of short tons, an American unit that was not in regular use in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The long tons are the original unit. The short tons and tonnes are for there to help the reader who may not know what a long ton is and who therfore is not likely to have the conversion factors handy. To make matters ineresting is the fact that in Canada both the short and long ton were and are used as well as now the tonne as well. Cheers, Peter Horn User talk 02:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In an article that is mainly about UK, I continue to have doubts about the suitability of the use of "short tons" or 2000 lb, but I do not find it objectionable enough to want to revert it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I rechecked the article, and as I put it before, the short ton is not "used", but is only a conversion for the convenience of our American friends who consult Wiki in search of info. The tonne conversion is for the convenience of all others who are not familiar with either the American or the British units. The long ton is the one that is used, very thing else is but a conversion for convenience only. Peter Horn User talk 13:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am ill at ease with it for a different reason. For me, it's a question of having a feel for the appropriate precision. Here, the level of precision implicit in the context is such that it does not matter a fish what subspecies of ton it is, so I don't think putting a conversion helps. I would go so far as to suggest that it is actually counter-productive because it introduces an inappropriate aura of precision. I don't think a conversions is required every time a measure is expressed, it requires a good deal more subtlety than that. Globbet (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To say 10 to 13 long tons (10 to 13 t; 11 to 15 short tons) or 10 to 13 long tons (10 to 13 t; 11 to 15 short tons) might be OK as well, as long as is is implied that the three are different. Anythihg else might by some be cosidered as misleading. Peter Horn User talk 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, these two conversions loose the difference between 2240 lb (long ton) and 2200 lb = 1000 kg (tonne). Peter Horn User talk 21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Alataw Pass

Last year you asked on its talk page what the elevation of Alataw Pass was. For the answer, see the article Dzungarian Gate.μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really, Dzungarian Gate#Geography only gives the lowest elevation of the valley. Peter Horn User talk 15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you are looking for the elevation of the town Alashankou, then? Sorry, no specific data on that. As for the Dzungarian Gate itself, I read last night somewhere that the elevation is 450m, but did not note where I read it, since it simply confirmed the 1500ft figure. The land is pretty flat, an easy grade for horses, but that's all the info I have.μηδείς (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

gg2010 user page

Thanks, Peter for helping me out with my page. I'm new to wikipedia, and hoping to eventually go live with my page. I'm always looking for advice on how to create a better page before I post it as its own article. Is there any advice you have to offer me on how to make my page better?

Gg2010 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Geography Barnstar
		For your work on Antarctic Islands Justin talk 11:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I've spotted you on my watch list doing a lot of work on the Antarctic Islands articles and felt it should be acknoweldged. Well done. Justin talk 11:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Antarctic islands

Dear Peter, I see that you have put 'British Antarctic Territory' in the 'country' infobox field for a number of Antarctic islands. I wonder if that is a good idea. First, there are other sovereignty claims of the same islands too, and it is not clear why Wikipedia should give preference to one of them or another. And second, that territory is not actually governed as a UK overseas territory but under the Antarctic Treaty system instead. Therefore, it would be probably better to have Antarctica or Antarctica in the 'country' field. Best, Apcbg (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is best to go back to | country = Antarctica & | additional info = Administered under the Antarctic Treaty System which makes it "neutral". Either you or I can make the adjustment. Peter Horn User talk 15:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding. Your formula is a good solution I believe, and you would be most welcome to make the adjustment. Best, Apcbg (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice that the adjustments have already been made. Peter Horn User talk 21:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! By the way, it's enough to reply in one of our talk pages (say where the first message is posted), no need repeating it in both. Best, Apcbg (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Infobox islands#Small areas Peter Horn User talk 22:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Peter Horn

I have a problem with my info-box in Gembu article.It has reds and need some adjustment thanks. Earlymen (talk) 09:04,21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Earlymen, the only red link I cold find was Thunder cloud in Gembu, Nigeria#Rainfall and, as you can see, I fixed that. Other than that I made various comversions. Peter Horn User talk 19:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Earlymen, be consistent: either put metric first or imperial first at all times and decide wether you want metres or meters, e.g. 100 metres (328 ft) or 100 meters (328 ft). Also watch the spaces after periods. 20:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Peter Horn Peter Horn User talk 20:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Railgauge

Hi, an IP has been trying to request a change here, I guess what they are saying is that 3 m -> 9ft 10 1⁄8 does not match up with the reverse where we have 10ft -> 3m. Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

3 m (9 ft 10 in), short by 1⁄8, 3 m (9 ft 10.1 in), 3 m (9 ft 10.11 in) and 3 m (9 ft 10.110 in). The reverse is 9 ft 10+1⁄8 in (3 m) but 10 ft (3.0 m), 10 ft (3 m), 10 ft (3.0 m), 10 feet (3.05 m) and 10 feet (3.048 m). Only the last two conversions are usefull but not relevent as the reverse of 3 m. I may "copy and paste" your request and my reply to Template talk:RailGauge. Peter Horn User talk 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but that is as clear as mud. Is any change required? Keith D (talk)

The above are all "convential conversions" using template:convert. The only acceptable "RailGauge" reverse so far availlable is {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=9|in=10|num=1|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=3}}. I'll give it a try to create others, namely, {{RailGauge/imperial|in=118|num=1|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=3}}, {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=9|in=118.11|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=3}}, {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=9|in=10.125|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=3}} {{RailGauge/imperial|in=118.125|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=3}}, . Hooray, they all work, that leaves 9'-10.125", 9'-101⁄8", 1181⁄8" and 118.125" etc Peter Horn User talk 22:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Template talk:RailGauge#Just when I thought I had found everything. Peter Horn User talk 23:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox islands

Thanks for your feedback. I have responded at Template talk:Infobox islands. I think we can reach a suitable solution here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

formatting problem on Haida Gwaii

I tried undoing your supplanting of the map in the infobox with the pic leaving Skidegate Inlet; it screws with text formatting; I'm not in the mood to do it manually, but please reverse them....that on-the-ferry-picture isn't very interesting anyway....Skookum1 (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Peter Horn User talk 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this. Is there something somewhere that says to remove the coordinates from the title? Most articles, airports, cities and geographical features, including islands, have the coordinates in the box and in the header. I would suspect that most readers expect to see the coordinates listed there. By the way if you remove ",title" then you might as well remove "display=inline" as the default is inline. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Re this. Cambridge, you completely misunderstand the apparent effect of ",title" in the template of an article. It causes the coordinates to appear twice (2x), at least that is what happens at my end with Windows Internet Explorer on Windows Xp. If there is a "bug" at my end, I'd like to find out. One solution might be to link the field (parametre) "| coordinates = " in the template itself as is done elswhere (in other templates). Peter Horn User talk 14:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 15:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In Prince of Wales Island (Nunavut) the coordinates appear only once in the infobox, at least when I open the article. Peter Horn User talk 15:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought that you probably had a good reason for the edit, which is why I didn't change it back. I might be missing something. Do you mean the coordinates appear twice in the title or once in the title and once in the box? For example on Somerset Island (Nunavut) I see the coordinates in the title and the box using IE on Windows 7. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 04:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, it depends on what is meant by twice. Certainly, one should not use the "title" parameter with two different {{coord}} calls, since this will superimpose a coordinates link on top of another one in the title area. Some editors think that having the coordinates both in the infobox and in the title area is redundant, which is what happens when you use "inline,title" with a single call to the {{coord}} template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What I mean (meant) is that with ",title" in the infobox the coordinates appear twice, one after the other, in the "| coordinates = " field of the infobox. This looks rather absurd, but this anomaly occurs in the infobox of many, many, island and other articles. By removing ",title, in the box the coordinates appear only once in that field. "|coordinates = " in the box may be a useful modification to the template and the coordinates do then not need to appear anywhere else in the article. Do you follow me? Peter Horn User talk 00:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In the infobox of Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site and of Theodore Roosevelt Island I observed the same anomaly in the infobox. In addition in Bassetts Island#External links I found41.68010°N 70.63700°W / 41.68010; -70.63700. The coordinates are duplicated one after the other (or side by side)!! This is weird, my current edit here tells us where I am located!! Go figure... Peter Horn User talk 02:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm at work and I looked at Somerset Island (Nunavut) with IE on Windows XP but I can't duplicate what you are seeing. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 09:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a problem with CSS. If you highlight the coordinates, then click on "view selection source", or just view the HTML source, you will see that the coordinates appear multiple times. The CSS declarations hide most of them. The reason for having this redundancy is that allows for the user to select a particular coordinate style (dec vs. dms). I suspect that something went wrong when the browser was loading the style sheet. At least that is my guess. It could be cleared by clearing the browser cache and reloading the page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I have to figure out or find out how to clear the browser cache. Peter Horn User talk 23:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Updates

Hi Mr Horn, Yes, I heard the news through Michel Gagnon (Antje can tell you who he is if you don't know; he's Mr Rgoer Gagnon's son). Michel seems to believe that there were a few more bankruptcies (from Pascual at least) since then... I have had no other contact with anybody since about June 2008. I now work in Vaudreuil-Dorion and live in Rigaud. Please send Antje my best regards, and I hope everybody is going well and that Antje is happy! Best regards, Pierre CielProfond (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pierre, Roger Gagnon was a salesman for Emprimerie en Gros and is now a salesman for Mediaplus. I met him quite some time ago at Emprimerie en Gros. I have not heard about additional (personal?) bankruptcies and doubt that there were any. Regards, Peter Horn User talk 23:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Gagnon died a few months ago. His son claims that Pascual still owed him money; apparently, Pascual claims the opposite. This is but one reason why I prefer to have nothing to do with Pascual! ;-) Hopefully Antje can bring some good in that business. Should she want to communicate with me, she is more than welcome. CielProfond (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied by G-mail, look for peter.j.c.horn@gmail.com in your spam box in case it gets misdirected.Peter Horn User talk 21:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINKING

Please stop overlinking. Wizard191 (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best not to do so, but please realize that I'm acting in good faith. Peter Horn User talk 00:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of shopping malls in Saskatoon

The article List of shopping malls in Saskatoon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Clearly unencyclopedic topic, lacking in sourcing

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Divebomb is not British 17:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

{{RailGauge}} and fifteen inch gauge

Per Template talk:RailGauge#ft in and Template talk:RailGauge#Fifteen inch gauge, would it be possible to get the displays for 15" and 18" gauge changed to be just in inches, not feet and inches. These two gauges (possibly others I'm unaware of) have a long tradition and recorded literature in inches alone, using feet and inches is a WP neologism for them.

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Absence

I'll be away untill the 5th of February 2011. Peter Horn User talk 04:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mozambique Railway

Dear Peter... seeking information on the performance of Vale in Mozambique, and on the transfer of locomotives EMD DDM45 from Brazil to Mozambique. Would have some information? Meloaraujo (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You are lucky that I logged in at all. Regretably I have no info at all on these topics. You might try the website of Railway Age. Peter Horn User talk 02:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:White Pass and Yukon Route

Template:White Pass and Yukon Route has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ductile Iron Pipe

Peter - have responded to your query re Class 40 ductile iron pipe on discussion page (it is a pipe rather than a flange standard). Regards,Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cphi (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Opportunity to comment on Batavia

There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:

• editors who are blocked
• anonymous IP editors
• editors who, despite ranking in the top three of edits to an article, have only a single edit to said article

This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.

Screw modifications

Hi Peter,

I see that you reformatted the tapered shank section of the screw article. You must not have seen, but about a month ago I recommended reformatting the types section, at Talk:Screw#Types_section. I've started working on it at User:Wizard191/Sandbox2, so I don't know if you want to incorporate some of your changes there, or provide some other input. Wizard191 (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Huron Central Railway

Thank you for that fine picture of a Huron Central Railway locomotive. Can you tell me if the HCR continues to run, and perhaps whether they have a subsidy? See the article for past status. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would have checked the "History" of Huron Central Railway you would have noticed that the picture was already in the article. All I did was to move the picture from the text into the infobox. Peter Horn User talk 01:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Huron Central Railway apprars to be in service. Still in service Peter Horn User talk 01:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Compagnie de chemin de fer de l'Outaouais

Tourist train Hull-Chelsea Wakefield is operating on Compagnie du Chemin de fer de l'Outaouais track. The latter owns the track, which is owned and operated by the three municipalities there.--Chnou (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Peter Horn User talk 18:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you British or American?

Hi. You asked that question with respect to an article car float that I started way back in 2005. I'm afraid I don't remember starting the article, or my thinking at the time. So what follows is to a certain extent reconstructive.

Firstly, to answer your question, I'm British. However I believe that car float is a US term. I'm not aware of a British English equivalent term, probably because to the best of my knowledge no such animal has ever existed in the UK. The nearest equivalent would be a train ferry, but that is a more general term, without the implications of unpowered, use of tugs etc.

I would agree that rail barge is more descriptive, but it is not a term I've ever heard used before. If that is the general term in use in Canada, then I would suggeset that this is the term that should be used in a Canadian context.

-- chris_j_wood (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Chris, I used the "History" feature, 5th item down at top left of the car float article ([History]) and then clicked on "earliest" to get to the the beginning and thus found "(cur | prev) 2005-05-20T18:25:37 Chris j wood (talk | contribs) (353 bytes) (new)". That is why I asked you. Just click on the links. Peter Horn User talk 20:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to research citations for my claim, but you'll have to for now put up with the so-called "original research" claim that "car float" I've never heard before. I don't know if either term might be in a Canadian dictionary, or what the industry actually uses; I do have a friend who works for teh Southern Railway of BC (which is owned, now, by WMG-cum-Seaspan) but that would only be hearsay if he did know which term etc. That WMG/Seaspan is an American company (now; Seaspan as a brand has been around BC for decades, long before the Washington Group bought it up and lately rebranded itself with that name) indicates that an American term might be in use at that company now. "Rail ferry" is a term sometimes heard here but often used to mean the transport of vehicles by flatdeck through areas where there is no road, only lake. I don't know in other parts of Canada; the usage in New Brunswick or Ontario may be different.....and I don't know if e.g. the rail line on Newfoundland has slips at Port-aux-Basques or Argentia or elsewhere to get railcards to/from Cape Breton etc, or what those would be called (I think those would be CN). Also to note in passing there seems to be an ongoing perception, not helped by FB and Macintosh and Microsoft softwares/OSs option only between US English and UK English only, that those are the only two kinds of English; leading to the supposition that American usages are automatically Canadian usages, or on the other hand that Canadians should use British-isms when not using American ones. Imperial cultural-insensitivity from both sides in other words. I have a full plate right now, not just in wikipedia, and don't have time/energy to hunt this down, only to tell you that "car float" is an alien term to me, and I've been around railyards and barges and port facilities of all kinds in BC.Skookum1 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Newfoundland Railway was abandoned in 1989. Prior to that train ferries (not rail barges) plied between North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Port aux Basques, see Newfoundland Railway#Canadian National, railroad car adapted ferry slips existed at both ends. Peter Horn User talk 02:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we continue this conversation/discussion, at what is the origen of the term? Peter Horn User talk 02:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Newfoundland English and British Columbia English are two very different things. I found a news item on Seaspan the other day which used the phrase "rail and truck barge" but will have to find it again.Skookum1 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference between Newfoundland English and British Columbia English is quite immaterial in this case. So far as I know rail barges, by any name, were never used in Atlantic Canada. The MV Abegweit of the former CN Marine was a train ferry and not a rail barge. If for the sake of semantics you might want to move car float to rail barge, be my guest. For now the latter redirects to the former. Right or wrong the name of the Wikipedia article is car float. Peter Horn User talk 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

what I mean was that whatever it's called in Newfoundland has nothing to do with what it's called in BC. And Seaspan is a BC company, and BC vocabulary should be used on a BC article, however it has to be piped to the "term Wikipedia uses".Skookum1 (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Kapiche. Agreed. Peter Horn User talk 15:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

List of places in Cumbria ‎

I've reverted your edit at List of places in Cumbria, as it's not a swing bridge; it's a change bridge to get horses from one side of the canal to the other. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Then it would be best to call it just that, "change bridge", in the caption. Peter Horn User talk 17:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of List of medieval bridges in France there may just be the same problem, elsewhere the term turning bridge is synonymous with swing bridge. Peter Horn User talk 17:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:List of medieval bridges in France#Turning bridge at Porte-Joie. Peter Horn User talk 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the bridge at Porte-Joie, but I doubt whether there were many swing bridges in 1198. The change bridge in Kendal I knew well, as it was just behind my school, but sadly the canal was closed by the time I was growing up. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wendelstein Railway

Thanks Peter - good suggestions. I've made a start on this one. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the start. Please be carefull, e.g. 23.7% not 237%. Watch that decimal point! Peter Horn User talk 16:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

h.c., not just h.c., the latter goes to a huge disambiguation page. Peter Horn User talk 00:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I usually proof-read at the end, but thanks for picking those up. I have now completed the article, but a second pair of eyes would be useful to tidy any loose ends that I've missed. Looks quite interesting - I might try and get there sometime! --Bermicourt (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ausserfern Railway under way

Hi Peter. Fleshed out the Wendelstein (mountain) article a bit and have started on the Ausserfern Railway. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bermi, Thumbs up. Peter Horn User talk 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done! Along with the Außerfern region and Hausberg Gondola Lift. Grateful for any proof-reading you can spare the time for. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional changes. This is a good team effort! --Bermicourt (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Inekon Trams

Hello Peter,

about your last edit regarding Inekon 01 Trio Design, you wrote there "This does not sound right 4alltogether, 2 Jacobs bogies & 2 regular bogies". I believe you have confused the design with Škoda 15 T, which indeed has the described bogies. However the Inekon 01 is derived from Škoda 03 T. This design has only two bogies see at the end sections, while there is middle section without bogies. The bogies are fixed (or can have some mechanical possibility of rotation up to 4° regarding to some sources, but that is more close to fixed than to real rotation anyway), so the whole end sections of the tram rotate with the bogie. This solution is OK in newly designed tramway tracks with track transition curves, however the heritage systems get quite a lot of damage (see the explanation and sources at 15T). That is why in recent years the design was sold only for export. For example in Olomouc, both Škoda 03 T and Inekon Trio run on part of the system, which is new, while in recent years only Varios with rotating bogies were bought in order to serve the whole system, including the heritage part in the city centre. Best Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cimmarian
Interesting. So what you are saying is that the two fixed bogies are near the extreme ends of these units and not under the articulation points ("accordions"). I can understand that this arrangement causes prolems with curve negotiation. Peter Horn User talk 13:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. They are at the ends of units, about in the middle of the end sections. The middle section is hanged on the end sections, while there are no wheels/bogies under the articulation points.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ingenious, but all said, not very practical. Pivoting end bogies and Jacobs bogies under the articulations is more practical. Peter Horn User talk 18:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Current collection method

You asked why your edit didnt work? It takes several minutes (15 I think) for changes to templates, maps and images (basically anything which calls another page) to propogate around the wiki and start appearing on other pages. WatcherZero (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

t

That's what I found out later on. Peter Horn User talk 17:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

EMU infobox electric supply parameters

example #1
Specifications
Power supply	Catenary or Third rail
Electric system(s)	1.5 kV DC, 3kV DC, 15 kv AC, 25 kV AC or 600/700 V DC (Third rail) etc
Current collector(s)	Pantograph or Contact shoe

example #2
Specifications
Power supply	600 V DC to the traction motors
Electric system(s)	Catenary, Third rail or Fourth rail. 5 kV DC, 3kV DC, 15 kv AC, 25 kV AC or 600/700 V DC (Third rail) etc
Current collector(s)	Pantograph, Contact shoe or, rarely, even a Trolley pole

example #3
Specifications
Power supply	600 V DC to the traction motors
Electric system(s)	5 kV DC, 3kV DC, 15 kv AC, 25 kV 50 Hz AC, 25 kV AC, 60 Hz etc Overhead, or 600, 700, 750 V DC Third rail or Fourth rail.
Current collector(s)	Pantograph, Contact shoe or, rarely, even a Trolley pole

Hi Peter, I've noticed you changing and re-changing some of the {{infobox train}} parameters in relation to the Railway electrification system. I'm not sure what was originally intended, but I would tend to not include overhead lines or third rail in the "electricsystem" parameter when it may be inferred from the "collectionmethod" (e.g. Pantograph (rail), Third rail). It's only trains that can operate from either method (eg Eurostar, Metro-North M8, etc.) that perhaps need a qualifier, when I think it is better suffixed (as per M8 (railcar)). I've added this page to my watchlist, should you wish to reply here. Tim PF (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Tim
It took me a while to sort this out until I settled on on Sample #2. "Electric system (electricsystem) is the system that delivers the electricity, the collection method (collectionmethod) is the manner by which the "juice" is collected, referring to the apparatus used to do the collecting from the system. It is all in the links. BTW, compose a user page that we may see your background. Cheers, Peter Horn User talk 02:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm assuming that the "took a while to sort this out" explains the multiple re-edits.

Yes, I know that the Railway electrification system includes the nominal voltage, frequency / DC, and the means of delivery, but you haven't really answered:

1. Why you explicitly name the delivery method when it can often be inferred from the collection method?
2. Why you prefix the delivery method, when it is usually suffixed (if needed)?
3. Why you use the piped link Overhead catenary, even for French trains, where that is not the normal term?

Okay, I just added the last question this time around, but it may as well be asked as well. I may get around to a user page one day. Tim PF (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Tim,

1. "Inferences" are not useful nor helpful, especially not for persons who have no technical back ground.
2. delivery method merely referred to "catenary" plus all others collectively. The "juice" is delivered to the train by the catenary etc, the pantograph etc collect it.
3. Agreed, the word "overhead" is redundant in all cases, Catenary will do nicely. For the French trains we might even call it Caténaire
4. Incedentally, a discussion was started at User talk:DAJF#Template:Infobox train before this one.

BTW I found {{infobox tram}} which was never used anywhere and that is a pity. It lacks some parameters. Peter Horn User talk 15:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The usual French term is Caténaire. Peter Horn User talk 16:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

1. True, I inferred that most readers would have a fair bit of knowledge, or at least enough to click on the other links (TNFG).
2. I don't follow what you are trying to say about delivery method. Railway electrification systems are usually expressed as "25 kV 50 Hz AC overhead lines" or "750 V DC third rail", or for Multi-system locomotives, "25 kV 50 Hz AC or 3 kV DC overhead lines or 750 V DC third rail".
3. Catenary is a mathematical curve which is approximated by the suspension wires above some overhead lines, with generally flat contact wires. Overhead is not redundant, as you are inferring it, but in many cases is indeed sufficient in itself (ie "25 kV 50 Hz AC overhead"). Even if the French call it fr:Caténaire, this is the English Wikipedia, and it is unhelpful to those with no technical background to pipe links like "Caténaire" or "Catenary".
4. If you are going to have trams, you'll need to include bow collectors, conduit current collection (ploughs), etc..

Tim PF (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tim
It's simple,

1. In all articles that use either {{Infobox train}} or {{Infobox locomotive}} (electric locomotive), as infoboxes let's go with "| electricsystem = 5 kV DC, 3kV DC, 15 kv AC, 25 kV 50 Hz AC, 25 kV AC, 60 Hz etc Overhead" (see example #3)
2. Delivery method is merely synonymous with electricsystem but one would NOT use the former term in any aricle like this Delivery method. No no.
3. bow collectors, conduit current collection (ploughs), etc. are precisely the things for which there is no field or parameter "| collectionmethod =" yet in {{infobox tram}}. Even Pantograph and trolley pole can hence not yet be accommodated in that template either. That template has never been used in any tram article! Peter Horn User talk 22:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My error, {{infobox tram}} was used in many tram articles. Peter Horn User talk 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Board foot

Thank you for your addition to the board foot article. I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of adding "see also" references to the Measurement Canada and Weights and Measures Act (R.S. 1985) Wikipedia pages. If there is a specific fact that can be sourced from MC or which is referenced by the W&M Act, then there should be a reference to the specific source as a footnote, with a link to the specific relevant document or Web page. If not, I don't see that a 'see also' is helpful here. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That wiil take a bit of extra work...scrolling thru the act itself to find the pertinent section therein. Peter Horn User talk 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rail Gauge nomenclature

Your name has come up here. You may wish to participate. Globbet (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, having mentioned you, Andy, and Globbet, I should have given you all the heads-up myself. Tim PF (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ISO 228-1

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on ISO 228-1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Clare Valley Navbar

Hello, Peter Horn. You have new messages at Template talk:Towns of the Clare Valley#Do not delete.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LordVetinari (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Agence métropolitaine de transport park and ride lots

A tag has been placed on List of Agence métropolitaine de transport park and ride lots, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Not-notable topic on Montreal parking lots.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Rcsprinter (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Gauge conversion

Hi Peter, I notice that you wikilinked some slight gauge changes to the Gauge conversion article, which gives: In rail transportation, gauge conversion is the process of converting a railway from one rail gauge to another, through the alteration of the railway tracks.

The problem with some of your links is that there is no evidence that some of the smaller changes of 1⁄4–1⁄2 inch (6.4–12.7 mm) or even 1 inch (25 mm) were done by moving the tracks. I'm fairly certain that I've seen cited examples of such gauge harmonisation, where track wasn't actually re-gauged until it needing replacing.

That means that either those links shouldn't be made for small changes unless there is evidence that the tracks were moved. The alternative is that the Gauge conversion article should be revised to allow for such harmonisation. You might also wish to take note of Break-of-gauge#Nominal breaks of gauge. I won't revert your edits until we've plotted a way forward.

On a not unrelated note, I think the 62.25 may also have been logically redefined to 62.5.

Please reply here to keep the thread in one place. Tim PF (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me the particular article(s)/section(s)? Anyway, in the case of the Russian gauge They would actually have moved the rail by 4 mm (0.16 in) from 1524 to 1520 at some point of time. Similarly, the small changes needed to arrive at the Iberian gauge of 1668 from 1672 and 1664 were made deliberately by moving the rail. Historically 62.25 & 62.5 existed & exist both, see List of rail gauges#Broad gauge, Pennsylvania trolley gauge and Broad gauge#Pennsylvania trolley gauge. I'll have to do some research in Jane's World Railways. Peter Horn User talk 21:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Russian gauge change was only really done on paper. Track renewals would be made to the new gauge / tolerances, but I very much doubt if all 225,000 km (140,000 mi) of track had one rail moved by a mere 4 mm, when even high-speed railways will tolerate differences of more than that (see GCRT5021). In any case, Finland still nominally uses the old 5 definition, and trains run across the border.

Could you cite a reference for either Spain or Portugal actually moving any rails when they harmonised to Iberian gauge of 1668? If they did, they may as well have shifted them by 9 inches (230 mm) to get to 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge.

As for 62.25 gauge, it may have existed, and may more specifically have been used for trolleys in Pennsylvania, but do you believe everything you read in Wikipedia? None of those links have any citations for it.

I think we may have a big problem with our treatment of track gauge, as apart from one short sentence in that article's lead, engineering tolerances are practically ignored, and gauges just 1⁄8 or 1⁄4 inch (3 or 6 mm) apart are usually regarded as completely different, whereas in practice, trains with an appropriate wheelset profile can quite happily run on both, albeit at reduced speeds, particularly at switches and crossings (see the Angola Horror for how it can go horribly wrong). Tim PF (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed that one place where tolerances are mentioned is at Russian gauge#Tolerances, which also outlines the how the cross border trains work (both with references). Tim PF (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the infobox of Market–Frankford Line the track gauge is given as 62.5UrbanRail.net, However the 1969 - 1970 edition, page 715, of Jane's World Railways gives 62.25. Personally I would trust Jane's rather than UrbanRail. By the way, a difference of 1 in (25 mm) between 56.5 and 57.5 is problematic with even the "best" of wheelsets. A wheelset for the larger gauge would not fit inside and a wheelset56.5 would not likely fit in the grooves at switches and crossings of the larger gauge. I'll have to "google" for a reference to the new Iberian gauge, but it would be likely that it was implemented during routine maintenance. Peter Horn User talk 23:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

PS, as for the Iberian gauge, I found this reference Early 20th century. See the first paragraph. Peter Horn User talk 00:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is quite possible that both references for the Market–Frankford Line gauge were correct when published, as it is quite possible that SEPTA have widened it by the 1⁄4-inch (6 mm) during the last 40 years. Whether or not that meant anything happened apart from routine maintenance is another matter. You may be right in prefering Jane's over UrbanRail, which would also include being sceptical over its 600 V value, especially when SEPTA claims that The third rail voltage is approximately 750 volts. (that could, of course, mean that it uses a nominal 600 V with a permissible range of something like 500–750 V, or that UrbanRail is wrong; go figure).

I would agree that a 1-inch (25 mm) gauge difference is problematical, but may work if a compromise wheelset gauge is used, so that, for example, a 57 wheelset may run ok on both 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) and 57.5 lines, with reduced speed over S&C. Smaller track gauge differences definitely work, but it's difficult to ascertain whether or not a 1⁄4-inch (6 mm) gauge difference even needs a compromise wheelset at urban rail speeds.

As for your Iberian gauge reference, I'm not convinced that it is a reliable source, although it concurs with what I've previously read, which included someone on WP mentioning that earlier cross-border trains used a compromise wheelset gauge. I suspect that 1668 was originally defined back in the 19th century for cross-border wheelsets to safely run on both the old Spanish and Portuguese gauges, and somewhat later (with higher speeds in the 20th century) the track gauge itself was redefined for both countries. The original 8–10 mm (0.31–0.39 in) difference in gauge may still have precluded older Portuguese rolling stock from running on un-regauged Spanish tracks and vice-versa, whilst physically regauged lines may have worked fine for all three gauges of wheelsets (or possibly not). Tim PF (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

When I worked for Canadian Vickers during the summer of 1986 I saw some SEPTA tender documents which mentioned 62.25 rather than 62.5. Janes's now only publishes their data on line for a steep fee. If I'm lucky then the Montreal Public Library may still have a more recent hard copy than the one I purchased back in 1970. The other way to solve this riddle is to write/E-mail SEPTA direcly. as for the Iberian gauge reference (Early 20th century) that was the only one that I could find. Anything more authoritive would be in Spanish and Portuguese. I'll go to the Spanish, Ancho ibérico, & Portuguese, Bitola ibérica, Wikis & see if I can find anything there. Peter Horn User talk 15:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The portuguese looks like it is written in Brazil, but the Spanish page clearly says 1955 for the reduction to 1,668 mm, although I'm not sure what actually happened. Tim PF (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is their reference. Let's accept that. Peter Horn User talk 16:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could find an even better one, even if not in English. But the text of Ancho ibérico makes it look as if RENFE adopted 1668 in 1955 to reduce play (ie tighten tolerances), in the same way as Russia did a few years later. This is very different from any idea of harmonising the gauge with Portugal. It'd still be nice to find out about that one. Tim PF (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That will take some doing. In the mean time I'll look up in Jane's what it says about both Spain & Portugal, but not right now.

By the way, by 1969 Jane's had not updated their data. It sill showed the obsolete figures for both Portugal and Spain! Peter Horn User talk 21:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's actually very interesting. It could mean that it has a lot of out of date information, or it might be that Portugal adopted 1,668 mm after 1969 (and not forgetting that Spain under Franco was a rather different country). It might also be worth quoting them in Iberian gauge, as I don't think it has a good cite for the Portuguese gauge, and I've seen both 1,672 mm and 1,674 mm for the Spanish. Tim PF (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the article Spanish customary units the Castillian foot was 27.86 cm (= 278.6 mm}. So 6 Castilian feet make 1671.6 mm say 1672 mm. The "vara" is 0.8359 m say 835.9 mm. 2 Varas make 1671.8 mm say 1672 mm. That makes 1674 mm unlikely. Peter Horn User talk 00:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 00:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the article Portuguese customary units the Portuguese foot was 0.33 m say 330 mm. 5 Port. ft thus make 1665 mm or 1 mm more than 1664 mm. Not to quible, at 5 ft = 1664 mm each ft would be 332.8 mm. Peter Horn User talk 01:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)