Template talk:Infobox locomotive/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Styling into regular infobox

Styling the caption is deemed acceptable by a consensus of editors. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

checkY - in process -DePiep (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Using bacic (default) {{Infobox}} styles:
Title now on top (not just an above header, as a subheader). Outside of the box yes.
Label texts (LH text) now have reduced lineheight (by {{Longitem}})
No borders (that made bad padding-left anyway). Infobox basic style is whitespace first and foremost.
 Done -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I can live with it. The only thing I do NOT like is the outside-the-box title. André Kritzinger (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I can understand. This is a regular topic in Template talk:Infobox (that is: all standard infoboxes here, 2.3M transc's). I myself stopped opposing after getting the 'whitespace is all' page design - not just for WP, but knowing that it is generally considered 'good' webpage design. So in this case too I conform to the standard. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Leave it white then, but it belongs inside, not outside. Look at South African Class 14C 4-8-2, for example. It just does not look right. André Kritzinger (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not an infobox; that's information overload. Alakzi (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
To me personally, this example wouldn't look nice when inside the box either. A more problematic example would be when two infoboxes are stacked in an article. Still, in general, it's a title not a section (sub-)header. If I understand page design a bit, the guideline is: "let whitespace do the organising (not lines)". Note that over the years, a wiki page has become more white in every way (while most people didn't even notice). I'm looking for WP-pages where this design idea was being explained. -DePiep (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
True, it is a rather extreme example. As you say, it's a title, but the title of the infobox, not necessarily the exact title of the article. For an example, see Cape Colony, where the article title is the colloquially used so-called WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, while the correct official title, as shown in the infobox, is actually completely different. Therefore, as Infobox title, I still feel it belongs inside the infobox frame. André Kritzinger (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
As an infobox is a table, its title is (and should be) rendered as a caption for accessibility reasons, but by default, MediaWiki software places a table caption above its table, centred and bold. If you want to make the caption appear as part of the table, then you can apply a style fix to any infobox template like this:
  • | bodystyle = border-top:none;
  • | titlestyle = border:1px solid #AAA; border-bottom:none; padding-top:0.2em; background-color:inherit;
as was done in {{Infobox horse breed}} and it results in the infobox like the one in Mustang, for example.
That gives you the option of retaining a <caption>...</caption>, which is much appreciated by screen readers, while visually displaying the title inside the infobox. As there is no project-wide consensus on the issue, whether or not to do that is clearly a style decision that will require consensus on each template concerned. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't call this a fix, more like a hack. The core infobox title style is clear by itself. -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
A 'hack' would be styling the first row of the table to look like a heading for the table, while leaving it without a caption (see |above=, for example). Are you suggesting it doesn't offer a valid fix to the issue raised by Andre Kritzinger? --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
While I disagree that it is a hack, I would prefer it if we could agree on which style to use. Personally, I'd be all for deprecating |above=. Alakzi (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps RexxS's fix should be applied to {{Infobox}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't want it inside the box, I want it as a title as designed with arguments. That's enwiki-wide then. So the question on how to do that alternative is moot for me. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course you don't want it inside the box: you told us that half-a-dozen posts ago. But you don't seem to recognise that other editors like Andre Kritzinger have a different opinion that's just as valid as yours. You really are going to have to learn how to play nicely with others. --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Still does not validate your howto deviation. Nor any (now ill-informed) judgement. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't need your approval to help other editors, some of whom find it useful. You've never done a thing to help another editor in your entire career, because it's all about you, isn't it? --RexxS (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't try to involve me in your own issue. -DePiep (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd certainly like to hear why |labelstyle = padding-top:0.225em;line-height:1.15em; padding-right:0.75em; is not a hack but RexxS's is. Alakzi (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The title reformatting circumvents (alters) an existing format. Labelstyle setting does not. -DePiep (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This debate seems to have petered out, [I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, AND NOW YOU CHOOSe TO DON'T LISTEN? -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)] but the disconnected infobox title still looks screwed up to me, especially since virtually all other infoboxes I come across still have their titles inside the frame (like it should be). Are we now to accept that Infobox Locomotive will remain kooking looking this way, based on the decision of ONE editor? -- André Kritzinger (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand a jota you are saying, but yes, the infobox title should be out of the box. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Andre, of course we shouldn't; so I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to close this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Don't enforce a option as if it were obligate. -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Take a moment to think about it, DePiep, enforcing an option is exactly what you're doing. Aside from the title, there's also the absence of lines to separate the rows in a table of which the left (item) column is often a three-liner or more while the right (data) column is a one-liner, or the other way around. The guideline, repeat, guideline, of "let whitespace do the organising (not lines)" that you quoted was probably coined by some yuppy webpage layout designer with no thought spared for oldsters like me, for whom the now absent lines makes the infobox more difficult to read. Your outside-the-box infobox title is, I'm sure, also a guideline, not a law of nature. To just bluntly assert that an infobox is a table and therefore outside-the-box-title is the way it shall be, like it or not, is just plain unacceptable. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's kill the above {{Admin help}} first. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This does not appear to be a situation where {{Admin help}} should be used. If you're looking for an experienced editor to assess consensus of a discussion, you can request closure at WP:ANRFC. Otherwise if you find yourself involved in an incident where you believe administrators need to step in, WP:ANI would be the place. But y'all are not newbies and I doubt you needed me to tell you that. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The use of the template here is entirely in accordance with its documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The only thing I can find in your comments that even resembles a "request for help from an admin" is "so I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to close this discussion", which means that you need to make a request at WP:ANRFC. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
        • WP:AN/RFC is the correct place for this type of request. {{admin help}} should only be used for situations that require "immediate" attention. Mkdwtalk 17:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
          • @Mkdw: That's contrary to what the template documentation says. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Is there a particular reason you don't feel you can use WP:AN/RFC? Mkdwtalk 19:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
              • @Mkdw: Is there a particular reason you haven't closed this discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
                • Asked and answered by multiple editors now at this point. Mkdwtalk 19:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • Noone has said anything about why you haven't done it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)i
                    • You've been directed to WP:ANRFC three times. You've also not engaged in inquiries back to you. Since you have provided no explanation to why you won't take your issue to the appropriate place, I do not see a further point to this conversation. I won't close another attempt to call another admin, but I will advise you that admin shopping until you get the attention and outcome you're requesting many come back around. Mkdwtalk 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
About the meta-discussion: no opinion. DR;TL. About the OP (my edit to the template) and the subsequent discussion: Don't know the exact question. My answer to the question is: use default {{infobox}} style (= the meta enwiki template style). -DePiep (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
If you have an answer you have a question. What is it? Drmies (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't sound nice to me. Please rephrase. -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
{{{title}}}
{{{above}}}
{{{title}}} mimicking {{{above}}}
{{{above}}}
Most want to place the title inside the infobox, because it often gets quite long, and it looks rather odd dangling above the infobox frame. However, we all want to use <caption>, the HTML element that represents the title of a table, and which corresponds to {{Infobox}}'s |title= parameter; and, therefore, we have to resort to overwritng the default infobox caption styling. {{Infobox}}'s |above=, which is - in fact - placed inside the infobox is a regular table header, and thus lacking from both an accessibility and a semantic perspective. DePiep appears to believe that styling the caption is a "hack" and that all infoboxes should use |title=, unstyled, whereas RexxS, Andy and Andre would prefer the alternative. Alakzi (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't "appear to believe". I have answered that straight away already. -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I've said "appears to believe" out of courtesy - in case I've misinterpreted your position. Alakzi (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That is the technical version of what I thought. Thanks for clarifying. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional fields required: Steam, mostly

While there are some fields in the template which I've never used, I also find a lot of information in dimensional drawings which I can't fit into the present fields without resorting to sub-headings, which obviously then end up in the right hand data column instead of in the left hand headings column. Since I'm hesitant to fiddle with the template big-time, I'd rather state here what is needed and leave it to the template specialists to implement after discussion. Here's what I need for steam locomotives (so far, more may most likely crop up...):

  • Below [trailingdiameter] - a new field called:
    • [tenderdiameter] - for the tender wheel diameters.
  • Below [wheelbase] - (which should then become [wheelbasetotal] for the total engine-and-tender wheelbase), a whole bunch of new sub- and sub-sub-fields:
    • [engine] - for the total engine wheelbase, without tender.
      • [leadingbogie] - for the leading bogie wheelbase.
      • [coupled] - for the coupled wheels wheelbase.
      • [trailingbogie] - for the trailing bogie wheelbase.
    • [tender] - for the tender's wheelbase.
      • [tenderbogie] - for the wheelbase of the tender bogies, usually identical.
    • [wheelspacing] - I have serious doubts that this one will be practical due to the myriad of variations, but I'm mentioning it for you to mull over. It's about the wheelbase spacing from the leading bogie/pony to leading coupled, between coupled 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, etc., trailing coupled to trailing bogie/pony, to tender leading, between tender bogies, etc. I have a feeling, though, that this may be infobox overkill and that including a dimensional diagram, if available, may be the simpler solution. Comments welcome!
      Note: A better, and more important, option would be to limit all this to one field called [coupledspacing] or [driverspacing] for use in those many instances where a locomotive's coupled wheels are not spaced equidistant from each other.
  • Below [length] - two new fields called:
    • [overcouplers] - for the length over couplers or buffers.
    • [overbufferbeams] - for the length over the buffer beams (frame length or body length).
  • Below [height] - two new fields, for electric locomotives. Note: With the recent Afro 4000 saga in South Africa, this has become a major issue, although the new fields will only be applicable to electric locomotives, where two maximum loading gauge heights apply.
    • [bodyheight] - for the locomotive height, pantographs excluded.
    • [pantodown] - for the pantograph height in the down position.
  • Below [framesize] - two new fields called:
    • [pivotcentres] - for the distance between engine unit pivot centres on Garratts, Modified Fairlies, Kitson-Meyers, possibly also Mallets, and between electric and diesel-electric locomotive bogie pivot centres.
    • [pantospacing] - for the distance between pantograph shoe centres. Note: This has recently become an issue in South Africa, where TFR insisted that their new Chinese-built electric locomotives must have their pantograph shoe centres directly above the bogie pivot centres, to limit outswing in turnouts which could lead to catenary hookups.
  • Below [axleload] - several new fields for the axle loading of individual axles.
    • [leadingbogie] - load on leading bogie or pony wheel.
    • [coupled 1] - load on 1st coupled wheel.
    • [coupled 2] - load on 2nd coupled wheel.
    • [coupled 3] - at whichever is the driving wheel, "(Driver)" can be added in brackets.
    • [coupled 4]
    • [coupled 5]
    • [coupled 6]
    • [coupled 7]
    • [coupled 8] - 8 should cover the coupled axles of the biggest Garratts.
    • [trailingbogie] - load on trailing bogie or pony wheel.
      Note: Most diagrams also give tender axle loadings per axle or per bogie, but I think these may be left out even though tenders are usually integral to the locomotive. Again, including a dimensional diagram may be the simpler solution. Comments welcome!
  • Below [boiler] - a new field and whole bunch of new sub-fields: Note: The [boiler] field can then become [boilertype], for use to mention domeless boilers, the various Watson Standard boiler types in South Africa, etc.
    • [fireboxtype] - Belpaire, round-top, combustion chamber, etc.
      • [diameter] - for the inside boiler diameter.
      • [length] - for the distance between tube plates.
      • [pitch] - for the boiler pitch, or height of boiler centreline above the railhead.
      • [smalltube] - for the number of boiler tubes and their outside diameter.
      • [largetube] - for the number of larger diameter boiler tubes, if any, and their outside diameter.
  • Below [boilerpressure] - a new field called:
    • [safetyvalvetype] - e.g. Ramsbottom, Pop, etc. safety valves.

That should cover it, for now. I'll pipe up if more come to mind. André Kritzinger (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I count over 30. That's a lot for an infobox. In other infoboxes, we see the same issue: very detailed, very long, loosing its job of overview, and actually too long for a lede (don't forget, in mobile view screens one has to scroll the infobox before reaching the text).
Proposal: we could create a new template for this, to be put in a regular section. That way the reader can skip/find it more easily. Example for aircraft engines: Garrett TPE331 has #Specifications for this. -DePiep (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
True, it's a lot, but keep in mind that:
  • Empty fields do not display, and all these fields will rarely all be used at once.
  • In all existing articles that I'm involved with, virtually all this info is already included in the present infobox, but with the headings in the wrong (data) column, so these 30+ new headings should actually make the infobox display shorter.
  • Your Garrett TPE331#Specifications (TPE331-43A) option seems (to me) to be more cumbersome to create than filling out an infobox.
A separate template, or even a collapsible table, could be an option, but all that would effectively do, is virtually replace the present infobox, since these new fields I propose are not stand-alone, but in addition to what's already in the present infobox. Thus, what to keep and what to transfer to the new template?
There is another option, that of including a dimensional drawing (if available) at the bottom of the article, such as I've done with Cape Town Railway & Dock 0-4-2#Dimensions last night. In this example, it's an old and simple engine, with very little known info about it, and the drawing does not contain all the other details such as individual axle loadings, wheel spacing and more, which one will find with more recent locomotives dating back to c. 1900. All that needs to be done in addition (I notice I neglected that last night...) is to add a note at the bottom of the infobox to refer to the drawing.
One issue which has, however, already cropped up with the drawing (File:Cape Town Railway & Dock 0-4-2.jpg) is the image size, which was reduced to utter uselessness since the image is still copyrighted. I've since expanded it again to a readable size, since the dimensional inscriptions and fractions are the whole reason for uploading the drawing in the first place. At present this option still stands on shaky legs, therefore. - André Kritzinger (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Quick re: of course, filling a separated template would not be more difficult that filling an infobox (as you also note by stating 'already in the wrong data place').
All in all, my point is that it is way to much detail in the top infobox. Whatever happens, this proposal introduces infoboxes with thirty detail data rows. Thirty rows is too much, full stop. The fact that it is already there does not undo this point. The choice is needed on what to split -- well, why couldn't we decide on that? And it is helpful to check mobile view for a page, to see what the mobile reader experiences (long infoboxes are not nice). tech note: To check mobile view from desktop, go to the very bottom of a wikipage, and click the last worded link there that says "mobile view". -DePiep (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, for reasons I stated (esp in my first post 'I count over 30' above), I oppose adding these to the infobox. I have proposed an alternative. -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have 344 loco articles awaiting a complete infobox overhaul and I need to get started, so I went ahead and did it anyway. So far, it looks like I broke nothing - the approximately 15 various articles I opened quickly to check, still display exactly as before.
Having received input only from DePiep, here's my reasoning:

  • The locomotive information is available, and from the getgo (for me, in 2010) there were some aspects of the infobox that forced me to shoe-in some info by other non-ideal means and to even omit some, as set out when I raised this discussion. Since these articles are written for an encyclopaedia, they should be as complete as possible, so the info have to be accommodated somehow.
  • The infobox is already a table, as DePiep said himself during a previous debate here, so to include all or some of the info in a separate table would just be splitting something apart that belongs together. It would, ultimately, be a case of either infobox or table, not both.
  • I did check mobile view, as suggested, and have a suggestion: Make the part of the infobox below the title and image collapsible (uncollapsed). It works just fine with tables and navboxes on mobiles, so it should be the answer with the infobox as well. (If I knew how, I'd have done it already, along with the edit, but I didn't want to push my luck...)

To address DePiep's concerns about infobox length, I'll keep track, as I get going on my 344 awaiting revisions, of how many infoboxes get stretched or shrunk in the process and by how much, and post feedback here. - André Kritzinger (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Just one note: collapsing the infobox is a good idea at first, but mobile view does not have collapsed tables at all: all collapsed tables are shown uncollapsed and there is no hide button. -DePiep (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll check tonight when SIL and daughter and the pinkfoots get back from today's holidaying. We opened a loco article on his mobile last night (South African Class 25NC 4-8-4) and the infobox did take a few thumb swipes to get past. The table was collapsed, I think, but I'm not sure, since I wanted to see what the navboxes at the bottom looked like. These could be collapsed and uncollapsed without a problem, though. - André Kritzinger (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The advantage of a section "==Specifications==" (with/without a split off second data box) is that mobile view does collapse sections. Another tip: in the personal Preferences, there is some option to add to a desktop wikipage a tab (next to the Edit, History tabs etc) that says/does: show this page in mobile view. Nice shortcut then. -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Right, I saw that, about the collapsed sections. However, the personal preferences are only available to registered users, and I suspect the majority of Wikipedia users are not registered. I feel that page layout should therefore not be designed around that option. - André Kritzinger (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, preferences are for us only. I mention it because I use it as a "Preview/check mobile view" button, while being on desktop. -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Collapsible sections

The infobox sections are now collapsible, default state uncollapsed, thanks to Frietjes who came to my rescue. Hopefully, this will solve most of the issues users experience with too-long infoboxes. - André Kritzinger (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes, would it be possible to get the column widths back to being identical across all four sections? The present staggering, with each section doing its own thing, is the one thing that's rather glaringly different now. Ideal would be for the left column to take up about one-third of the width, the data column two-thirds. Thanks again for all the help! -- André Kritzinger (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
A good (extreme) example is South African Class 5E, Series 1. - André Kritzinger (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
André Kritzinger, there is really no way to completely force the column widths to match. to make each section collapsible, each section is a separate table. however, you can add 'width:33%;' to every |labelstyle= to encourage equal widths. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Frietjes, I'll try that. - André Kritzinger (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
33% was almost there, but 36% hit the spot. The column widths are perfectly in line, on my PC at least. Will have to see if other users have issues. Feedback, please, Slambo, Peter Horn, Redrose64, DePiep, Iain Bell, Andy Dingley - you're the people I'm aware of that use the infobox. - André Kritzinger (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. I don't see any issues on sample pages (like on the article that I just added to the portal's DYK section), and it displays well on mobile devices. Thanks for the efforts to get it to work right. Slambo (Speak) 13:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Presentation of lengths

  • I have changed the line-handling re Length=/Length:= (one or more entries). Width and other groups can follow. Also, internally I renumbered to make number-space (skip numbers). Tested by sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks, I like that! Width is not necessary, since I've yet to discover a loco where it's really necessary. Height could do with this modification, too, especially for electrics wrt roof and panto height, but it's bedtime now. - André Kritzinger (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    Width is sometimes important for British locomotives, where the width restrictions on some routes (such as the Hastings Line) debarred locomotives of normal width, and some classes of loco (such as SR V Schools class and British Rail Class 33/2) needed to be built narrower than they would otherwise have been. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    True, but only necessary if more than one value for width is given for a specific class of loco. It does happen with "Length" (over couplers, over buffer beams, over loco body) and "Height" (electrics and electro-diesels, where the pantos in down position are usually higher than the locobody and can exceed the normal loading gauge. That recently became a huge issue in the Afro 4000 saga, where SA's fake "doctor" approved a diesel to be built to the electric loading gauge, which rendered it virtually unusable.) - André Kritzinger (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    Isn't this better covered in some parameter 'loading gauge' (-issues)? -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    Such a parameter doesn't exist yet. As it is, it's only applicable to the sparkies, and using two loco heights for body and pantographs works well enough, I think. - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Checking unknown or misspelled parameters

Looks like |framesize= is an issue. -DePiep (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what the intention was with |framesize=, since "the size of the loco frame" makes no sense, to me, at least. That's why I added |frametype=, to be used to discern between plate, bar and cast frames. Please leave |framesize= there for now - I've still a ways to go with updating the infobox data on my list of 344...
I plan to relocate |pivotcentres= and |pantoshoecentres= from under the heading |length=, since it has nothing really to with the loco length and will be more appropriate listed under |wheelbase=. - André Kritzinger (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
|framesize= exists in a few hundred SA locs, like South African Class 7E1. I'll leave them alone for now.
You can edit the template as you like (personally I prefer sandboxing btw). It's just, the very long parameter whitelist is hard to check & handle right away. Best is to promise that the "Complete list" in /doc is always correct & complete. (After this, you can edit the whitelist; keep the pattern with weird =-usage).
I have removed Category:Unusual parameters of Infobox locomotive template and its populating logic. It was (1) mostly filled with SA locs (ca. 475 P), and (2) quite complicated by setup. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the reason for the whitelist? - André Kritzinger (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Module:TemplatePar, as applied in this infobox, categorises all articles that have an unknown parameter (misspelled, capitalised, plain unknown, numeric parameter). The whitelist is the list of correct parameter names. Checking the categorised articles can fix those params. (Already done 75 P; |framesize= is untouched for now). -DePiep (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I do notice a new error message the moment I open the editing page: Error in template * unknown parameter name (Template:Infobox_locomotive): 'framesize' - André Kritzinger (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is the error message! Only shows in Preview, right? That is by intention. So one can either ignore the message (and save the edits), or fix the bad parameter -- though this one does not have a fix yet. -DePiep (talk)
For example, this edit I did (by AWB): First load the article, picked from the Category; Second: preview and read that error message; third: fix the bad parameter. Fourth: preview again to check and save. -DePiep (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know one could ignore the message. I'm replacing |framesize= with |frametype= as I edit along, rate about 5-10 articles per day at present. - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no intention to push you into this elaborate edit series. It's just to let us know that editors have entered data for an unused parameter. If you can think of a meaning, we can show that value in the iunfobox (add the parameter). I have no opinion or knowledge of its possible meaning. -DePiep (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I started revising the whole kaboodle anyway since I got my hands on the whole Espitalier/Day volume of articles from the 1940s, so you're not pushing. Framesize never made any sense to me, and I'll have no use for it once I'm done with all the articles. How many non-South African articles show up with it? - André Kritzinger (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Some 203 South African articles now [1]. In total I think 470 articles (the rest of the category are other param errors). FYI: it is possible to remove that parameter from the article input using AWB. -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know there's a shortcut, but I still have to edit all of them one by one anyway. Self-inflicted, with all the new fields in the infobox... - André Kritzinger (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Quite a few articles use unknown |service= and |serviceclass=. Should they be shown somehow? -DePiep (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    I don't know those two parameters, and never used them, AFAIK. Might as well let them show up with your error message as well. - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    They already do give an error message, because they are unknown (not defined in the infobox). Solve them could be: either show the value (whatever it means), or remove the parameters from the article. -DePiep (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    How many articles use them? Any clues there as to what was intended with them? - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    EMD GP38-2, SNCB Class 28 (Bombardier), ČD Class 380: Oops, only three (not dozens as I thought). So let's simply remove them, end of issue. Could be confused with {{Infobox train}}, which has |service=. -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
     Done removed bad parameters in those three. -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

One field cancelled out another

SNCF 040.DF
Specifications
Performance figures
Power output:
​
 • Starting850 CV (625 kW; 838 hp)
 • Continuous495 kW (673 CV; 664 hp)


The first field does not show here. Peter Horn User talk 20:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 

{{Infobox locomotive
| name = [[SNCF 040.DF]]
| poweroutput      =
|  poweroutput start = {{convert|850|CV|kW hp|sigfig=3|abbr=on}}</nowiki>
|  poweroutput cont= {{convert|495|kW|CV hp|sigfig=3|abbr=on}}
}}

Peter Horn User talk 20:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: may be you can help sort this out. Peter Horn User talk 20:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 20:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not supposed to. You can use |poweroutput= alone, for the locomotive's total power output; or you can use one or more of |poweroutput start= - the locomotive's starting motor rating; |poweroutput 1 hr= - the locomotive's one hour motor rating; |poweroutput cont= - the locomotive's continuous motor rating. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's working right. The value in |poweroutput start= and in |poweroutput= (as in maximum) should always be the same, since max power is only drawn upon starting or pulling away. - André Kritzinger (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
NO, | poweroutput = {{convert|850|CV|kW hp|sigfig=3|abbr=on}} still does not show in the sample to the right. Peter Horn User talk 00:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at "Power output:" in SNCF 040.DF now, please. I think this is what you wanted. - André Kritzinger (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Andre Kritzinger: That is indeed the what I wanted and I have revised the sample here accordingly. Thanks, problem solved. Peter Horn User talk 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 01:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Collapse

Is there a way to make the infobox autocollapse? This would be especially useful in a situation where one is using several on a page to describe several classes (as on Sentetsu Puri class locomotives. 2Q (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Diameterinside

Why are you using |diameterinside= for what are verifiably outside diameters? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, To use the outside diameter of a boiler in loco specifications is useless and you'll likely find it to be the exception, not the rule. To determine boiler capacity (volume, heating surface, etc), the inside diameter of the boiler, the outside diameter of the boiler tubes and flues and the inner distance between tube plates are needed, all those surfaces that would be covered by water or steam in a working order boiler. All boiler measurements in loco drawings are given this way. The only exceptions I've found so far were really old engines, usually because factory drawings of them could not be found and someone had to clamber about the engine with a measuring tape or guesstimate the diameter. In such cases I add "outside" after the diameter just to be clear about it. Outside diameter is of no use unless the thickness of the boiler skin is also brought into the equation, but draughtsmen and designers preferred the KISS principle. For that reason I would also argue against, for example, adapting the infobox to make provision for an outside boiler diameter. - André Kritzinger (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I know how to calculate volume and heating surface, thank you: I have been studying the subject for over thirty years. My point is that texts on British locomotives rarely give an inside diameter - the only cases that I've ever seen have been in detailed engineering drawings, the kind that also specify plate thickness, the corner radius of flanges, size of rivets and their spacing. Other than such engineering drawings, where boiler dimensions are quoted (either in tabular form or on a diagram) it is always the outside diameter which is given, normally that of the largest ring, but there are exceptions. Tapered boilers - such as those used on the GWR from 1902 and the LMS from 1933 - often have a minimum and maximum diameter quoted, but again, other than on engineering drawings they are always outside diameters.
It is misleading to place a figure into a parameter that was not intended for it. The parameter was added by you at 22:29, 2 January 2016 during the first of a long series of edits (example) which made massive changes to the infobox. There was a discussion at the time concerning a large number of additional parameters, now archived to Template talk:Infobox locomotive/Archive 2#Additional fields required: Steam, mostly, but only two people - yourself and DePiep (talk · contribs) - commented there. Previous to your edits, it was possible to use the |boiler= parameter to hold these outside diameters; now, it is not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Your last statement needs some looking at: "Previous to your edits, it was possible to use the |boiler= parameter to hold these outside diameters; now, it is not."
That's not quite a true reflection of facts. It was possible to hold both inner and outer dimensions without any indication whether it was outside or inside diameter, which was not a particularly accurate portrayal of specifications. That was misleading! Way back when, in the SA loco articles, I began adding "outside" in those cases where the drawings specified as such, i.e. the exceptions where the inside diameter was not known.
Just to clarify: What precisely is the outside boiler diameter defined as anyway? Around the boiler's skin? Around the boiler cladding?
In the few UK loco articles I edited the past few days to fix parameter errors, I could find no indication in any of them that the measurement was the outside diameter, and I honestly never expected it to be outside by default, hence the need for you to re-edit them. If, in the sources used for these articles where boiler dimensions are quoted either in tabular form or on a diagram, it is always the outside diameter which is given, why was this fact never mentioned as such in any article's text?
I suggest you do what I used to do with exceptions until the infobox was expanded. The parameter calls for inside diameter and if only outside diameter is known, simply add the word "outside" after the measurement.
Meanwhile, I suggest you put Category:Articles with unknown parameter in infobox locomotive in your startup list. It's in mine to highlight erroneous use of infobox parameters, or use of non-existing parameters. The present locos in there are all GCR as well, so maybe I'd better leave them for your attention. Please note that in these nine remaining articles with infobox errors, nowhere in the text or table of any of them is any mention made of whether boiler dimensions were measured outside or inside. - André Kritzinger (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Andre Kritzinger, why do you persist in describing outside diameters as inside? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Redrose64, in all seriousness, did you read any of my aforegoing comments? To recap, the bottom line is that in steam locomotive technical specifications the boiler diameter given is the inside diameter by default. If for some reason such as modeler's benefit the outside boiler or even cladding diameter is shown, that fact should at least be noted somewhere inside the article. If not, inside diameter will be assumed by default. André Kritzinger (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Why should it be the default? This implies supposition, which is tantamount to guesswork, which has no place in Wikipedia. Have you got sources stating that these figures are the inside diameter? They are not: they are the outside diameter, and I have sources to prove it, for example
  • Boddy, M.G.; Brown, W.A.; Hennigan, W.; Neve, E.; Platt, E.N.T.; Russell, O.; Yeadon, W.B. (January 1981). Fry, E.V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 3B: Tender Engines - Classes D1 to D12. Kenilworth: RCTS. p. 63. ISBN 0-901115-46-0. Max. diam outside
Unless you can demonstrate that these figures are the inside diameter, please do not describe them as such. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
You appear to read without taking anything in. Even now and in spite of the reference you quote, absolutely nothing in any of those articles indicate whether it's inside or outside diameter as given. The default boiler diameter for any steam locomotive apart from, apparently, those of the GCR, is the inside diameter for the reasons set out in my first comment above. If in these nine cases it's the outside diameter, just how hard could it be for you who claim to have a reference to that effect to add the word "outside" after the dimensions?
I start my second chemotherapy session on Monday and I seriously do not have the time or strength for any more of this cowpoop, so I'm out of here. André Kritzinger (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not just the GCR, but all British railway companies. Would you like some more sources? I notice that you primarily edit articles concerning South African railways: clearly the conventions are different. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

An additional field

Template:Infobox locomotive#Electric. What about adding a field to specify the railway electrification system under which the loco runs? Peter Horn User talk 12:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to forget a field for current collection method as well, see template:infobox train. Peter Horn User talk 12:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
In addition to these?
  • powersupply - see head end power (For electric locomotives I used this field to fill in "Catenary), for example.
  • electricsystem - The electric system(s) under which the locomotive operates
  • collectionmethod - The locomotive's (electrical) current collection method (i.e. pantograph, contact shoe, etc.)
André Kritzinger (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
No, "catenary" should go under overhead line as thus catenary as part of the railway electrification system. "powersupply" should always be the head end power that the locomotive supplies to the train it pulls. Likewise a diesel electric locomotive also supplies head end power to the train. In template:Infobox train the field "power supply" is linked to head end power. Peter Horn User talk 13:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
True. Way back when I started on the SA locomotives that was all I could find to put it in... André Kritzinger (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Power supply

Power supply should link to head end power, just as it does in template:infobox train. Peter Horn User talk 03:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Power supply is the head end power that the locomotive supplies to the train and that the train receives from the locomotive. Peter Horn User talk 03:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This is true for all passenger train locomotives, whether electric locomotive or diesel electric locomotive. Peter Horn User talk 04:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Current collector/Current collection method Noooo... Not after all the trouble I went to to create one-liner headings as far as possible to counter the complaints about infobox length. There's no need for consistency with Template:Infobox train, the infoboxes are completely different anyway and there are more than one way to say the same thing. In Template:Infobox Locomotive the data column is about twice as wide as the heading column to allow for more extensive data entries, while in Template:Infobox train the columns are of about equal width. So, please pardon the imminent undo. - André Kritzinger (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Andre, what you suggest would also be valid for Template:Infobox train as applied to electric multiple units. See also Template talk:Infobox locomotive#A potential problem? below. Peter Horn User talk 16:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
There is also Template:Infobox EMU. Peter Horn User talk 17:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Andre, your roll back does not yet show in the infobox in ALP-45DP. Peter Horn User talk 17:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A potential problem?

Example
Specifications
Electric system/s1) 25 kV AC
2) 750 V DC
Current pickup(s)1) Pantograph from overhead line
2) Contact shoe from third rail
British Rail Class 373
Eurostar "E300"
TGV TMST
Specifications
Electric system(s)1) 25 kV 50 Hz AC
3000 V DC, 1500 V DC
2) 750 V DC (No longer used)
Current collector(s)1) Pantograph from Overhead lines
2) Contact shoe (removed) from Third rail (removed)
SAR Class 38
No. 38-012 at Capital Park, 28 September 2006
Specifications
Electric system/s1) 25 kV AC
2) 750 V DC
Current pickup(s)1) Pantograph from overhead line
2) Contact shoe from third rail

This is an example of what can happen. Peter Horn User talk 16:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I added part of a data modified infobox from British Rail Class 373. Peter Horn User talk 17:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Bluddy hell - I typed a comprehensive reply, then got "edit conflict" so now I have to start from scratch. ~!@#%$%^&*, that'll teach me to remember to rather work in Word and then copy & paste...
This (your example) should only happen in infoboxes without a picture since then the infobox shows up a lot narrower. See the difference with a picture and caption added. (In the full size infobox with, say, "| aarwheels = B-B | uicclass = Bo'Bo' | Britishclass = Bo-Bo" filled in, even "Electric system/s" will show up in one line.)
In your example under "Electric system/s", skip the numbering and use "25 kV AC & 750 V DC" and it will probably fit into one line. I don't really have a hangup with multi-line data entries, though, it's the multi-line headings with single line data entries that bug me since they waste space unnecessarily.
Under "Current pickup/s", "Pantograph from catenary" will probably fit into one line, even in your narrow example. Or also skip the numbering and use "Pantograph from catenary & contact shoe from third rail", or a three-liner "Pantograph from catenary" and "Contact shoe from third rail (removed)". - André Kritzinger (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not worried about what fits on a line. What needs to be clear is 1) When is the pantograph is required, and 2) when to contact shoe reguired. The revision that you made does not yet show up on the info box in ALP-45DP. Peter Horn User talk 20:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It does for me. Try a dry save to refresh it - open for edit and hit "Save changes" without doing anything. - André Kritzinger (talk)

How are the infobox "headings" coloured?

I like the fact that the main headings in the infobox are coloured; I can't find how it is specified. Can anyone help on this? SCHolar44 (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean the brown background for the "Specifications" heading in the example infoboxes in the section above? That is the |abovestyle= parameter, within which is the CSS declaration background-color: #eeb47f; where #eeb47f is this   colour. This parameter is specified for each sub-{{Infobox}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Aha! I get it now. Many thanks, Redrose! Cheers, Simon. 2A00:23C5:3155:5400:D941:F1D3:9244:8003 (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Deprecated parameters

The documentation gives a list of deprecated parameters added to Category:Unusual parameters of Infobox locomotive template. Since the category doesn't exist, I added {{{topspeed}}} and {{{weight}}} to an infobox as a test and they displayed normally. Then I tried a made-up parameter and there was no error message in preview. Is the parameter error checking here broken? MB 15:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@MB: The positive checking for selected invalid parameters was replaced by a negative check against a list of all valid parameters nearly three years ago, with these edit by DePiep (talk · contribs). Since then, the category to look in has been Category:Articles with unknown parameter in infobox locomotive. For invalid params, you should get a message when previewing, something like Error in template * unknown parameter name (Template:Infobox_locomotive): 'made_up_param_name'. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, my test was in Draft space. I repeated it in Article space and saw the expected errors. So the only problem may be the category in the documentation. Can you fix that? MB 17:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Removed that redlink category from /doc (it already said "abandoned" for three years clearly). If any question remains, please be specific. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, I still see the following note in bold in the Usage section : MB 01:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that the following parameters have been deprecated, and articles will be added to Category:Unusual parameters of Infobox locomotive template. However, each page might need a null edit to be included in the category.

Removed that line. I will take a thorough look at 'deprecated' and 'unknown' parameters. Add TemplateData to start MonthlyErrorReport on parameter usage. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

Please put all sandbox code into the template (replace all: Template:Infobox locomotive/sandbox → Template:Infobox locomotive, diff).

Changes: 1. Removes all its deprecated parameters (deprecated since <2016), that is: turn them into "unknown parameter". 2. Technically: uses Module:Check for unknown parameters now. 3. To be removed from documentation afterwards. The other, regular parameters are not affected, nor their rendering.

Tested: See testcases page. All 3950 transclusing articles have been pre-checked using AWB; after 6 edits no such errors (uknown parameter) expected. Incidents will be categorised ayway.

Discussion, concensus: #Removal of deprecated parameters (above). DePiep (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Cabayi (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of deprecated parameters

I looked at the parameters that were deprecated in January 2016 or earlier [2]. Changes are made in the sandbox, and tested in testcases. So far:

Tech changes
  • I've added TemplateData to the documentation. This will create a MonthlyErrorReport for parameters actually used, both known and unknown. Per February 1: [3].
  • Parameter list in TemplateData was generated automatically, making certain we have all parametrers used in code. Initially: 186 parameters.
  • To check for known parameters, I've used Module:Check for unknown parameters (instead of Module:TemplatePar), because it is more familiar among infobox editors. Its maintenance category is unchanged: Category:Articles with unknown parameter in infobox locomotive (0).
  • As a whitelist for the parametercheck I have used the parameter list per TemplateData (initially 186).
Removed from documentation
  • Parameters |leadingsize=, |trailingsize=, |driversize= were documented as "deprecated", but do not appear in code at all. So they are "unknown" (not existant) parameters already. Removed from documentation altogether.
Removed from infobox code
  • These 6 parameters are deprecated for over 3 years per documentation:
| framesize = replaced by  frametype = the type of [[locomotive frame]] (e.g. "Plate frame")
| weight = replaced by ''locoweight'', ''tenderweight'', and ''locotenderweight''
| topspeed = replaced by ''maxspeed''
| railroad = replaced by ''operator'' 
| railroadclass = replaced by ''operatorclass''
| roadnumber = replaced by ''fleetnumbers''

I have removed them from template code and from the whitelist (whitelist now reduced to 179 parameters).

When the sandbox goes live, any usage of these will result in categorisation "unknown parameter". I have no estimation for numbers of articles affected (total number: 4000 infoboxes).
  • |image_size= could be used but was undocumented. The documented parameter is |imagesize=. I have removed the undocumented one from template code (no need to support spelling variants).
  • See testcases for changes. Once can easily test testcases Preview for error messages.
Going live
  • When this version (now in sandbox) goes live, this should be expected:
  1. Category:Articles with unknown parameter in infobox locomotive (0) (now empty) will be populated with articles using the deprecated/now-unknown parameters. Parameter name replacement should be made (by manual edit) as listed. I plan to run this change soon after implementation. (I see no need for 2-stage handling).
Checked all articles (3950) with AWB. 7 edits needed, no more deprecated parameters are in use.
  1. When stable (category is empty), "Deprecated parameters" should be removed from documentation. No need to document old, abandoned parameters.

Comments? -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC) MB (talk · contribs) -DePiep (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I was just pointing out the red-linked category in the documentation. This sounds like a very thorough job. I find that many templates have out-of-date documentation and other problems like unlisted params. Great job. I will be glad to help cleanup any errors that result. I wonder if you should keep image_size, it may be commonly used since it is the variation in many other common infobox templates (although there is also image_width sometimes - I wish things were more standard). We will find out. MB 15:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I've checked all 3950 articles using WP:AWB beforehand. Needed 7 edits, now no more errors expected (or incidental onces) in the category.
Keeping |image_size= is not that helpful (more documentation load). Also, the underscore _ is not used in these parameters, it's a space. universdal names should be achieved otherwise. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed you created an error by removing the underscore in image_size in an embedded NRHP infobox in Eureka Locomotive. I fixed that. There probably will be very few of those. MB 02:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, was wrong edit indeed. All clear now. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done, adjusted documentation. MB, no cleanup to do then. But if you are interested (in case this is new for you): after February 1, 2019, there is the Monthly Error Report that nicely lists all parameters actually used in articles, plus their input values (example now live: Infobox station). The link is in the header of #TemplateData. So you can pick a parameter you like, say |locotenderweight=, and check/improve all articles using this. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Electric locos

Any electric locomotive
say SBB-CFF-FFS RBe 540
Specifications
Power supplyNot to be confused with the Railway electrification system field. Some have done just that. like 3000 V DC overhead line
Electric system/sOvehead systems catenary
third rail
Current pickup(s)Pantograph,
contact shoe
Nonsense: Pantograph from catenary
Nonsense: contact shoe from third rail

@Andre Kritzinger: Hello Andre
The catenary is part of the electrical supply system and not part of the collection method collection method. Likewise the third rail is part of the electrical supply system and not part of the collection method. This nonsense only appears on South African electric locomotives and nowhere else, eg SBB-CFF-FFS RBe 540. Peter Horn User talk 22:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

SBB-CFF-FFS Re 620 is a better, more complete, example. Peter Horn User talk 23:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
There is also SBB-CFF-FFS Re 420 Peter Horn User talk 23:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Andre Kritzinger (who hasn't been active for over a year) made a lot of undiscussed changes to this infobox. Some were beneficial. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64:
A lot of contributors are confused and put data in the wrong fields. "Power supply" is just one of them. Peter Horn User talk 16:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
See also Template talk:Infobox train#Info into wrong field Peter Horn User talk 20:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Template Protected edit request on 10 July 2020

Please change |label182 = MU working to |label182 = MU working as the current link leads to a UK centric article while the one that I intend to put is about the general practice of coupling more than one locomotives together to be controlled by a single crew. The UK practice is, in fact, just a subset of what the general international practice is. Thanks, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. |multipleworking= specifically refers to the UK multiple working systems in this template's documentation at the moment. Actual usage shows that most articles using the parameter specify a UK multiple working type. Other articles using this parameter appear to have ignored the note at the very top of this template's documentation. This confusion and mixing of terms won't be sorted by changing where this label links to. I suggest getting a consensus on how the parameter should be used before changing the label. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Jonesey95, understood. Thanks, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Cylinder size -> cylinder diameter + piston stroke

Looking at the merging of Template:Infobox German railway vehicle, it seems that template uses two separate params for cylinder diameter and piston stroke. I know nothing about trains, but judging by the testcase of "John Bull" at Template:Infobox locomotive it has cylindersize as "9 in (23 cm) diameter × 20 in (51 cm) stroke" (includes both in the same param), so I'm presuming the piston stroke is part of cylinder size. Is this assumption correct?

If this assumption is correct, then I've split up cylindersize into two params (cylinderdiameter and pistonstroke). Display wise, the infobox looks exactly the same, but this seems better for organisation + helps with the merge. Existing templates won't necessarily require change (it will fallback to cylindersize). Notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains for input. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 15:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Alternative names/Previous names

Would |altname= or |previousname= be sensible parameters to add to this template? Not sure which, but it is currently slightly confusing on pages like Rheidol (locomotive), which list previous names in the same parameter. Any thoughts? WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 15:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

New Field

Should a field name namesake be added as for use with individual locomotives that are named are specific people, places or events? Crearwond (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please correct "Water cap" - should be "Water cap."

Like all other capacities, also water capacity should be abbreviated "cap." with a trailing period. The word "cap" without period has a very different meaning (maximum, top), which is wrong and confusing here. --User:Haraldmmueller 20:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Could someone with the right rights add this small dot - just so that it is done? --User:Haraldmmueller 07:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Variants Parameter Suggestion

Do other editors think it would be a good idea to add a "Variants" parameter to the template? For example, the page for the SD40-2 could have the EMD SD40T-2 listed as a variant. This is already used in the infobox for armored fighting vehicles, see M4 Sherman. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

No. of traction motors

I noticed that the field for the number of traction motors mirrors the tractionmotors field, even though they don't exactly mean the same thing. I thought it was an issue with Siemens ACS-64, but I learned that it's an issue with the template the article uses. I think the field used for number of traction motors should be altered so it doesn't conflict with the traction motors parameter, as it might be confusing to readers. XtraJovial (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. Not sure how I missed something that obvious when I merged in the other template, but... at least it didn't actually break anything! Primefac (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_locomotive/Archive_2&oldid=1197448931"