Template talk:Infobox German railway vehicle

Wrong translations

EMD GP30
Specifications Prime mover EMD 567D3 Engine type Two-stroke diesel Displacement 9,072 cu in (148.66 L) Cylinders V16 Cylinder size 8.5 in × 10 in (215.9 mm × 254.0 mm) Transmission Electrical

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle#Diesel traction Wrong translations:

Motor make/model Motorentyp Wrong translation!

Make and model of motor

Motor type Motorbauart Wrong translation!

Number of cylinders etc

Correct translations:

Motor make/modelMotorbauart Correct translation

Motor type Motorentyp Correct translation

Peter Horn User talk 01:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The keys here are "type" and "-typ". Peter Horn User talk 14:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I took the meanings from the explanation at de.wiki as follows:

Motortyp = Typenbezeichnung des Motors

Motorbauart = Anzahl und Bauart der Motoren (z.B. 2 x 12-Zylinder-V-Motor mit Abgasturbolader und Ladeluftkühlung, 4 Takt, wassergekühlt)

Typ is the model, not type, and Bauart is the design. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. So which one would best translate into "prime mover (locomotive)"? That would be "Motortyp? See sample Template:Infobox locomotive.

Peter Horn User talk 16:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 19:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at how {{Infobox locomotive}} uses the term, Motortyp is the equivalent of "Prime mover" i.e. the make and model of engine and Motorbauart is the equivalent of "Engine type". Hope that helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues

So this template has a number of issues...

• First, I don't understand why Germain railway vehicles get their own template... No other nation has their own template.
• Why are all the parameters still in German? I found THIS archived thread about it. Seems like it was originally done 7 years ago to make it easier to import things from the German wiki? Doesn't make sense to still have it that way, even if the documentation does explain the params. For non-german speakers there params might as well be random strings of letters.

I propose a couple of things...

• The params should all be migrated to english. Happy to write a bot to do this.
• Once in English, merge the existing params with Template:Infobox locomotive so that the two templates can become one.

Would love to hear some input on this. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Primefac, Redrose64, John of Reading, and Frietjes: I know each of you are really active in Templates. This was next on my list to convert to use {{Infobox}} which is was brought it to my attention. Would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully I can save you a bunch of time... see how similar this template is to {{infobox locomotive}}. If they're almost/nearly/85% identical, then run a TFD, get approval to "merge" them, and turn this into a wrapper of IB locomotive. Saves turning a massive table into an infobox, saves having to convert parameters, and saves time. Primefac (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 8#Template:Infobox German railway vehicle Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That reads like the discussion for {{infobox former country}}. It might be prudent, then, to make a wrapper/sandbox version to demonstrate that such a merger is feasible. It would offset a lot of the "but it might not work" complaints that seem to perennially invade infobox TFDs. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: that discussion makes my head want to explode... Thanks for linking to it! Had no idea there had been such an indepth discussion before. I like Primefac's approach. I think I'm going to work on converting this over to use {{Infobox}} and in the process see if I can't just make it a wrapper for {{infobox locomotive}}. If I can easily do that then the TFD should be simple. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is literally the worst template ever... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you informed WT:RAIL or the Rail transport in Germany task force? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: just did that. Thank you. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Update ok so after spending a bit of time trying to merge the template with {{infobox locomotive}} I am convinced it is really not a good idea, at least not right now. Primefac for the record, I initiated the discussion on merging {{infobox former country}} so I 100% get where you are coming from and I liked that analogy. However, as I got into it I realized that it is just super complicated. I'm not saying the templates should never or could never be merged, but I strongly believe that it is not a good first step. Here is my plan of attack.

1.  Done Convert this template to use {{Infobox}} without changing anything else. All params stay the same... This is something that no one can argue with. The template needs to be converted to use Infobox as a base.
2. Once the conversion is done, translate the infobox to use ENGLISH parameters. The ONLY thing that will change with this step is that the params will be in English, so instead of {{{ Abbildung}}} for example, you will use {{{Image}}}.
   • This will be broken up into sub steps where both german and English params are supported, a bot is run to translate all params to English, then the German params are removed.
3. Once the template is using {{Infobox}} and is in English, let's return to the discussion of whether or not to try and merge it with {{infobox locomotive}}.

Any objections to this plan of attack? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Primefac (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I support. Especially splitting the action in into three independent steps. (maybe the merge doesn't even need a TfD, just consensus?) -DePiep (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Useful links

• {{Infobox German railway vehicle}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test) -- enwiki, lang:German parameters

{{Infobox Schienenfahrzeug}} -- R to this infobox. Is used to indicate that parameters are in German.

• {{Infobox locomotive}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test) -- enwiki
• {{Infobox train}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test) -- enwiki
• List of transclusions: Template:Infobox German railway vehicle/list of transclusions (306×Article, 306×Talk) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Recent Changes in these articles +talkpages (not just in the infobox).
• Interwiki: de:Vorlage:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug (German source template); de:Spezial:Linkliste/Vorlage:Infobox_Schienenfahrzeug (German, transclusions: 4350 P)

DePiep (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In wikidata

Template:Infobox locomotive (Q7633508)

Template:Infobox train (Q7624911)

Arbitrary break

Ok. So I have translated all the params... When I say translated, I didn't actually put them into a translater. The new params reflect a combination of literal translations for some params, while others are just what the corresponding label reads.

list of parameter name translations

{{{Nummerierung}}} → {{{number}}} {{{Anzahl}}} → {{{quantity}}} {{{Hersteller}}} → {{{quantity}}} {{{Baujahre}}} → {{{years}}} {{{Indienststellung}}} → {{{entered_service}}} {{{Ausmusterung}}} → {{{retired}}} {{{Wheel arrangement}}} → {{{wheel_arrangement}}} {{{AAR_wheel_arrangement}}} → {{{AAR_wheel_arrangement}}} {{{Achsformel}}} → {{{axle_arrangement}}} - Note these three are different names for the same thing per the documentation {{{Bauart}}} → {{{axle_arrangement}}} - Note these three are different names for the same thing per the documentation {{{Achsfolge}}} → {{{axle_arrangement}}} - Note these three are different names for the same thing per the documentation {{{Gattung}}} → {{{locomotive_type}}} {{{Spurweite}}} → {{{track_gauge}}} {{{LängeÜberKupplung}}} → {{{length_over_couplers}}} {{{LängeÜberPuffer}}} → {{{length_over_buffers}}} {{{Länge}}} → {{{length}}} {{{Höhe}}} → {{{height}}} {{{Breite}}} → {{{width}}} {{{Drehzapfenabstand}}} → {{{pivot_pitch}}} {{{AchsabstandDerFahrgestelle}}} → {{{bogie_wheelbase}}} {{{Fester Radstand}}} → {{{fixed_wheelbase}}} {{{Gesamtradstand}}} → {{{overall_wheelbase}}} {{{RadstandMitTender}}} → {{{wheelbase_with_tender}}} {{{Halbmesser}}} → {{{minimum_curve}}} {{{Leermasse}}} → {{{empty_weight}}} {{{Gesamtmasse}}} → {{{total_weight}}} {{{Nutzmasse}}} → {{{working_weight}}} {{{Dienstmasse}}} → {{{service_weight}}} {{{DienstmasseMitTender}}} → {{{service_weight_with_tender}}} {{{Reibungsmasse}}} → {{{adhesive_weight}}} {{{Radsatzfahrmasse}}} → {{{axle_load}}} {{{Höchstgeschwindigkeit}}} → {{{top_speed}}} {{{IndizierteLeistung}}} → {{{indicated_power}}} {{{InstallierteLeistung}}} → {{{installed_power}}} {{{Traktionsleistung}}} → {{{tractive_effort}}} {{{Stundenleistung}}} → {{{power_output_1_hour}}} {{{Dauerleistung}}} → {{{power_output_cont}}} {{{Anfahrzugkraft}}} → {{{tractive_effort_starting}}} {{{Beschleunigung}}} → {{{acceleration}}} {{{Bremsverzögerung}}} → {{{braking_deceleration}}} {{{Leistungskennziffer}}} → {{{power_index}}} {{{Reichweite}}} → {{{range}}} {{{Kapazität}}} → {{{capacity}}} {{{Kuppelraddurchmesser}}} → {{{coupled_wheel_diameter}}} {{{Treibraddurchmesser}}} → {{{driving_wheel_diameter}}} {{{VorneLaufraddurchmesser}}} → {{{leading_wheel_diameter}}} {{{HintenLaufraddurchmesser}}} → {{{trailing_wheel_diameter}}} {{{AussenLaufraddurchmesser}}} → {{{outer_carrying_wheel_diameter}}} {{{InnenLaufraddurchmesser}}} → {{{inner_carrying_wheel_diameter}}} {{{Laufraddurchmesser}}} → {{{carrying_wheel_diameter}}} {{{Raddurchmesser}}} → {{{wheel_diameter}}} {{{Zahnradsystem}}} → {{{rack_system}}} {{{Antriebszahnräder}}} → {{{driving_cogwheels}}} {{{Bremszahnräder}}} → {{{braking_cogwheels}}} {{{GrößeZahnrad}}} → {{{cogwheel_size}}} {{{Steuerungsart}}} → {{{valve_gear}}} {{{Zylinderanzahl}}} → {{{number_of_cylinders}}} {{{Zylinderdurchmesser}}} → {{{cylinder_bore}}} {{{NDZylinderdurchmesser}}} → {{{lp_cylinder_bore}}} {{{HDZylinderdurchmesser}}} → {{{hp_cylinder_bore}}} {{{Kolbenhub}}} → {{{piston_stroke}}} {{{ZR-Zylinderdurchmesser}}} → {{{cogwheel_cylinder_bore}}} {{{ZR-Kolbenhub}}} → {{{cogwheel_piston_stroke}}} {{{Zylinderdruck}}} → {{{cylinder_pressure}}} {{{Kessel}}} → {{{boiler}}} {{{Kessellänge}}} → {{{boiler_length}}} {{{Kesseldruck}}} → {{{boiler_max_pressure}}} {{{AnzahlHeizrohre}}} → {{{heating_tubes}}} {{{AnzahlRauchrohre}}} → {{{smoke_tubes}}} {{{Heizrohrlänge}}} → {{{heating_tube_length}}} {{{Rostfläche}}} → {{{grate_area}}} {{{Strahlungsheizfläche}}} → {{{radiative_heating_area}}} {{{Rohrheizfläche}}} → {{{tube_heating_area}}} {{{Überhitzerfläche}}} → {{{superheater_area}}} {{{Verdampfungsheizfläche}}} → {{{evaporative_heating_area}}} {{{Tenderbauart}}} → {{{tender}}} {{{DienstmasseTender}}} → {{{tender_weight}}} {{{Wasser}}} → {{{water_capacity}}} {{{Brennstoff}}} → {{{fuel}}} {{{Motorentyp}}} → {{{motor_type}}} {{{Motorbauart}}} → {{{engine_type}}} {{{Nenndrehzahl}}} → {{{nominal_rpm}}} {{{Leistungsübertragung}}} → {{{power_transmission}}} {{{Getriebetyp}}} → {{{transmission_type}}} {{{Tankinhalt}}} → {{{tank_capacity}}} {{{Fahrbatterie}}} → {{{traction_batteries}}} {{{Stromsystem}}} → {{{electric_system}}} {{{Stromübertragung}}} → {{{collection_method}}} {{{AnzahlFahrmotoren}}} → {{{traction_motors}}} {{{Antrieb}}} → {{{transmission}}} {{{Übersetzungsstufen}}} → {{{running_steps}}} {{{Fahrstufenschalter}}} → {{{running_step_switch}}} {{{Bremsen}}} → {{{brakes}}} {{{Zusatzbremse}}} → {{{auxiliary_brake}}} {{{Feststellbremse}}} → {{{parking_brake}}} {{{Lokbremse}}} → {{{locomotive_brakes}}} {{{Zugbremse}}} → {{{train_brakes}}} {{{Beharrungsbremse}}} → {{{continuous_brake}}} {{{Zugsicherung}}} → {{{train_protection}}} {{{Gleitschutz}}} → {{{anti_slip_protection}}} {{{Zugheizung}}} → {{{train_heating}}} {{{Geschwindigkeitsmesser}}} → {{{tachometer}}} {{{Steuerung}}} → {{{train_control}}} {{{Betriebsart}}} → {{{duties}}} {{{Kupplungstyp}}} → {{{couplers}}} {{{Gefälle}}} → {{{max_incline}}} {{{Sitzplätze}}} → {{{seats}}} {{{Stehplätze}}} → {{{standing_places}}} {{{Türen}}} → {{{doors}}} {{{Fußbodenhöhe}}} → {{{floor_height}}} {{{Niederfluranteil}}} → {{{low_platform_section}}} {{{Klassen}}} → {{{coach_class}}} {{{Besonderheiten}}} → {{{features}}} {{{Anmerkung}}} → {{{notes}}} {{{Baureihe}}} → {{{series_name}}} {{{Farbe1}}} → {{{color1}}} {{{Farbe2}}} → {{{color2}}} {{{Abbildung}}} → {{{image}}} {{{Name}}} → {{{caption}}} - Note this param is only used as the image caption....

@Pigsonthewing, DePiep, Primefac, and Redrose64: how do these look to you all? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, AFAICT. There may be a need to keep the German names (perhaps in a copy of this template) so that templates from de.Wikipedia can be copied here and Subst'd. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I guess I just don't see any reason to do that. That opens just an insane flood gate of precedent. For example, I could then make a version of {{Infobox settlement}} with French parameters because I want to be able to copy villages from the French wiki. Or a version of {{Infobox person}} in Spanish because I want to copy information from the Spanish wiki... If you are going to copy information from another wiki, I say it is on you to translate it. Otherwise you could make an argument to translate any template in existence to a foreign language. To your point, which is not without merit, I think 9 years ago when this template was created, both wikis were MUCH smaller and policies were drastically different. There was clearly a huge push to pull pages from the German wiki to the English one. This made that process easier... Moving forward though, if you are creating a new page on the English wiki, i say use an English template. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The precedence is that this has happened in the past; specifically with German-language templates. I don't advocate it, but its better to be aware now, than surprised by a shitstorm later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no-one's contacted me as the creator of this "worst template ever" (thank you Zackmann08 for the compliment). The reason for it was that I was translating hundreds of articles on German locomotives and rolling stock and was spending half my time converting the same old parameters to English every time. Not good use of time or translation skills. Also Template:Infobox locomotive wasn't able to handle some of the parameters or non-locomotives. Finally it doesn't emulate the colour scheme of the German infobox that displays a different coloured header for different nations/railway companies; I think that's really neat!

There have been several other successful "wrapper" projects that preserve the German syntax and even automatically translate some data, so that translators can focus on the main text and not waste hours translating parameters. The best ones have a bot that comes along and converts the resulting hybrid to the English infobox, handling the German coordinate formatting with ease and, most importantly, without losing information. From memory, Template:Infobox Berg does this pretty well. And I think User:Frietjes may be able to assist here too.

So bottom line is, I don't mind what we do with this so long as a) it recognises and displays the German infobox when it is imported, b) translates data where that's feasible and c) doesn't lose the information and useful features of the German infobox. If a bot comes along and substitutes it without further degradation, even better. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: first please accept my apologies... I truly didn't mean any offense! You obviously put a lot of effort into making the template work and by 2008 standards (when it was made) it is a superb template! A better way for me to convey what I meant would be to say "by 2017 standards, as an English speaker who knows maybe 10 words of German and next to nothing about trains, this is an extremely confusing template." I really am sorry for that comment. Not a constructive one on my part... You make a number of great points. As of right now, I do NOT think that merging this with {{Infobox locomotive}} is a good idea. I'm not shutting the door on that option, but I don't think it is worth really discussing right now. As the template creator (and presumably someone who is fluent in German and knowledgeable about trains) how do the new parameters look? To be clear, NO information will be lost from the template with the next step I am proposing. All that will change is that English parameters will be used instead of German ones. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: It was proposed in 2015 to switch some of the articles that use this template, to use {{Infobox train}}, which would make some of the parameters in this template redundant, so that it could be simplified, and then merged with {{Infobox locomotive}}. How does that sound, to you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Is this template still used for importing from de.Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Zackmann08. No worries. The template was never intended to be created from scratch; it was only ever an "import and automatically translate" tool; one of many we translators use. I took great care to try and get the translation right, although I'm always open to suggestions for improvement e.g. see my discussion above with Peter Horn.

The new parameters look to be a faithful translation, but "axel" should be "axle" and, for European articles, I usually use "colour" not "color". However, in the light of the discussion above and subsequent template amendments, I think Motorentyp should be "prime mover" and Motorenbauart should be "engine type".

My only concern is whether changing the parameter names will mean the imported infobox fails to display, which is its main purpose.

@Andy Mabbett. Yes. Moreover, it's still supporting a lot of articles - nearly 500 I think.

AFAICS this template is a lot more comprehensive than Template:Infobox Locomotive so, in my view, the best long term solution would be to upgrade Infobox Locomotive so it can do all that this one can. Then turn this into a wrapper for Infobox Locomotive (or whatever we call it). But I realise there may be sensitivities around that idea. Bermicourt (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Thanks for giving me the better translations. I will update that. The one thing I will say is that I don't know how you are importing things from the German wiki... But with this change you will NOT be able to just copy and paste from the German wiki anymore. Nor, in my opinion, should you be able to... I mean do you really expect to be able to copy and paste material from de:Angela Merkel to en:Angela Merkel? No... Content has to be translated. All the same information will be able to be displayed, but on the English wiki, you have to use English parameters. If you want to write a script to translate the German template to english, you are welcome to. Hell, I can just give you the one I'm going to write to convert all the existing pages, but the ability to copy and paste material from another wiki is not justification for having a template in a foreign language. And to be clear, this is nothing against Germany, the German language, trains, etc... This is just the common sense idea that if you are on an English Wiki, you use English. Now if you want to support both {{{color1}}} and {{{colour1}}} THAT makes sense! Depending on where you are in the world, people spell color/colour differently. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I think there may be merit for merging down the road, but I really want to focus on just getting this template looking better and in English first. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Zackmann08 on that the parameters should be available in English — only. Copy/pasting from dewiki is not acceptable as 'translation' (because: how does the English -language editor, in general, know what data they are inputting?).

A sort of practical solution: in the future, we expect a bot (or AWB) that translates de-parameter into en-parameter (100% coverage). It can edit all infobox transclusions (today: 306 articles). All fine. To catch possible future copy-paste infoboxes (when the dewiki Vorlage page is copy/pasted into a new enwiki template page, as was the old option), we can do this: 1. Crosscheck and list all dewiki templates that are not in enwiki at all (de:4350 T − 306 T − ? {{Infobox locomotive}} etc.). 2. For these omissions, create a draft template in enwiki by c/p (i.e., with German parameter names). 3. Run the bot/AWB param-translator across these. (If this fails or is not practical after all, nothing is lost. If you get data from German, translate it yourself. If you can't -- then don't import the data :-) ). -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As I explained above, there is plenty of precedent for importing infoboxes in that manner; it rarely if ever causes issues. This is not the place to create a policy against doing so. A bot to do as you suggest, even if there were a volunteer willing to code it, would be overkill. Massively so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Future template documentation could have the translation list. "Drehzapfenabstand → {{{pivot_pitch}}}"-DePiep (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• Suggestion: Since the English parameter names are free to choose (today), try using the same name as in {{Infobox locomotive}}:

{{{Halbmesser}}} → {{{minimum_curve}}} {{{minimumcurve}}}

-DePiep (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: these are all great points!!! I will go through and compare to {{Infobox locomotive}} now. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• {{{Hersteller}}} → constructor (builder?)

{{{Baujahre}}} → construction years

Suggested better translations. -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC) (late sign)

This is not really a dialogue; you are pushing ahead and destroying with a positive idea but, in the process, throwing away the original purpose of the infobox. If you've ever tried importing and translating one of these hundreds of articles, you'd understand the sheer frustration of repeatedly translating every single parameter every time. This infobox solved that problem. By changing the parameters to English you are almost back to square one and will have to manually add all the data and translate them. The current infobox does all this work.

If we hate want to avoid seeing foreign language parameters, the solution is not to change this infobox so it cannot do its original job. It is to upgrade "Infobox Locomotive" so it's man enough to handle the data and features and then create a bot to come along afterwards and replace the infobox. That's what happens elsewhere and we're all happy. For example, if I import "Infobox Berg" from German Wikipedia, it initially displays in English despite the German parameters. Then within a day, a bot replaces it with "Infobox mountain". I haven't wasted an etime and the original infobox has already translated some of the standard data for us all. Job done. Please slow down, try and understand how this infobox works and what it achieves and then move forward properly as has been done elsewhere. Bermicourt (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Do go and have a look at the colour coding of the original infobox which is an elegant feature that "Infobox Locomotive" could easily emulate. So for example the header bar of Bavarian state railway locos displays in blue (see Bavarian BB II), Saxon locos in green (Saxon XVIII H), Prussian in black (Prussian P 8), Mecklenburg in mustard yellow (Mecklenburg T 3) etc. The DRG locos seem to have lost their Reichsbahn red though - not sure how that's happened. The full colour scheme on German Wiki is here and covers other nations too. ☺ Bermicourt (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I object to your language "you are pushing ahead and destroying": Zackmann08 is writing kindly and beforehand asking & suggesting. Also, your "If we hate seeing foreign language ..." is overloading the discussion, because so far I have only see arguments (from multiple sides), and not, eh, hatespeech. Please, approach again.

That said, this is the first time you mention the post-edit bot that automates the parameter 'translation' (replacement de→en). That is a good idea, and I'll take a look on how example {{Infobox Berg}} work.

If we'd take that approach, the 100% complete replacement-table is required still, so we should continue.

Also, that list must be cused to check all parameters that require adjustment somewhere (when one cannot copy/paste the data blindly). -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm finding the comments in this section difficult to follow, because of the esoteric markup used for the indenting. A guide to the correct use of indentation on talk pages may be found at WP:THREAD. Please adhere to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm trying to avoid walls of text. ☺

Actually I've had an idea which might resolve the different approaches. Currently the German title for the infobox Template:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug is just a redirect to this one. We could carbon copy this template to "Infobox Schienenfahrzeug" so it continues to carry out the present function and convert this one using Zackmann08's suggested English parameters. We then create the sort of bot used elsewhere to convert e.g. "Infobox Berg" to "Infobox mountain". That enables both approaches to be achieved. First, we translators can import the German infobox and have it displaying both parameters and data in English immediately using "Infobox Schienenfahrzeug". Second, within say a few days, along comes the bot and replaces the infobox automatically with the (now Anglicised) "Infobox German railway vehicle" retaining the data. For an example of how this works, look at Ahlsburg. I uploaded the German "Infobox Gebirgsgruppe" on 8 Jan, the infobox automatically translated some of the more common data, and a day later the bot came along and substituted "Infobox mountain range", but retaining all the data. Bermicourt (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your indenting was fine, under the circumstances. We don't need to crate any bot, just mark the German-language version as requiring auto-substitiution (see {{Infobox Berg/doc}} for an example of how this is done). An existing bot will then deal with it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool, even better. Thanks Andy. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Bermicourt, that is the easy part. What we do need, and we need it first step from now on, is a complete & correct, working parameter translation set. Possibly this requires changes in this template, in {{Infobox locomotive}} or in {{Infobox train}} (first example: add |Farbe1=). -DePiep (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I was trying to improve the template. But if Bermicourt is going to come along and imply that I hate foreign languages and that I'm "pushing ahead and destroying" their work, that's fine. There is a long list of other projects I can work on. I'll leave this to someone else to do. This is such a no brainer. This is an ENGLISH wiki, not a German one. If it is going to cause this much argument then someone else can work on the template. This is causing me too much of a headache. I'm out and onto other projects. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair I'd already deleted those comments earlier in response to User:DePiep's objection. Bermicourt (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that they were made in the first place and the lack of constructive discussion is overriding the point. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're tracking the detail of the discussion. There has been a useful resolution of one issue in the section below thanks to DePiep's understanding and expertise, I've proposed a possible solution that satisfies both approaches and incorporates your work, and Andy Mabbett has responded helpfully to that. So hang in there, I think we're now making genuine progress. But even if you leave, you've triggered a useful debate that looks like it might result in a constructive outcome, so thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Bermicourt, you once used rude language, and you did edit revert that by strokes, greatly. I compliment that. Also: by now I support the de-copy/en-paste option! Now, please consider that Zackmann08 spends a lot of ideas & time into this complicated template(s) issue. I'd say: good suggestions, and due improvements. By now, my sense of temperature scale says: A. de-copy/en-paste option should stay (100%); and B. complete parameter translation into the enwiki templates should be available (100%). Please, you both, stay here. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Bermicourt Today there are ~306 articles here having this (de-parameter) template. Can you give an indication of how many were added (from de-wiki) last year, 2016? -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

At this point I've just basically exhausted myself with this template. This is where I stand, and note that these are obviously just my opinions...

1.  Done This template needs to be converted to use {{Infobox}} as a base. This was my initial goal and it is done.
2. It should be reorganized so that there are headings and subsections like most infoboxes.
3. This is an English wiki so the template and the params should ALL be in English. Supporting copy and paste from a foreign language wiki is ridiculous. If you want to copy information from another wiki, that's fine. But you use the English parameters and enter the information by hand just like literally every other template. You don't have English templates on the German wiki...

I am happy to convert the template to english and use my bot ZackBot to update existing transclusions. I won't be part of having this template support both German and English parameters though. If that is what everyone wants, that's fine. I will bow to consensus. I think it is a horrendous idea and will just make the template worse than it currently is so if that is the choice, I won't take part in implementing it. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Dammit. Sorry we lost you. Thanks for the improvements so far. -23:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm coming very late to this discussion, and it looks like there has been both progress and difficult argument. One out of two isn't bad, I suppose.

I was going to suggest using an approach like that used at Template:Infobox Burg and Template:Internetquelle. Those templates contain automatic translation to the English-language-equivalent templates, and they are substed automatically by a bot. This means that you can copy a template in full directly from the German Wikipedia, and a bot will come along and convert it into its English-language equivalent. It's quite functional, and it means that we have fewer foreign-language template transclusions persisting in en.WP. It also means that you do not have to write translated documentation, which can be time-consuming. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again: the translation is not the problem. By now, we all know that |HauptDüsenFlupgler= should be edited into |Flownipple= -- easy. The point is: what if that de:parameter-point |KropsenHugerMitTräusen= does not exist in en-wiki template {{Infobox locomitive}}? (to complicate: and not even in {{Infobox train}}). -DePiep (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. I don't see |KropsenHugerMitTräusen= in this template. Am I missing something? Are there actual parameters that do not have English equivalents in {{Infobox train}} or {{Infobox locomotive}}?

If so, then it seems that the thing to do is either to ignore them or to add them to the English-language template after a discussion at WP:RAIL or some other appropriate forum. That is typically how template merges work, and this doesn't seem that different. It is unclear to me why the discussion above became so contentious when we have plenty of similar foreign-language substitution templates that work well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I made them up, some funny German words. You got to the point: Are there actual parameters that do not have English equivalents in... — yes there are. You solution is bright, but ther eis opposition for old habits. Complication: could be {{Infobox locomotive}} or {{Infobox train}}. -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep. Totally agree with your A and B above. To answer your other question; I've added a few more loco articles this year and would reckon there are several hundred (not just German/German state) articles to go. Also if de.wiki updates an infobox, it's sometimes easier to import the whole thing again especially if there are long references.

@Jonesey95. Yes, I think this is very much what DePiep and I are saying. Bermicourt (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Enough. Taken hostage by a de:wiki template?

I've had enough of this. Again, this issue is argued into death by the extreme requirement that it MUST be possible to "copy the de-infoboxcode 1:1 into the en:wiki page". I say: NO, is must not.

While the idea is sympathic, it is too much constraining. Again, in the discussion above, it has blocked (!) discussion & development. Zackmann08 just has left the building [1].

I got the idea that Bermicourt had a good point (ease of iw-copy-pasting), but Bermicourt has never ever suggested any improvement of {{Infobox locomitive}} at all. Nor did any de-copy/en-paste promotor here ever. Sure, complaining about |Farbe= -- everybody can and does. But what about the more complicated |KropsenHugerMitTräusen=? Why did you not propose anything at Template talk:Infobox locomotive at all? Why not, Bermicourt, ever?

-DePiep (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Making up fake parameter names and asking why other editors did not do something is not constructive. I was trying to help, and you posted something confusing. Even so, I am still willing to help.

A constructive way to proceed would be to post a list of parameter names that do not have an equivalent in one of the English-language templates. Then we could discuss how to convert them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, not constructive -- but illustrative it is. Nothing against you btw, and not confusing IMHO. My point is: we can list all params to be considered, but the editors "I want to be able to copy/paste, don't change anything" keep shouting, thereby blocking any improvement. Example in case: apart from |Farbe1= |Farbe2=, not a single German parameter has been proposed for 'let's add this to {{Infobox locomotive}}'. Not a single one. No one researched the issues in parameter mapping. -DePiep (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I can see why people are finding it difficult to make progress here. You are simply not helpful. If anyone would like to have a constructive conversation about improving this template, feel free to ping me from here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep. I've proposed improvements to Template:Infobox locomotive several times here. But to be honest with you, I haven't raised it on Template talk:Infobox locomotive because I thought no one would be interested and that they would come and try and delete this template instead. And while I'd be prepared to propose improvements there if I felt I had the support of other editors, I think there'd be more chance of success, if we've sorted out a good English template here first. But I'm open to suggestions...

@Jonesey95. Thanks for your helpful intervention. I think we have a course of action that most of us now support and that appears to achieve everyone's goals. I am happy to clone this template to the current redirect, Template:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug. I've already agreed most of the English parameter names suggested by Zackmann08 with a couple of tweaks. I could have a go at then turning this template into its English equivalent, but others may be better at that. What I am totally unable to do is the "subst" coding on "Infobox Schienenfahrzeug" that would then be needed to point or convert it to the new English version of this one when it's ready. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95, DePiep, and Bermicourt: just a reminder that I have a solution and have already offered to do all the work... The ONLY thing I am not willing to do is support copying an pasting from the German wiki. If you want to take info from another wiki then freaking convert it to English and use an English template. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I support this Z08 point: target is that we use enwiki templates. ({{Infobox locomotive}}, {{Infobox train}}). -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Zackmann08: If you look at Template:Infobox Burg, you can see how copying and pasting from a foreign-language WP is supported. It works great. You just copy and paste, or subst directly, and the template displays fine in the article. If you do not subst the template, a bot will come along and convert the template into English for you. It makes editors' job much easier. What is your objection to having a template that works in this way? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not Z08, but my objection is: that bot can not know how & what to edit ("translate") unless we tell him/her. Once we know, telling the bot what to do is the easiest part. More relevant now: What are the English parameters in {{Infobox locomotive}} that the bot should translate into?. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The bot does not have to "know" anything. Have you looked at the code for Template:Infobox Burg? It is very straightforward. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: my objection is that this is an ENGLISH wiki! Not a German one! Why on earth are we supporting the ability to copy and paste material for a foreign language? I could make the same argument and say ok well I want a version of {{Infobox settlement}} is Spanish so that I can copy and paste stuff from the Spanish wiki. So do we now create a foreign language version of every template so I can copy and paste information from another language? Plus, isn't the information in the template going to need to be re-written so it is in English anyway? @DePiep: for at least the 5th time, all the bot will do is translate the PARAMETERS to the English version. If you look at the massive table above the German param {{{Nummerierung}}} will become the English {{{number}}}, the German param {{{Anzahl}}} will become the English param {{{quantity}}}. Etc. etc. And again, I am NOT talking about merging to {{Infobox locomotive}}. Right now the ONLY thing I am talking about is redoing this template so that on an English wiki we have a fully ENGLISH template. If you want to copy and paste data from the German wiki, you have to translate the date to use a English template. I do no understand why this is such a hard concept for people to get. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes I understand: you want to translate de-words into en-words (parameter names). But I do NOT want a second infobox (all English, 300 P) next to an existing one {{infobox locomotive}} (3500 P). I DO want these German parameters to be present/incorporated into {{infobox locomotive}}. (complication: could be {{infobox train}}; we can handle)-DePiep (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zackmann08. It's not a hard concept to get. It's just a terrible waste of other editors' time because we end up doing a whole pile of repetitive parameter and data translation every time we import an article when, with an infobox like this, we don't need to. And with the course of action we've proposed, your problem is solved because the infobox gets substituted by an English version. Why would you want to impose hours of nugatory work on the few editors that can translate articles for Wikipedia? Seems a tad unfair IMHO. Bermicourt (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Template:Literatur is another example of common German template that gets substituted. That must happen thousands of times - it's their standard citation template. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Bermicourt, I'm with Z08 ion this. All 'Infobox locomotive'-s should be congruent across their articles (reader's interest). So they be merged or something like that. (This is the ultimate target, which can take multiple steps). Of course, the language should be English here. First of all, because in editing enwiki, English is the editor's language. Your argument that we should cover de-copy/en-paste is nice if we can keep it, but it shall not rule over the template(s). Nice if a bot can handle that, but if not: translate & transform is the job of the editor when importing data from de-wiki. It is this editor (like you, for example) that should be challenged to use the documentation (parameter translation table), not every next article editor. Having said this, I will try to keep the automated-translation option as you like to work with, as it can be kept while not blocking this improvement imo. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

DePiep, I agree that, ultimately, we want a basic template or set of templates for rail vehicles. If there's more than one, they should be consistent (is that what you meant by congruent) in their parameter names. And I also agree that it's not ideal for subsequent non-German editors to have to contend with German parameters in an article infobox. We have a plan to deal with that and I think that's the obvious next step, following the pattern set e.g. by "Infobox:Berg". After that, I'm happy to work with others to work out how we can rationalise having "Infobox:Locomotive" and this one. For a start, it's obvious that, although this has been mainly used for German rolling stock, it's not limited to that and is already used for Austrian and Swiss locos as well. The "German" in "Infobox:German railway vehicle" only refers to German Wikipedia. But the template can be used for any rail vehicle of any country e.g. here's a Czech-built Philippine tram that uses the infobox: Tatra RT8D5. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

consistent (...) in their parameter names -- I actually meant: consistent for the Reader in showing & interaction. IOW, they should have exactly the same look & feel for the Reader (And so, in the end they should be the same single template). Also: English param names is good for all English editors after initial creation.

That bot thing might be nice, whatever. I claim that the one and only template to be available is {{Infobox locomotive}}. This German one should not be used (unless one day until the bot comes along). So: I will not depend on the Bot action, and not accept German parameters into the main template. I will work on {{Infobox locomotive}} to accept all parameters now in the German template, but with English names. (So: 1. Params like |Farbe1= will be added to {{Infobox locomotive}} as |Colour1=, 2. Editors like you do copy/paste from dewiki into {{Infobox Schienenfahrrzeug}}, 3. the bot changes infoboxname into {{Infobox locomotive}}, and all param names like "Farbe1" into "Colour1". Main task now: make sure the main en-template can accept all those parameters (eg Farbe1, i.e. Colour1). -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Unwatching - this is getting tedious. The same arguments over and over, with mutual misunderstanding. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have not even started to comprehend what the fuss is about. Template merging: good - Supporting an automatic infobox translation method: Also good. Agathoclea (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • re Redrose64 Agathoclea: I easily understand your choice to disengage. I'll describe why, IMO, it is this complicated and long-winded.

Long-winded: I learned that on internet (and so WP), subtleties and shortcuts by me do not work out well. Also, my home language is not English. So at my best, I write out my points using more words. I'm adding patience. If I ask something, I better be careful in preparation. That may cause repetition repetition.

Complicated: this topic has three angles (my take):

1. Bermicourt wants to be able to de-copy/en-paste an infobox, and enwiki should provide it showing.

2. Zackmann08 wants to have those de:parameters translated into English parameter names.

3. DePiep does not want a second, German-serving-only infobox next to the enwiki one: the enwiki template should be the one. (I, DePiep, support this DePiep approach, btw).

So this is a triangular issue, and not within enwiki. It involves iw, language translation and template merging (skip Wikidata). Maybe the #current works can give you solace into what it is about. Hope this clarified. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata

We could use Wikidata, especially Properties. Later more. -DePiep (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• For example. en:Prussian P 10, de:DR-Baureihe 39, in Wikidata Prussian P 10 (Q882458).

It has Property P2978 (Wheel arrangement) value 2-8-2.

Infoboxes all wikis (enwiki, dewiki) can pull that same data from Wikidata. No translation or copying needed.

However, this would require that the locomotives are added to Wikidata, with all their properties (infobox parameters). It takes a bot to copy and check the data from dewiki into Wikidata. This is a long road to go for Wikidata. -DePiep (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Category listings of Infobox Schienenfahrzeug

All transcluding articles (306 as of today) are categorised under 'Schienenfahrzeug':

• Category:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug (0) -- parent category, also for |boxtype=

Category:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug/locomotive (0) -- |boxtype=loc, locomotive

Category:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug/train (0) -- |boxtype=train

'Schienenfahrzeug' is use to indicate that these infoboxes have original German input (parameter name, parameter values). Not {{Infobox locomotive}} — yet. -DePiep (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Good first step, DePiep --Bermicourt (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! So far, no /train examples met, all are locomotive. Note that the use of {{Infobox Schienenfahrzeug}} is trivial (it Redirects to this {{Infobox German railway vehicle}} of course), but it is used to indicate that it is using German parameter names, nothing more. -DePiep (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We translators have tended to focus on locos rather than coaches, but I've just added the infobox to Silberling which is displaying nicely. ☺ de:Kategorie:Reisezugwagen shows the number of passenger coach articles that could be using this template once imported. A quick look shows there are dozens more at de: Kategorie:Güterwagen and de:Kategorie:Schlepptender. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know here when new German templates are introduced here, and their distinctive parameters. For now, the locomotive will be enough work to adapt. -DePiep (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Other non-loco articles that already use the template include: Donnerbüchse, Umbau-Wagen, LHB prototype carriages, DRG Glrhs (a covered wagon) and of course all the railbus articles like the Esslingen railbus. Oh and I've just discovered that we don't only have to consider "Infobox:Locomotive"; there's also "Infobox:Train", "Infobox:DMU", "Infobox:EMU", "Infobox:Train consist" and "Infobox:Steam tender" to think about. Whew! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. These are to be considered later, locomotives first. (You helpfully can edit them to say like: {{Infobox Shienenfahrzeug | boxtype=tram .. }}. That's good listing for later checks. OK?).

For now, please take a look at what happens at #Parameter translation (locomotives). That is where the actual work now happens. -DePiep (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• On second thought, Bermicourt, Zackmann08. We can not accept any new parameters or constructs in this template. Especially not to cover some other de: template than de:Schienenfahrzeug. If you want to copy/paste data, it is up to you (not others) to find the right enwiki template and parameter. You can always propose to add a parameter in any enwiki template. And if you thing a bot can solve it: go ahead and organiseake that happen it. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If I've followed you correctly I agree. Essentially the template we use (currently this one) to pick up de:Schienenfahrzeug should only use the parameters from de.wiki since any others will be superfluous. If we convert this to an entirely English infobox, then its function changes and we can add extra parameters at will. However, we then need Template:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug (currently a redirect) to pick up de:Schienenfahrzeug before it gets substituted by the bot. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Parameter translation (locomotives)

This section aims to work out the parameter translation, from de-infobox into en-infobox {{Infobox locomotive}}. Missing parameters (params that are not available in the en-infobox) are for discussion, consider adding?

The German info box has 119 parameters. Each "?" question mark should be checked, and changed into something meaningful {{aye}} 'OK', {{nay}}, cmt, etcetera. Please discuss below the table. -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

de:<–>en: Parameter definition and translation
{{Infobox German railway vehicle/Parameter translation (locomotives)}}

• Looks good. Does "loc" mean that parameter only applies to locomotives? If so, should we not create other abbreviations e.g. "coach", "wagon", "railbus", "all"? For example, some of the parameters don't apply to locomotives ("class", "seats", "standing places", etc.) Quite a few apply to any rail vehicle ("year(s) of manufacture", "manufacturer", etc.) --Bermicourt (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"loc" means param should be available in {{Infobox locomotive}}, not eg {{Infobox train}}. The {{Schienenfahrzeug}} German params must be covered, somehow, in the en:infobox loc. Non-loc articles, like "train" articles etc will follow later (check |doors= param). -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawing.

• I withdraw from this task. It is nigh undoable: 120 German parameters with their definition, into English parameters while keeping the definition (or not)? Too much. In the table you can see what I did, and try one for yourself to get an idea ;-). I hope some other solutions comes by. pinging Bermicourt, Zackmann08. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm no template expert, DePiep, but I thought we were going for a simpler solution. Step 1: copy this German language-based template to Template:Schienenfahrzeug; Step 2: turn this template into its English equivalent (and prolly rename more accurately as Template:Railway vehicle); Step 3: turn Template:Schienenfahrzeug into a substitution template so that it never exists for very long before being replaced. Finally, in slower time, consider absorbing Template:Locomotive into it. I think I can do Steps 1 and 2. Step 3 needs a substitution wizard. Step 4 is a railway community discussion. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a template-technique problem. The übersetzung is the problem: translate the word (easy) and translate its German engineered meaning/definition (big problem). The ~120 dewiki parameters listed are very well defined over there (read directly from the design sheets, I guess ;-) ). But that is very hard to transform into an English engineering tradition. (To get the feeling: just try three random German parameters from the list). And after that: can you get it into the main English infobox?

Some weeks ago a similar template issue was solved (at TfD; User:Frietjes made a subst: form greatly, I remember). If that can be made that easily for this one: great. But somehow I expect the Frietjes-task will run into this same 120 parameter list.

So I return the task unfinished :-( because it is too complicated and will yield little, this way. I hope other editors can make better progress in this. Have a nice edit, you all. -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Baureihe colors issue

Today, {{Infobox German railway vehicle}} has the above-colors set with a default:

| above = {{{Baureihe}}}
| abovestyle = background-color:#a00; color:#fff;

It appears to be from the dewiki, being the home colors for DR (Deutsche Reichsbahn). See de:DR-Baureihe 01

Yesterday, I have edited the template to have |Farbe1=, |Farbe2= not |Farbe1, |Farbe2 ("=" added). That is because we cannot have parameter names as input (without "="-sign, the infobox reads it being |1=Farbe1 ???). However, this means has input (blank input but still), so the two default values are not used.

How to proceed? I think the enwiki should not default to DR colors, not even a "Infobox German railway vehicle" (sidenote: 'German' is the language right, not the German-DR-ownership?). I propose to:

1. Add DR-colors to their infoboxes (set Farbe1=, Farbe2=)  Done for transclusions as of now. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Change the infobox to remove this defaulting: "when no Farbe1,2 input, show blank bar".
3. In future copy/pastes: a job for the editor, with other adjustments.

Note: step 1 does no harm. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh thanks, DePiep, grateful you have done this. I'm not an expert on infoboxes! --Bermicourt (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. So, since we don't want to import that internal-dewiki-default-setting, any future new de-copy/en-paste editing with this template (as designed) should manually add those DB/DR-colors as Farbe input, when blank in dewiki. (note: I have fixed my sentence above: without "="-sign, the infobox reads it being |1=Farbe1). -DePiep (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I like that; it makes sense. I hadn't realised it was a default setting and agree we don't want to automatically emulate that here. Neat solution. Thanks again. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done here on enwiki, the default livery colours are b/w now. -DePiep (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)