Talk:Scharfenberg coupler
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Commonscat template edit
@Andy Dingley: There is absolutely nothing wrong with using {{Commonscat-inline}} in this scenario. Please establish consensus before replacing it with a far less common version of the {{Commonscat}} template. FDMS 4 00:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that you don't understand the MOS is no excuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Erm … do you remember who said "That page is poorly worded and is unclear in one slightly obscure situation."? I am following MOS guidelines, but it seems like not all MOS pages are equally "right" to you. FDMS 4 19:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Repeating myself: The MOS does not say that {{Commonscat}} is the only template that can be used to link to a Commons category. {{Commonscat-inline}} is a widely used template. You replaced it with a far less used version of {{Commonscat}}, wrongly citing the MOS. You are free to use the left variant of {{Commonscat}} in articles, but don't do so when other people chose to use {{Commonscat-inline}} instead. FDMS 4 19:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{Commons category}} is used more than ten times as often as {{Commonscat-inline}}. Your "far less used" comment is nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
| inline | position=left | |
|---|---|---|
| Commonscat | 21,444 results | 196 results |
| Commons category | 24,118 results | 315 results |
| used 45,562 times | used 511 times |
- FDMS 4 21:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Over ten times as many uses. Which part are you having the problem understanding? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is no particular reason the inline template is not integrated into {{Commonscat}} the same way the left-aligned version is, like {{Commonscat|inline=1}}. The left-aligned version is obviously different from the normal right-aligned {{Commonscat}} or {{Commons category}}. FDMS 4 22:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Over ten times as many uses. Which part are you having the problem understanding? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
-
Used by proposed California high speed rail system edit
The draft spec for the trainsets of the California High Speed Rail system specify this coupler type.[1], p. 82. Too soon for the article, though. --John Nagle (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Not just Canada, US and Australia - NZ too edit
See photo top right on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport_in_Auckland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.92.22 (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Youtube video edit
Is there anything against linking to this youtube video showing the coupling/uncoupling action? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uE6WyVwcDg Closetsingle (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Schaku IS suitable for freight operations edit
European Digital Automatic Coupler Programme Board selected Scharfenberg for the new coupler standard on 21 September 2021. "European Digital Automatic Coupler: first step towards one type selection" (PDF). European DAC Delivery Programme. 2021-09-21. The program aims to convert all freight rail traffic in Europe to this automatic coupler by 2030. Pippo skaio (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)