Talk:HO scale

message: :I'm curious to see the proof that H0 is "the term in use by MORE THAN HALF of model railroaders".  That seems to be just as unsupported as the proposal that HO is more prevalent, if not more so.  As for which term is more correct or official, there is no ultimate authority for us to appeal to - the NEM and the NMRA hold equal weight, and they don't agree: NEM uses both conventions (typically H0, but they are not absolute.(1)), while NMRA is generally consistent with HO.  And as far as "proper" is concerned, an argument can be made that the title of an article shouldn't necessarily be what something's "proper" name is: cat doesn't redirect to Felis catus; cat is the common name, and therefor the name of the page.  Historical relevance is also not a good basis for naming a page: historically, a light bulb was the glass envelope that surrounded that filament, armature, etc - what people often refer to now as a light bulb was known as a lamp, consisting of the bulb, base, filament, armature, etc.  Technically, that is still the case.  But I don't see anyone proposing that Wikipedia should move its "Light bulb" page to "Lamp".  Nor should they - the device is now commonly known as a light bulb and - here's the main point - people who want information on the subject will generally search for light bulb - not lamp; and will search for cat, not Felis catus.
:So, what will people typically search for?  Difficult to say.  No doubt someone will do a Google search and claim more hits for HO, but Google is based in the U.S., and the internet was created in the U.S., and those facts may skew the results improperly.  In any event, Google, Ask, Bing can only search among documents that are online.  Maybe we should just take a straw vote of all model railroaders and let the results dictate the article's title.
:1. Standard 103, "Track Clearance Diagram for Curved Track". (http://www.morop.eu/. 2004.) is such an example. The table on page two uses HO, though the rest of the document uses H0.  NOTE: the NEM, on the bottom of this document, notes that "[t]his English translation is not authoritative and is provided as a courtesy only.  Only the French and German versions of the norms are original source documents."  The French version may be found at , and the German version may be found at ; both use HO in their page-two tables.  Similar use of HO may be found in standard 112, "Track Spacing" (the French and German versions do the same), and in standard 121, "Cog Railroads", HO appears in the discussion at the bottom of page 2, though this appears only in the English version of this standard. All documents accessed 4 March 2010, and were at one time used as references in the article... --Badger151 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More on O/0 - new section for editing ease

message: I added an explanation of this term, which is otherwise guaranteed to leave many readers scratching their heads. Fortunately I was around when the gag was (almost) new, so I understood it.  But I think it would be far better to use a term like Basic Kits, or something else that would not require the explanation of a sixty-year old joke. I haven't been in on the development of this page, so I'm unwilling to make a change of this magnitude myself, but I strongly urge that one of the page's experienced editors do so.
70.112.248.254 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shake-the-Box" Kits 

message: Some consideration should me made to pruning the manufacturer listing to  Wikipedia "notable"  manufacturers. Currently there are manufacturers listed who have had Wikipedia articles about them deleted for being not notable according to Wikipedia community standards. Yet these manufacturers remain listed here as being "notable".  Case examples - Ausicion & Austrains. I'm also seeing a few "cottage" manufacturers having no notability according to Wikipedia guidelines listed and direct linking for advertising purposes to outside website in the article. Case examples  - Century Foundry & Showcase Miniatures. The way the current article listing stands, it invites any manufacturer or hobby retailer no matter how small to be listed. Just because someone has manufacturer a kit or a model doesn't make them "notable". For the good of this article (every article on Wikipedia should be aiming for "feature article status"), put aside favoritism for brand names and clean up this section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.73.178.241 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I removed the direct external links, as they're purely commercial advertising per WP:ELNO. Part of me wants to remove every redlink from the list, but they're not necessarily a bad thing and a more thorough examination than I have time for is needed. I would say feel free to remove any company that has had its article deleted, as clearly it fails notability. Except that sometimes a mention in a list  need not be notable enough for its own article. In fact, that may be preferable. oknazevad (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturer Listing  Issues 

message: The article makes Gilbert seem like they were a reluctant participant in the market, whereas they were actually an early innovator.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.238.37 (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilbert/American Flyer 

message: The scale is listed as 1:87, this is the quick and dirty value used by many but the real scale 1:87.1 per the NMRA Standards S-1.2 (https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-1.2%202009.07.pdf). 
If you do the math it is really 1:87.08571. 25.4mm per inch, scale is 3.5mm/foot. (24.5*12)/3.5 = 87.08571 rounded to 87.1. 71.84.18.162 (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Scale is HO