Talk:Hornby Railways

message: How would you place Zero-1 in the digital category? As far as I can remember the decoders were fully analogue-based, as opposed to today's DCC decoders which contain a microcontroller. --Arpa 21:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is creating one a good plan?  The following articles could go in a Hornby Railways category if it was created:
* Arnold (models)
* Frank Hornby
* Jouef
* Hornby Railways
* Hornby International
* Lima
* Lyddle End
* Meccano_Ltd
* Tri-ang Railways
* Smokey Joe
* Skaledale
* Hornby Virgin Trains Pendolino  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XsandaSC (talk • contribs) 09:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - see :Category:Hornby Hobbies. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hornby Railways Category? 

message: I don't think Skaledale and Lyddle End satisfy the notability criteria for products so they should be merged. --Zabdiel 10:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, don't merge - Hornby Hobbies missed out on purchase of Graham Farish, and Lyddle End is an obvious pre-cursor copy of the Bachmann strategy of just downsizing OO scale models into the Nguage market. How long before we have Hornby in the Nguage market - not long I would suggest! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *:Well, it's almost 2024, and Hornby still isn't making British N-gauge trains. 223.19.13.140 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

text: *Yes - Unless the articles can be fleshed significantly, and I don't think they can, they do not justify their own articles. Thedarxide (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skaledale/Lyddle End Merge? 

message: :Image:Hornby logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a fair use rational Zabdiel (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hornby logo.jpg

message: Hornby Trains and Hornby Railways appear to cover the same company in separate articles. As this is the older article, I propose that Hornby Trains is redirected to this page, with any useful unduplicated material from that article merged into this one. Any thoughts? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As there seems to be no objections, I'll redirect Hornby Trains to this article. It seems to be a fork from this page in the first place. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: I agree with EdJogg above, I think that a separate "Hornby Hobbies" article is justified. 
The "Hornby" model railway brand started out owned by Meccano Ltd (which already has its own company page), so I think that giving HH its own page too would produce a more consistent and logical structure. HH owns so many other toy brands (including other model railway brands) that already have their own separate wiki pages, and has so much history that interfaces with all those brands, that there should be no problem filling a page with just the main HH company history and crosslinks to all the other relevant wiki pages - it'd be quite a strongly-linked page. But having a single page that attempts to be a "hub" both for a single ongoing product line (which spans different companies' histories) and the current "owner" company (whose story includes so many different brands) seems anomalous, and IMO doesn't really do justice to either. ErkDemon (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into separate "Hornby Railways" and "Hornby Hobbies" pages

message: I have tagged :File:V.R_B_Class_Diesel_1976a.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 00:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:V.R_B_Class_Diesel_1976a.jpg]] may be deleted 

message: "It is generally accepted amongst railway modellers that Hornby models generally outclass Bachmann models."
Who ever wrote this must be a hornby fan boy, please remove it or I will do it for you. I would say that Bachmann are far superior have you seen the Hornby 66?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.140.41 (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Wrote This??? 

message: It would be good if the article could mention the Scalextric model car division somewhere appropriate.  —Sladen (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that that's the sort of thing that would fit nicely into a separate Hornby Hobbies company page. ErkDemon (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Scalextric]] 

message: In this (interesting!) BBC programme, James May mentions a few additional snippets about the Hornby Triang evolution in the 50s and 60s. The Re-assembler. 58.153.66.47 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  James May says .. 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved.   Calidum 05:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hornby Railways →  – Hornby Railways has long been replaced as the brand name by simply Hornby. Hornby PLC is the publicly traded company that owns the various companies that are presently part of Hornby. Here is evidence supporting that "Hornby" rather than "Hornby Railways" is the commonly used name:
*"Hornby" subforum on major model railway forum
*"Hornby" section on major model retailer site 1
*"Hornby" section on major model retailer site 2
*"Hornby" section on major model retailer site 3
*"Hornby" section on major model retailer site 4
*Review of "Hornby" product from model railway news site
*Review of documentary about "Hornby" in the Daily Telegraph
*News article about documentary about "Hornby" on ITV website
*News article about "Hornby" in the Times
*News article about "Hornby" in the Guardian
*News article about "Hornby" on the Sky News website
*News article about "Hornby" on the BBC News website
*Official "Hornby" website
*Official "Hornby" Twitter
I am proposing to move the page to "Hornby PLC" rather than just "Hornby" because "Hornby" is already a disambiguation page. Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you support a move to Hornby Hobbies? And Hornby PLC does exist if you're accusing me of making it up. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

text:  How, exactly, is "Hornby Railways" the clear common name? What is your response to all the evidence I've assembled? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually the clear common name is simply Hornby, but as there's no primary topic and in the interests of WP:NATURAL this is the best choice. Hornby PLC (or actually Hornby plc, which would be more normal) would be meaningless to most people. And generally we try to avoid company suffixes (plc, Ltd, Inc, etc) as disambiguators. You also have to remember that the article is not just about the company per se, but about its products. The brand is much better known than the business. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

text: What I would support is a split into two articles, one for Rovex/Hornby Hobbies, and another (possibly part of another article) for the model trains produced under the "Hornby" brand by Meccano. The article is currently a history of the brand, when it makes more sense to focus it on the company known as Hornby today (and leave the origins of the brandname to a separate article). --Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 April 2022 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not Moved - No clear consensus for new title plus the disrespect for the previous RM recent move decision suggests this article be move protected for 6 months.  Work on the article not the title.  Mike Cline (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hornby Railways →  – Hornby Hobbies is the official name of the company. Hornby Railways was a brand name used by them previously but now long dropped in favour of just "Hornby". Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

text: OK, so this is now the third RM that you have started for this page, each time with a different proposed new name. Only one of them can be right: why is this one any more "official" than the others that you have proposed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I believed both previous suggested names had their merits, but after taking into account comments on the previous move requests, as well as studying the article name policy carefully, I believe that "Hornby Hobbies" is the name most likely to have a consensus around it as a satisfactory name for the article. For clarity on the "official" status of the name: Hornby Hobbies is a wholly owned subsidary of the publicly traded Hornby plc. Hornby Hobbies is the company that does all the actual work. The name "Hornby plc" is rarely used while "Hornby Hobbies" is widely used. For honesty's sake I must admit however that my primary motivation with these move requests is to stop the article being named Hornby Railways - I am less concerned over what the new title is. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:AADP#Personal taste and indeed WP:JDL#Title discussions, this is not a good reason at all. You are now verging on WP:POINT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How, precisely, am I violating those policies? It is not personal distate for the term "Hornby Railways" - I have laid out what I feel are very good reasons why the article should not be named "Hornby Railways". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You stated . --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not violate the policies you linked however. They simply state that personal taste should not be used as a motive. My motive is not personal taste; Hornby Railways is an outdated name that is no longer used, and as such the article should be moved to a different name.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

text: You have not provided an argument against why "Hornby Hobbies" is less recognisable than "Hornby Railways". Further, the second name means that this article is stuck being an article about a brand, with no article for the actual company. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Very clearly provided above. This is becoming tiresome. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument that a long disused name satisfies WP:NATURAL is dubious, and furthermore you have not addressed my second point. This article should be about the company, not the brand. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 April 2022 

message: I know this has been discussed before, but I still think it is worth saying again that it is ridiculous to title this page "Hornby Railways" as there is no entity with this name any more. Saying that it is a "British owned manufactuer" is also ridiculous, as HOrnby makes its railways in China using contracts. It does not actually make any of its trains. 182.153.95.138 (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous