Jump to content

Talk:HO scale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wæng (talk | contribs) at 08:01, 29 March 2011 (→XKCD strip). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconTrains: Transport modelling B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject icon
 Trains Portal
DYK 2007-04-01
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated projects or task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Rail transport modelling task force.
Note icon
This article lacks references.

Power supply =

Does anyone know how to calculate power supply requirements for HO scale model racing and train layouts. I am interested in designing an Ho train/slot car racing layout and would like to purchase the right power supplies for the application. GER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.174.225 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 12 November 2004 (UTC) [reply]

someone could add a section on this

HO OO Compatibility

I came to this page to try to find out if and how these two gauges are compatiible. May I suggest some content on this issue? Tatty 02:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean compatible? The trains use the same track, but the scales are different, and you wouldn't want to assemble a train with some cars in OO, and others in HO, if that's what you mean. Even if you could get the couplers to mate, the OO cars would look too big, and the HO cars too small. If you're talking about accessories like figures, buildings, and road vehicles, that depends on how much you care about scale accuracy. --Badger151 (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improvments

We need a table of Contents like the other model pages have. 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article some. In the histoy section was a lot of information on controls and DC and DCC, so I put that under the "Control" section and added some outside links. Please help expand the links, I only know a few sites. --Billy Rules 14:48, 26 November 2006

Someone should link "quasi-ballasted" to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_ballast That's not really common knowledge.

Done Lost on Belmont (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scale Standards

The page is somewhat confusing since it does not make a difference between HO as defined by NMRA and MOROP-standardized H0 which are strictly speaking not identical. For instance, HOe and HOm should read H0e and H0m since they are narrow gauge scales defined in NEM standards and new uses H0 (zero) and not HO.
Z220info 23:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is severely lacking

Compared to N scale, this article is lagging behind. Its current focus js rather UK-centric and makes no mention of the substantial German and US communities, even though in both countries it is the single most popular scale. Several paragraphs also require the attention of copyeditors and experts on the topic. --Agamemnon2 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without debating the merit of your argument, your cleanup-rewrite template adition — and the snide remark included with it — is in no way helpful and even borderline vandalism. If you feel the article is so terribly deficient, I suggest you jump right in and improve it yourself. Realkyhick 07:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't the expertise or the knowledge to rewrite the page. My hamfisted attempts at rewrites would merely make the whole thing worse. There are far too many pages on Wikipedia already that have been ruined by well-meaning fools, and I have no inclination to add to that number.

As for the snideness... Cope. --Agamemnon2 10:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section on curved track is really good, but I think it is rather a lot for this type of page and would be better in a beginners guide to HO scale. could this section be cleaned up a bit or is it all needed? --Billy Rules 18:35, 14 February 2007

HO and scale

The use of the word 'scale' to mean gauge is a severe and systematic technical error. Though HO is commonly connected to 1:87 scale models (over HO gauge wheels) gauge and scale are not interchangeable concepts. It seems railroad pages conscientiously add to the popular confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.102.78.248 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturers' Section

I have added several names, and divided the list into current and historical (no longer active in HO) manufacturers.

There are some issues to be resolved about the Manufacturers List:

1- SIGNIFICANCE - How significant does a company have to be to be included. There are thousands of small manufacturers. I notice two have added their names, links, and a bit of sell-copy to the list. I'm new to this article, so I don't want to make any big changes myself before getting a feel for the conventions, but I think these links ought to be deleted or at least shifted down to external links and the marketing copy blasted to a fare-thee-well. Wikipedia is not an ad-board.

2- ACCESSORIES ONLY? - Should manufacturers of accessories only, but no actual railroad equipment, such as Vollmer, Scale Structures Limited, Campbell, DPM, (all buildings, building kits, and accessories) be included? How about scenery outfits like Woodland Scenics?

3- BRASS - There have been many limited-run importers of brass locomotives. Should all these be included? How about the manufacturers, such as Samhongsa?

4- SUMMARIES - Should there be short, neutral summaries of the companies' main achievements? Such as: "Mantua - Early manufacturers of die-cast locomotives and a pioneer of mass-market plastic car kits." This leaves a lot out, but it is the best remembered part of Mantua, and these things shouldn't be more than one line or so, if they're needed at all.

D.Helber 14:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number 0 versus letter O

I propose we move this article to the original and correct notation H0 scale, with HO scale/gauge as redirects. H0 (half-0) like the 0 and 00 standards is a progression from the older 3, 2 and 1 scale standards. I have already corrected the article text to use 0 notation, keeping it consistent with the 0 scale article. See also Talk:O_scale WinTakeAll (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--

That flies in the face of usage. It may have started as a zero but it's clearly the letter O nowadays as a quick Google search will prove. "H0 Scale" (letter, number) gets about 29K hits. "HO Scale" (two letters) gets about 3.6 million. The history of the term is certainly of interest but I do not believe Wikipedia should be using a non standard usage just because it was original nor should it be trying to push a usage which has been rejected/superseded by the public. Maybe if someone can cite a majority of manufacturers, hobbyist publications, and so forth offering or discussing H-Zero models but you know that isn't going to happen. H-Oh please. The public has spoken.Filmteknik (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name is "H0" or "half zero"; Google only shows that most people do it wrong. - Erik Baas (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked a dozen of catalogues (Märklin, Roco, Fleischmann, Koll) and books about model railroads, and they all write H0. Of course. - Erik Baas (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... Can I correct the whole page so that it is correct? (Mandibela (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, please ! :-) - Erik Baas (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't. To say the people (including those standard bearers like Kalmbach) are all doing it wrong is to ignore the way language and usage evolves over time. If you are going insist on H0 then please go rewrite the Wiki articles on C, D and other batteries (sic) because technically only 6V, 9V, 12V, etc. batteries containing a group of individual cells qualifies as a "battery." The usage evolved to where it is acceptable to refer to a single cell as a battery. Wikipedia recognizes this and I formally cite this precedent that popular usage should apply and the Wikipedia should not bury its head in the sand. Oh and BTW, if you go to the Märklin site there is ample HO usage. The main page link is H0 but follow the link and you see HO. Filmteknik (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YES!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.187.116 (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


this is stupid. the entire world knows it as alpha-alpha HO. Even the text herein says that pronunciation is Aitch-oh, not "aitch-zero" or even "half-zero". Point is today and for the foreseeable future, it is PRONOUNCED "aitch-oh" so we should SPELL it HO. Mention the legacy in the article and note the evolution to alpha-alpha, that actually adds some value to the article. But don't perpetuate arcane and obsolete terminology for reasons of a neurotic personal disorder, it appears juvenile and immature; model railroaders have enough social stigma to worry about without adding more logs to the fire. Ken (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I've been going to train stores and trains shows since I was a kid and I've never seen H0 outside of Wiki. Note that the article on O scale actually lists it as alpha O ("0 scale" redirects) so this page should do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.45.10 (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a stopgap measure I'm reverting Erik Baas's edits. The "correct" name for HO scale, as defined by the experts, is H alpha-O in the US and Canada (per NMRA) and H number-0 in Europe (per the NEM). Common usage in the U.S. is entirely HO, while in Europe it varies by manufacturer and location.

Since this is the English Wikipedia, English conventions take precedence; this presents a problem wherever British and American conventions conflict. This has lead to more than a few transatlantic edit wars, of which the HO/H0 differentiation is but one. It helps to look at the numbers; Canada and the US share a common model railroad market of 340 million inhabitants, with standards outlined by the NMRA. The UK market is about 1/4 this size, at 85 million.

Including English-speaking Commonwealth countries outside the US significantly affects this ratio, so it is useful to look at these countries' individual practices. A cursory look at Australian manufacturers (link: http://www.modeltrainsnthings.com/australian-model-train-links/ho-gauge.html) reveals that they almost all use the term HO scale. Data for South Africa is more scarce, but the website for the Pretoria Model Train Club likewise spells it H-alpha-O (http://www.railserve.com/jump/jump.cgi?ID=13537).

Additionally, a cursory review of Google search results shows that modelers in these countries prefer US and Canadian prototypes over British ones, a fact compounded by the fact that most British outline models are in OO gauge.

Finally, while the "H0" and "0" nomenclature is compatible with the mostly obsolete 1, 2, and 3 scales, "HO" and "O" are more appropriate when one considers that almost all model railroad gauges in common use use alpha characters (i.e. Z, N, TT, S, G, etc)

Thus while H0 is technically correct in Britain, HO is correct in the much-larger North American market and predominates throughout the rest of the English-speaking world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.45.10 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: changing "most of the world" line. The most popular scales in Japan and many non-anglo countries (i.e., France, Switzerland) are N and Z, and Germany is about evenly split between H0 and TT. In truth, HO's predominance only extends to the rest of the English-speaking world.

"The name is derived from the fact that its 1:87 scale is approximately half that of 0 (zero) scale, hence H0. 0 scale in turn was named following the older and larger 1, 2, and 3 scales." - Erik Baas (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, interesting historical tidbits do not take precedence over the authority of standards-bodies like the NMRA and overwhelming common usage by both manufacturers and modelers across the English-speaking world. Bolding them doesn't change that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.45.10 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting historical tidbits" ? Do you even know what the word fact means ? - Erik Baas (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes, as a matter of fact I do, and it's a fact that the NMRA and the overwhelming majority of modelers agree that it's "HO Scale." Hence my continued undoing of your undoings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.45.10 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this article's arguments, I find overwhelming evidence suggesting that "aitch oh" is the intended pronunciation and therefore the correct spelling: HO. I also propose we change 5-0 to 5-O, 90210 to 9O21O, etc. Sobeita (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An XKCD fan wuz heer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.165.175 (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with 68.90.45.10 here. If the NMRA says that it's HO, it's HO. It may have once been correct to refer to it as H0, but currently, the majority use HO, and Wikipedia should go with that. --clpo13(talk) 04:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't change a name just because a lot of people pronounce it the wrong way: the scale is called "H0", the only problem is that this "0" is pronounced "O" by some English speakers (and nobody else !); also see de:Nenngröße_H0 ! - Erik Baas (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, this is the English Wikipedia. It exists by and for English speakers. How the German Wikipedia spells it is immaterial; I'm not going on there and changing their article title to "HO" just because that's what's correct in the US/Canada/Australia. Cultural differences are GOOD. Diversity is GOOD. And in the US, Canada, and a majority of the English-speaking world, it's H-alpha-O, as defined by both common usage *and* the rulemakers (i.e. NMRA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.45.10 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to you, we now have scales 3, 2, 1, 0 and HO ? Rediculous... - Erik Baas (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Please sign your somments wirh four tildes (~~~~); thank you.[reply]
Well, no, actually, per NMRA standards O scale is also spelled with an alpha O. So you've got HO, O, OO, and 1 gauge. 2 and 3 are defunct.68.90.45.10 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC) See [1][reply]


Since the page at HO scale has been protected following mine and Erik Baas's edit warring, I'm going to be transferring the content revisions I had made to "HO" to this version. Over time I also want to try to split the NMRA/MOROP definitions (for narrow gauges and the like), since as it's been pointed out they are not explicitly identical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.45.10 (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that means you're going to change all instances of "H0" to "HO": don't. - Erik Baas (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where the article is referring to specific models or publications which spell it HO I will spell it accordingly. For instance, Walthers does not have an "H0" catalog, nor does KATO make "H0" Unitrack. However, I will not change *every instance* to HO. On the same token, if you think a particular instance of "HO" should be "H0," please change that particular instance rather than reverting my entire edit, as you did with the "availability" section. 68.90.45.10 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO: Seeing as how the article is presently hosted at H0, I don't see why the history of how HO's evolution from 3, 2, and 1 scales belongs in the first paragraph. It's history... it belongs in the history section... which is still the second paragraph. 68.90.45.10 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Useful for future reference: mine and Erik Baas's discussion on Malinaccier's talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.45.10 (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permalink: [2]. - Erik Baas (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this Erik bozo who is so intent on forcing a usage with is completely at odds with how the term is used in most of the countries where this gauge is popular? And why...just because the term started a certain way? So just because of that, that makes it more correct? Someone needs a lesson in how language evolves. The term has changed; it's as simple as that. I've never seen someone so singlemindedly childish.68.164.11.153 (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry zero-fans, you lose on this one. I have an early 1980s Hornby OO set and a 1960s Jouef set, both have the O printed as a letter, not to mention they are European. My US and Australian stock also read HO scale, as does my early 1990s Lima catalogue. They don't call OO 'dublo' in England for nothing. 123.243.99.227 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was to go to a vote, I'd go for HO - I don't think I've ever seen numbers involved until I came to this article. Same goes for O scale - I've only seen the letter, not the number. The history is interesting, and worthy of mention in the article, but if most English speakers use the letter then the language and the term has moved on - so should we, as an encyclopedia. Finally, since the article was started with the letter, I'd say that moving it to a number without following formal procedure was improper. --Badger151 (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also have to vote for alpha-alpha HO. This argument seems to have been going on for some time and the only detractor seems to be the ever readt-to-revert Erik Baas. Fairly certain that a consensus has been reached in favor of going to Alpha-Alpha with a note about the origin of the term. If it is deemed necessary, we can put this up to an official vote, get a third party opinion, or both. I really think it's time this war ended. Lost on Belmont (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read - and try to understand - the article again: the name is H0, and has always been. Quote:
The name H0 is derived from the fact that its 1:87 scale is 
approximately half that of 0 (zero) scale, hence H0.
The fact that lots of people spell it the wrong way is no reason to change the article's title in this encyclopedia. - Erik Baas (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My (and I assume that this goes for most of the editors here) comprehension if the situation is perfectly clear. It is yours that appears to be flawed. You seem to have forgotten that what was and what is are two separate situations. Your argument is the same as arguing that if a word is a Latin derivative, then it is still a Latin word and should be spelled the same. Do not continue to attempt to force your ideas by implying that anyone of a differing opinion is of lower intelligence. Lost on Belmont (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erik made a rebuttal. It's your turn. Don't dig for implications and motives, just respond to the point. Sobeita (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Baas, I understand your argument. There's no need to be rude. Where I disagree is over the relevance of your argument. 0 Scale is equally foreign to me - I've known it as O scale. I used to read Model Railroader magazine in the late eighties/early nineties - I don't recall them ever mentioning 0 scale, though they had a lot to say about O scale. And aside from here, anytime I've read or heard about the history of the term HO, it's always been "half of O scale", not "half of 0 scale". So, I guess I'm not convinced on the validity of your argument, either.
The history, assuming it to be correct, is interesting, but if most English speakers are writing HO, then I think we're obliged to follow them. Our job as an encyclopedia is to describe the world as it is, in as neutral a tone as possible, to enable people to better understand the world as it is - not the world as we might like it to be, or the world as it was. --Badger151 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is to be accurate as well, not perpetuate errors. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with Bermicourt. The majority of the world believed the world was flat 3000 years ago. Just because that was the tradition does not make it right. H0 makes much more sense, considering both its derivation and its taxonomy. Wikipedia even has a page dedicated to common mis-conceptions. So why have the wrong thing here? -21:21, 27 March 2011 (PST)

An interesting discussion, or perhaps a hornet's nest. I think the biggest confusion comes from the fact that, at least in the USA, the letter 'O' is often substituted for the digit '0', for example in telephone numbers. It's still a digit (try pressing the 6MNO key instead of a zero and you'll be disappointed), but pronounced as an 'O', for whatever reason. Another issue is that the article is called 'h0' scale (yes, it's actually a lower case 'h', just to make things a bit more complex), and that 'HO scale' gets redirected to it. And yes, there are scales 0, 1 and 2, even to this day... but scales 1 and 2 are written in Roman numerals, I and II respectively. So what's the Roman numeral for 0? Um...

Comments like "everybody uses HO, and there are more people living in the US than elsewhere" are, quite frankly, irrelevant, not to mention "I've never seen it spelt differently". Everybody in the Anglophone world says "Krakatoa", even though the volcano is called "Krakatau" or "Krakatao": it's an error in translation. Everybody in the US says "aluminum", even though the scientific name is "aluminium", also the word used by the 6.7 billion non-US citizens. Also, I'd hazard a guess that many people, like I, use the English-language Wikipedia because it has the most information and best written articles. So you're not only writing for the USA and the UK, plus the other countries throughout the world that have English as an official language. (Which are quite a few, given the British success in introducing afternoon tea and driving on the left throughout the world.)

The fact that N, TT and Z scales use letters is also irrelevant, because they are relatively new. They have an entirely different etymology.

So, finally, what is the wise thing to do? I'd say, decide on one, and use it throughout the article. And make sure that the one you don't use redirects to the one that you do use. Just keep two things in mind: 1. 'HO' is not really used outside the US, except by people who don't know the 'correct' phrase. 2. Given the disproportionally large percentage of people on the autistic spectrum that like model trains, you're likely to see more discussions about the 'correct' phrase to use, if it's been defined somewhere in the early 20th century as being 'h0'.

Just my €0.02 worth. SeverityOne (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point, see my research below in the move proposal. turns out "HO" is used around the world, and indeed, may be more common than H0.
I'm confused by your claim of this page being at "h0". Looks capitalized to me. Of what do you speak?oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your research simply tracked down manufacturers that support you point of view. "HO" is hardly ever used in the many countries of Europe where it is the most popular scale and where it was invented. The main problem here is that the US, where H0 has been widely adopted refers in practice to this scale as "HO" whereas in Europe it is "H0". Which ever way we go, we are going to disappoint someone. It's a pity Wiki software isn't clever enough to display US or non-US terminology as specified by the user, especially in titles. BTW it's clear that SeverityOne made a typo - he means "H0". --Bermicourt (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my research was specifically centered around finding bodies and clubs, not manufacturers. And for the most part I searched without "HO" or "H0" in the string, to avoid biasing the results. All I searched for, for example, is "Australia model train".
"yes, it's actually a lower case 'h', just to make things a bit more complex" - this was the line I was looking at. Yes, he does say it's at a lowercase "h"; it's not a typo.oknazevad (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole debate is because Americans pronounce the 0 as an O and thus type it that way and thus believe it is the right way? Before the internet I've never even seen the HO notation, because it does not make sense. And now it has to be HO because America is bigger than Great Britain? Wasn't Wikipedia supposed to be a encyclopedia for the major public, improved by ones who know best? That way, making the best information available for the public? Because if goes through, it will be the public telling the public what they think is right, which will make Wikipedia never useful for serious research, because every information from Wikipedia will be noted as: "This is what the majority of people believe!". And thus it's true? Please make it H0 and as a first line you may enter: In America pronounced and written as HO. That way, the whole world can be happy and Americans get a little history lesson. Other option: make it HO and as a first line explain that Americans uses an O for a 0 and that in the American eyes it now has evolved into HO, however the rest of the world with no American import still uses H0 because they do NOT pronounce the O as a 0 and therefore still uses the H0 notation. That way Americans can be happy and the whole world can have jet another little laugh about Americans. 195.169.227.2 (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since pronunciation generally adapts over time to account for the way that the general public has chosen to pronounce things (eg most of the world pronounces the g in Los Angeles, instead of calling it Los An"h"eles as it was originally intended to be pronounced. And have you heard anyone call it "Detwah, Michigan?" Because that's the original pronunciation of Detroit), using "what the majority of people believe" isn't necessarily the wrong way to approach the problem. Especially since, as mentioned many times on this discussion page, it's not only the US that uses the "new" pronunciation, but also Canadian, Australian, and various European manufacturers. Also, when you're insulting Americans for not pronouncing or spelling a naming convention correctly, you should try to avoid having typos and grammatical errors littered throughout your remarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.166.43 (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


From the NMRA

I have been in touch with the NMRA historian's office on this issue. As far as they can tell their standards have used "HO" (that is, the letter) from the very beginning. I am awaiting a citation from them in support of the matter, but here is Brent Lambert (Library Manager, Kalmbach Memorial Library) in reply to my query: "It is my understanding that the NMRA has always referred to the scale as H-letter-O, because the scale was roughly "half the size of O scale." The association's earliest standards refer to it as H-letter-O as opposed to H-zero, so those standards could be used as source material." Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You realize you are arguing about if whether it's "H and a circle" or "H and a circle"?. The reason "oh" is used for zeroes sometimes is that it's visually the same symbol. The only difference is that in most (but not all) computer font the zero is usually as wide as other numbers while the letter is slightly wider. Before standardized fonts, 0 and O were the same symbol, sometimes it was a letter and sometimes a number depending on context. Thus this may always have been both HO and H0 from the beginning and both are correct, since both are an "H and a circle". (Imho: Visually HO is more pleasing since the letter width is more similar, technically/historically H0 is more correct since the O in this case refers to the number zero.) Qvasi (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, I'm a n00b, but I can't help but having an opinion. Both sides have very strong cases. Clearly, when 0 scale was invented it was 0 scale(pronounced 'oh' scale, but written/meant with a 'zero' in mind), but then in the English speaking world it was quickly adopted it as a letter probably because there was little reference to it as a number and through ignorance of the manufacturers naming conventions and assumption. So people spoke about the 'oh' scale, and whoever didn't know it was actually a 'zero', assumed it was an 'O'. So it became O scale, and everybody knew what each other meant because it's written and pronounced exactly the same and without much conflict. And official bodies and clubs etc, (all made up of the people above) used it as such and defined it as such, so by the time that H0 came out, it was auto-translated from the German H0 to the English HO, without H0 barely making an appearance in English. I agree that HO should be HO, the truth should be in the etymology section. unfortunately. again, I'm a n00b and i'll probably never return here to read the responses, just my 2 cents221.127.90.70 (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

only idiots pronounce the number zero by saying the letter O. Just because there's a lot of idiots doesn't make them right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentstrahan (talk • contribs) 08:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To call people idiots because they use colloquial speech just shows your stupidity. People say "oh" instead of "zero" in phone numbers (as an example) because its faster and everyone knows what you mean. Actually, that's probably how we got from H0 to HO. Some editor mis-heard it from a while back and now its been passed on for generations. -- Suso (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that all Canadians, including the people who invented electric streetcars, caulking guns, snowblowers, the robertson screw, the goalie mask, the lawn sprinkler, odometers, the pacemaker, sonar, plexiglass, insulin, the telephone, poutine, and the canadarm, are "idiots". How about we debate the issue and not make personal attacks? Americans and Canadians call it HO. They call it HO whether it is supposed to be HO or H0. In the US and Canada, it is HO. Clearly, outside this part of the world, it is called H0, and it is supposed to be H0. If it WAS H0 in Canada and the US it is NO LONGER H0, it is HO, however the fact that it ONCE WAS H0 does matter. The page should stay H0, and a note should be added that some people call it HO. Nickjbor (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was totally unnecessary. The standard was invented in Germany and called "H-null" (where null is zero in German) ever since and I've never heard or seen it otherwise anywhere in Europe either from fans or manufacturers. The "Derivation" paragraph pretty much sums that up in the article, so please, somebody go ahead and change the remaining HO's to H0's. 77.10.8.32 (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title of an entry must reflect the most accurate and "official" naming of the thing the article's talking about. You call it People's Republic of China, not just China. (Yes, I wrote this because I have read today's xkcd comic @ [3]. In case you were wondering why all these folks landed on here today. LOL) --MauroVan (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is L0L (95.115.166.94 (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
This is not just about pronunciation. The 2 leading model railway/railroad bodies also differ: NEM (Europe) uses H0 and NMRA (US) calls it HO. So it is not straightforward. Because the standard originated as H0 and is still called that by one of the 2 leading bodies, I favour H0 as the title, but with a full acknowledgement in the text that a significant part of the world and the model railway/railroad community legitimately call it HO. Indeed, it seems entirely reasonable to me to use HO whenever referring to specific US and Canadian modelling. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how you say it. For example, James Bond is also know as "double-oh seven". But, the "oh"s are digits. In the UK, at least, when reading phone numbers, one rarely says "zero", it's usually pronounced "oh". See, for example, the wikipedia entry on "Zero". Do you remember "Hawaii five-0"? That's 5-0 for 50, the 50th state of the US, notwithstanding errors on soundtrack albums. So, if pronunciation doesn't matter, does the spelling? Not really, since 0 and O look similar enough in any of the relevant point-of-sale material, and there is no confusion caused. This debate is entirely a matter of choosing a stylistic convention for wikipedia. I'd plump for the original H0 on that basis, since it's explicable without resorting to "at some point we chose to formalise this error of understanding". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.134 (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you guys REALLY care whether it is an 0 or O? Get over it. You know what it is regardless of whether it is a 0 or an O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.167.17 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This debate is entirely a matter of choosing a stylistic convention for wikipedia." Of course it is!! This is why it's important in this context. --MauroVan (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - a suggestion from someone completely new to the topic: Clearly the two terms are now interchangeable. How about simply stating that fact in the main article. Perhaps acknowledge that H0 is the original form (stating why) but that HO is more commonly used. As the more commonly used version of two interchangable terms (and therefore the mostly likely term to be searched) use HO for the page titles and H0 for he redirect. (145.62.32.129 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Then you should send letters to all universities, as they need to change all their introductory courses to 1Oh1. Please, just leave the appropriate number 0 where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonomadepapa (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This argument would make sense except that it is commonly (and, as far as I can tell, always) written num-num-num '101' rather than num-alpha-num '1O1'. If most colleges used num-aplha-num '1O1', then we would indeed use it on this encyclopedia. Language is defined by current use, not by original use. Aeonoris (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's move on. It's more important to improve the article itself. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

I'm slowly working my way through the article adding references. Thus far, I've run into two problems that I could use some help on. First, I can't read Japanese, nor do I know what the web address extension is for Japanese sites, so I don't think I'll be able to find a citation for Japan. Can someone else help here? Second, is there an official site in Australia, similar to the NEM and NMRA in Europe and the US? All I've been been able to find in the au domain are commercial sites. I've used on of those for the moment, but I'm not happy with it for long term. --Badger151 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compatible and interchangeable?

Are tracks from all manufacturers compatible/interchangeable? In a way that I can buy different ones and they fit together?

Are all trains compatible and interchangeable, with the same voltage and current, etc?

Are all accessories compatible and interchangeable? Lights? branches? controllers?

THANKS -- Michael Janich (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no and no. Andrewa (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. Here's a brief summary:
At H0 gauge, the track is all the same width but there may be height differences and they will not generally fit together. However you can certainly use locomotives and wagons from different manufacturers on the track of another manufacturer, provided you note the following:
  • Märklin use a 3-rail system that requires locos with a Märklin-compatible motor. Several manufacturers have locos with a Märklin variant. Wagons need to have their wheelsets exchanged.
  • The normal 2-rail system is good for both DC locos and digital locos, you just need to match the controllers to your locos, DC or digital. There is a digital standard, DCC, but watch out for manufacturers with their own incompatible system.
  • Many of the accessories are interchangeable. I use power packs from different manufacturers (but they need to be the same "type": DC or digital). Lights just need AC power - all controllers have that.
HTH. But talk to a good dealer or get a magazine before you buy! --Bermicourt (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formally requesting move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. harej 02:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


H0 scale → HO scale — Given the discussion above, I think there is a much better case for HO rather than H0 even if the latter has some historical precedent. A similar discussion for O scale (see here resulted in the decision to go with the letter rather than the digit. I would do the move but the proposed name is occupied by a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Conversation on the same subject.--Talktome(Intelati) 20:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of utterly typical ignorant wikibollocks 8-( I particularly liked:
"Interesting historical tidbits" ? Do you even know what the word fact means ?
We have redirects to deal with issues like this. H0 (digit) is correct, for the original use, its inventor's use, and half of the current use. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose then, is what you seem to be saying? (If not, Andy, please delete this comment).--Bermicourt (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. HO, with the letter is far more common. The origin in the letter/number combo is certainly needed for mention, but has been supplanted, reflecting the other modern lettered standards. oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "HO" is simply wrong. The gauge may called "HO" ("aitch-oh") in English but that is simply loose usage. In Germany (noting that it is a continental gauge) it is referred to as "Hah-null", which means "H zero" or "H nought", and their literature always refers to it as "H0", e.g. in Modellbahn Daten + Normen ("Model Railway Data and Standards") by Albrecht published by Alba. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in German usage; they can spell and pronounce it as they please. Mangoe (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But they created it !! - Erik Baas (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but we English speakers often pronounce zero as "oh" as in Room 101! --Bermicourt (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't spell it that way. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point! So why move the title? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that is perhaps a very Germanic way of looking at it, but the fact remains that the US market is a whole heck of a lot larger, with many, many more manufacturers (not to mention that Märklin and Trix are a single company), and I have not found a single US manufacturer yet who doesn't use "HO". HO seems to be rare in the UK (they tend to prefer OO) but so far every example I've seen uses "HO". As I pointed out at the beginning, in English there really isn't any "zero" scale, but only an "O gauge", which is modelled at two different scales. That's probably why in American English we've tended to go with HO, because it's (sort of) half the O gauge that we're familiar with. Sloppiness is rather beside the point considering that it's not really half of anything. I don't think it's up to us to argue with pretty much every manufacturer out there in an English-speaking country. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, there's the whole issue of WP:COMMONNAME being policy, and the most common name in English-language usage is "Aitch-Oh".oknazevad (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe. I'm not German, but I have modelled H0 scale for many years. The "US is bigger" is not really a great argument for correct usage; in any case the US market is probably only on a par with the European market and smaller than the rest of the world. Nor do US manufacturers automatically trump correct usage by the manufacturers in the country that invented H0 gauge.
@Oknazeved. WP:COMMONNAME does not insist we must always use the "common name". There are 5 criteria at WP:TITLE of which recognisability is but one and then only common names "as used in reliable sources". Precision is another criterion.WP:COMMONNAME also states that "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic". I would suggest that "HO" is "vulgar" usage i.e. we commonly pronounce zeroes as "oh", but they're still zeroes. Hence the utter confusion. Let's be precise not common. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it is spelled with a letter "O" in most usages, not merely pronounced that way. oknazevad (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...but not by the leading European modellers' organisation MOROP, which uses H0 in English, notably in its official European standards (NEM). --Bermicourt (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, it is spelled HO by the NMRA, so the main standards bodies are a wash and your appeal to authority fails. oknazevad (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Since it is a European standard, it is reasonable to expect that the European standards body takes precedence. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: whatever it is called or however it is pronounced in other languages is totally irrelevant to how things are done in English and on the English Wikipedia. The most common usage in English is HO. Lost on Belmont (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one's using that argument and "common use" is only one criterion out of five at WP:TITLE. Common erroneous use doesn't even figure. A quick survey of around 20 manufacturers listed in this article shows that all the US ones use "HO" whilst the English sites of all European manufacturers (German, Austrian, Swiss, Spanish, etc.) bar Heljan use "H0" as laid down by the European NEM standard. Interestingly even the Hornby site uses "00" (the British equivalent of H0). Since it is a European standard, it seems only reasonable to adopt European (English) practice, especially as the digit in question is clearly the number zero. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It's a standard popular worldwide, and no more a "European standard" than the metric system. It's by far the most popular scale in the larger US (and Canadian) market, making it as much an American standard as a European one. So let's stop trying to prve which side of the pond is more important and concentrate on what's the most common name in the English language. oknazevad (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let's see... the standard is first established in Europe as H0, Americans adopt it and call it not unreasonably "HO" in the vernacular (we call zeros "oh" for brevity), but then change it to "HO" as they write it down, then tell Europe to change to their incorrect version because "it's more common" (i.e. "there are more of us"). I have huge respect for the American nation and all they have done, but this is not a great line of argument for an international English encyclopedia. And whilst I don't think "common name" is the only factor here, it seems that H0 is overwhelmingly more common in Europe in English literature than "HO", and is used both by the standards people and the manufacturers here.
But hey, there are more important things in life than this! Let's go write some articles! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the point, which you seem to be missing, is that "HO" is not incorrect. The name became changed, not merely misspelled, over time in much, and I would say most, English usage, because all the other common modern standards use letters. (Gauge 1, 2, etc. are not common modern standards.)
So the penchant for using "oh" for the number zero lead to an actual change in the term. You may not like the way it evolved in common usage, but it did. In short, "H0" is not any more correct than "HO". And it's rather condescending of you to insist it is.
The real question remains, what is the most common usage throughout the English language literature from around the world. European manufacturers and associations don't get any preferential treatment because it originated there; they're likely just using the same label regardless of language. That may be commendable in many ways, but it doesn't help determine the English language usage, especially if they're from non-English speaking countries. The US doesn't get any special treatment, either.
What about the Japanese manufacturers? It's not a particularly common scale there, as the tightness of living quarters leads to N scale being far more popular. But, Kato, and Tomix, the two largest Japanese manufacturers use "HO". (MicroAce, the third largest, doesn't even seem to offer any HO at all.)
The Australian Model Railway Association uses "HO". See here.
As noted here at the New Zealand Model Railway Guild, New Zealand's rail network, being narrow gauge, doesn't lend itself to the international standards, but NZers make do by using S scale sized equipment on HO tracks, which gives a good approximation.
Finally, South Africa is in a similar boat, as the country primarily uses Cape gauge. N scale seems to be the most popular there. What I could find of South Africa-based manufacturers points to "HO" as well.
So, I again say, "HO" is the most common name, of the two fully correct ones, for this scale, and should be the name of this article.oknazevad (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not missing your point, I just don't accept it. In my view, "most common usage" is not the overriding factor even if it were proven, which I don't think it is anyway. We'll just have to agree to differ on this one. Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The continuing conceit here is the notion that the original continental usage is somehow binding on the Americans and British and Australians. I would hold that it is not. We do not refer to 0 (zero) scale in the USA, but to O gauge, because it represents two different scales, in the same manner that British OO and American HO equipment run on the same track despite being at different scales. That is why English-speaking countries refer to "half O" and not "half zero".

It does not aid a sensible debate if you resort to emotive words like "conceit" or misrepresent the alternative argument (again). Anyway, as an aside I have expanded the history section to cover the early development of H0, which helps to clarify its provenance a little.

The 0 gauge for model railways had been introduced at the beginning of the 20th century; prototypical standard gauge (1435 mm) track being modelled using a width of 32 mm and a model scale, usually, of 1:45.

However, even before the Second World War there had been attempts to design a model railway about half the size of 0 gauge that would be more suitable for home layouts and cheaper to manufacture. It was to meet these aims that H0 gauge was developed. For this new scale, a track width of 16.5 mm was designed to represent prototypical standard gauge track, and a model scale of 1:87 was chosen. By as early as 1922 the firm of Bing in Nuremberg, Germany, had been marketing a "tabletop railway" for several years. This came on a raised, quasi-ballasted track with a gauge of 16.5 mm, which was described at that time either as 00 or H0. The trains initially had a clockwork drive, but from 1924 were driven electrically. Accessory manufacturers, such as Kibri, marketed buildings in the corresponding scale.

At the 1935 Leipzig Spring Fair, an electric tabletop railway, Trix Express, was displayed to a gauge described as "Half Nought Gauge", which was then abbreviated as Gauge 00 ("nought-nought"). Märklin, another German firm, followed suit with its 00 gauge railway for the 1935 Leipzig Autumn Fair. The Märklin 00 gauge track that appeared more than ten years after Bing's tabletop railway had a very similar appearance to the previous Bing track. On the Märklin version, however, the rails were fixed to the tin 'ballast' as in the prototype, whilst the Bing tracks were simply stamped into the the ballast, so that track and ballast were made of single sheet of metal.

Of course after that, the UK use of 00 diverged from H0 (in terms of scale not rail gauge). BTW I don't follow your line of argument that because there are different 0 scale (not gauge) standards in different continents, that the same is true of H0 scale. My sources suggest both the NMRA and NEM use exactly the same standards for H0 gauge and scale. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Mangoe was using "conceit" in the somewhat archaic meaning of "idea" or "premise". At least that's how I understood him.

oknazevad (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. When I was actually making these they were only called HO and not H0. So for me the choice is crystal clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Likewise. I was once rather keen on scenic modelling in this gauge, and never once heard it pronounced or saw it written with a zero. It seems that, once again, we are having a debate over what something should be called. There's no doubt what it is called. Perhaps Wikipedia culture is changing, but our policy seems clear. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I asked a leading British manufacturer and model railway magazine what convention the UK followed. The answer was as follows "British modellers tend to refer to HO (ohh) but there is always debate. The same with OO scale which is referred to as "double O" (Ohh) whereas technically it should be "double zero". The UK unfortunately doesn't really have a standard! The individual scale organisations tend to create their own! Some people work to the NEM standards and some work to the NMRA standards." Sadly, it is far from crystal clear! --Bermicourt (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is the scale 1:87 or 1:~87.086?

This is not a question of theory. If all, or the vast majority, of model train manufacturers use a scale of 1:87 for their scale track, trains, etc., then HO scale is exactly 1:87. It cannot be 1:87.086 if nobody at all uses that scale. So which scale does everyone use? CGameProgrammer (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any difference this small cannot be distinguished due to manufacturing tolerances. Dzenanz (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"3.5mm:1ft" is a 2-sig-fig specification. That's the same as saying "3.5mm +/- 0.05mm : 1ft +/- 0.05ft". That is, the 2-sig-fig implied error bars are from ~1:84 to ~1:90. So, both are correct, but misleading since they omit error bars. Best answer is probably "about 1:0.87 ± 0.03", or just "2.5mm to one foot". 66.25.153.114 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"3.5 mm (0.14 in) represents 1 real foot (304.8 mm)"

Is it intentional to mix the units? (3.5mm : 1 ft)? I see that the numbers become nice and round this way, but it seems unconventional, and inappropriate.

In other words, I'm suggesting that the text be edited to read, "0.14 in (3.5 mm) represents 1 real foot (304.8 mm)".

75.4.205.0 (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it makes sense if we're talking about modern models being manufactured, to metric standards, of older objects which were manufactured to Imperial standards. But (I suspect like some of the posters above) I've just come here after reading today's XKCD, so I don't actually know what I'm talking about. 78.86.200.205 (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree . it seems incredibly bad practice to mix units in the way this article has (at the very top of the article : " Scale per foot: 3.5 mm to 1-foot " ) . The article heading paragraph has been bettered as the first comment here suggests . but not all of it . even if it at first appears to look better , and fits into the table well , it is still an outrage . 81.156.181.166 (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else may hate to be pedantic, but not me: 3.5mm to the foot is how the scale is defined. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite correct. I am a hobbyist myself, and do collect several magazines and books on the subject. 3.5mm:1 foot is quite correct. As is 2mm:1" for N. This is beacuse on the railways the units generally used are imperial, and metric for models (excluding baseboards). While this is confusing, it is what is used and has been used for years. Cousjava (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; on Wikipedia, we strive to never mix units within an article, but a defined value like this is an obvious exception. I kind of wonder if something like "3.5 mm represents 1 real foot (0.14 in : 304.8 mm)", or something like that, might not be easier on the eyes. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason NOT to do this is that you are presuming four digits of precision where only two are available. 3.5mm:1ft IS NOT the same as 0.14in:304.8mm, both because they're not exactly the same, and more importantly because they have different error bars. "3.5mm:1ft" is the same as saying "3.5mm +/- 0.05mm : 1ft +/- 0.05ft". That is, the 2-sig-fig implied error bars are from ~1:84 to ~1:90. The 4-sig-fig implied error bars for "0.14in:304.8mm" are ~1:86.04 to ~1:85.40. Stick to the measures in the official definition: don't make up your own arbitrarily-precise definition in randomly-selected units. 66.25.153.114 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XKCD strip

On the 28th of March an XKCD comic strip was released regarding the H0 scale: http://xkcd.com/878/

--Krotton (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean 28th March?

--ZeroCool42 14:33, 28 March 2011 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.226.134 (talk)

I think it is actually March 28th, not 28th March. --68.175.31.252 (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I feel that clearly March *the* 28th has historical precedence and should be used. - cpj March the 29th 2001 (Australia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.164.241 (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Noone gives a d*** about your goddam XKCD, it does not warrant inclusion in every goddam article that's ever mentioned!!! I would also like to include that I'm a huge douche and live in my mother's basement. That will be all. Now I need to go back to building my house in HO scale.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.154.1 (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette Mbarbier (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


No I think you mean building your house in H0 scale. --Wæng (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comic is regarding the HO scale. 77.0.195.247 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely about the HO scale. I don't quite understand the bit about an IO" model of a house though. 68.33.168.195 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an 'IO"' model, it's a 10" (ten-inch) model.

Please capitalize the comic title as "xkcd" (or "Xkcd" when required), and not "XKCD" as per the webpage's FAQ. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.162.75 (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have that backward. The most preferred form is "xkcd" followed by "XKCD". Read for yourself: http://xkcd.com/about/ 129.65.227.168 (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the title of this section is XKCD, which is technically incorrect, as it is actually spelled and pronounced "xkcd." It is OBVIOUSLY all in lower case letters as opposed to capitals because xkcd stands for "x of kcd" and "kcd" is in lower case letters. Of course, "kcd" was originally German for "K, please don't Capitalize Dis." It is obviously not only incorrect, but COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE to deviate from this spelling of the name, since it is a fact that the proper way to capitalize the name is based on the obscure archaic original spelling of the entire name, and language never evolves. The only reason the capitalization of the name is even in debate is because Americans think they're better than everyone else, and don't bother to look into the fact that the rest of the world can't agree on the proper pronunciation, spelling, or capitalization either, and convinced a majority of people who follow xkcd, as well as a majority of the manufacturers of xkcd, to spell and pronounce it their way. Please change the title of this section, and all references to xkcd on wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.166.43 (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really dead but it's a placeholder page for a domain for sale. Someone may want to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.86.222 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thought on O/0 (Please Read!)

I can't believe that this actually ended up being such an interesting read. After reading all of the discussions on HO and H0, I feel that nobody made a more convincing argument than Bermicourt. I would like to see somebody offer a rebuttal against his argument. The claim seems simple, as he spelled it. HO has to its credit widespread usage, and is apparently more widespread in usage than H0. H0 has to its credits the origins of the term. On this basis alone, generally speaking, it is true: encyclopedic entries should reflect, to quote another user, "the world as it is, not as it once was." Any references to such should point to the history of the object in discussion and not denote the current name. So they would each have a strong claim, yet the claim on current usage supersedes the claim on origins. HOWEVER, it would appear to be the case that H0 is still widely used as well. So H0 would retain the claim on origins while HO's claim on usage is ambiguous and, therefore indeterminate. By this standard, H0:1, HO:0 (or H0:1.5, HO:.5, if you wish, to give a half point for usage to each...or whatever proportions you will, like .6 and .4).

BUT! (this is where it gets interesting folks). This is an English Wikipedia article. Whether or not, as Erik Baas asserts, non-English speakers use the English Wikipedia due to having a higher article-count, this is not pertinent. The English Wikipedia page is for English Wikipedians and must reflect their conventions.

For me, that's the only sticking point. If someone can show me, among Wikipedia's guidelines, that it states this principle (English Wikipedia reflects the usage of English speakers), then for me, that settles it. The usage point is restored to HO. H0 retains origins, but this is superseded in value by the usage point of HO. And on the English Wikipedia page, where HO is far and away dominant, HO certainly merits that point. MondoManDevout (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HO_scale&oldid=421282397"