Jump to content

Talk:HO scale/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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)

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)

Definitely Relevant

http://www.xkcd.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblingdp (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant to post http://xkcd.com/878/
Clicking on a link to the homepage will simply lead you to the most recent comic posted on the site. Also, there is already a link to the comic posted in the section of the page labelled "xkcd strip"71.177.166.43 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Any difference this small cannot be distinguished due to manufacturing tolerances. Dzenanz (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"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)
So we can loose the .086 digits anyway? Because it doesn't make any sense to mention those, but yet there they are. 195.169.227.2 (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If you're going to be imprecise, at least be convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.202.34 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a model railway designer and use exactly 1:87, according to NEM 010. Normally rounded to 0.05 mm as anything finer will be lost to manufacturing tolerances. But then again I have never modelled a prototype whose measurements were given in inches .... --84.119.53.201 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"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)

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)
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)
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)
.... is how NMRA defines the standard. MOROP defines it as 1:87 exactly. Note that typical scale deviations in actual models go way beyond that. --84.119.53.201 (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Or just use the word 'about'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.227.2 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

A quick google for "australian model railway society" brings up http://www.amra.asn.au/ as the top link. Also Japan has .jp. Danlibbo (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Wrong. The correct terminology would be "the 28th of March". Quite clearly, as in historical times it would have been referred to as the 28th of March. Clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.224.102 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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.

i like where this is going.. 69.134.161.98 (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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)
It's not an 'IO"' model, it's a 10" (ten-inch) model.
But why would people call it IO if is means 10?
Show us two continents full of people who call 10 IO (and a third continent with a sizable population that refers to it as the same), and we'll accept your argument that the comic was referring to an IO" house.71.177.166.43 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)
Changed to xkcd.
WP:SARCASM 149.170.192.137 (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move to HO scale. Per WP:COMMONNAME wikipedia uses the name by which the subject is most frequently known in English and it seems fairly clear that HO is the preferred English term. As a sanity check, I looked at the article references and all the English language ones use HO. --rgpk (comment) 14:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

H0 scale → HO scale — The talk page consensus is that "HO scale" is the predominant English use today, though "H0 scale" seems to have been the original term, and is still used in German today. Strong objections were heard from Erik Baas and others as to the correctness of "HO", but there seems to be agreement that "HO" is used more often than "H0". In keeping with the Manual of Style, this page should then be moved. Since this page previously existed at HO scale, and there were edits there, I cannot use the Move feature, but instead I need to propose this as a "controversial move", which will then appear on Wikipedia:Requested moves. - Afiler (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose There are 2 international bodies that define model standards. The NMRA (US) uses HO and the NEM (Europe) uses H0 in their English publications. That splits the authoritative sources 50/50. The manufacturers are also divided e.g. US manufacturers use HO; many other international firms suchs as Märklin use H0 in their English literature. Whilst both terms are acceptable and authoritative today, the original and correct term was always H0. IMHO that tilts the otherwise finely balanced argument towards H0 as the title, but with a full acknowledgement of NMRA and North American usage. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, I cannot find any NEM standards in English on their website that address HO, and the French standards willy-nilly switch back and forth between HO and H0. Mangoe (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This whole debate is more humorous than anything else, but I feel a need at this point to jump back in, at least partially. Going through the English NEM standards, as you listed, I see usage of both H0 and HO. I found these two[1] [2] which only used H0. However, HO appears in these. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Take a look at the last one in particular. It uses HO alone. So the NEM does use H0 (which no one has arguing against) but it also seems that they do use HO as well. Lost on Belmont (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support As I note above, the NEM website doesn't give confidence in this matter. They don't even publish the key standard in English, as far as I can tell. Anyway, this is a case not of dueling standards bodies, but of usage: there is ample testimony above that English-speaking countries refer to it as "HO". WP:COMMON applies to usage by English speakers; if the Germans and French want to stick to "H0", that's irrelevant. Mangoe (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The NEM website clearly uses H0. Click on any relevant (English language) standard here.
  • WP:COMMONNAME applies to usage by reliable sources, not "English speakers" in general. NEM, NMRA and manufacturers fall into this category. They are clearly divided; the only significant remaining distinction is that H0 is the original and correct term (being half of 0 gauge, the others being 1,2,3 etc). --Bermicourt (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as reliable sources are concerned, again we've been over the manufacturers, the hobby magazines, and I'm sure we could go on into the newspapers and the like. Googling various ways shows ten times the hits for HO ans for H0. Balancing NMRA against the NEM is not good enough. And "correctness" here is subjective; given the NMRA's usage one could just as well say that it was always correct to use "HO" in the USA. Mangoe (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. "H0" is not more correct and "HO" is not incorrect, and indeed is more common. I thought I explained this pretty well last time and actually brought some evidence to the table. As such, at the risk of repeating myself, I present the same evidence again, verbatim:

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 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) 17:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree both are acceptable; equally there are many manufacturers on both sides of this debate. I could list a raft of companies that use H0 including the founding company, Märklin. So it's not a decider IMHO. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly, both HO and H0 are acceptable English variants. Equally clearly, it was originally H0, from the German, as a "zero" or "nought" may also be pronounced "oh" in English (as in nine oh two one oh), and then was subsequently spelled HO. The original should be preferred, as it makes the origin of the name more comprehensible, (especially the fact that it is often called "half zero scale"[8] ), and a core purpose of an encyclopedia is to be educative. walk victor falk talk 23:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. HO is used by a larger global population and more sources than H0. While the etymology of the term is important and certainly should appear in the article, we live in an evolving society where words and terms can and do change from their origins. This isn't a matter of correct vs incorrect since both are correct; it's a matter of what is used most commonly worldwide. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Renaming Proposal There seems to be equally justifiable arguments on both sides, and without a widespread study it would be impossible to draw any kind of conclusion, and even with that it would still be quite difficult. I present for your consideration renaming the article "Half 0 Scale", as this is the original and the "correct" name, even if it is not "widely accepted". The advantage is that it provides a concise, neutral title, and with redirects put in place from HO and H0 it would not be detrimental to the end user. The article should then introduce it as "HO or H0" as is done with other questionably named things. Within the article it might be beneficial to use a neutral "HO/0" terminology and a section explaining the naming controversy. Just my two cents. Elfo222 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)refactored per User_talk:Elfo222#Refactoring_your_comment_on_aitch_oh walk victor falk talk 12:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
If no one actually uses it, it is just a poor choice. Period. oknazevad (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, it seems that the NMRA actually considers it the "Half O Scale", so spelling out the "half" doesn't actually get us anywhere in the article at all. Perhaps if they agreed it was Half 0... but they don't. Fieari (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia is not the place to correct or redefine actual usage, but rather to reflect it. Take the campaign to redefine HO "more properly" as H0 elsewhere and come back when the authorities and recognized current usage clearly reflect it. Having the clarification of the historic origin and contemporary instances of "H0" mentioned within the article is more than enough of a soapbox. Redefining the article title to the preferred version of a clear minority (in fact, is there anyone in the world who supports this strongly other than the would-be editors of this page? Perhaps I missed some of the back-up provided) is clearly out of bounds for these reasons and those stated by others here. Shorn again (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I've read the entire discussion. Frankly, the oppose argument has no basis in fundamental naming principles at all. The Support argument is compelling and is clearly based in naming principles, primarily WP:COMMONNAME, as argued by oknazevad and Shorn again. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'd just like to point out that the 0 vs. O discussion on this talk page is around four times the length of the article itself in word count. While it's immensely entertaining to read, perhaps debate should be brought to a close and a permanent decision made one way or the other, simply to prevent wasting editor's time on a relatively unimportant issue. 24.220.188.43 (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: While it is clearly correct, as an interesting historical fact, that it was originally H0, Wikipedia naming conventions are quite clear at WP:COMMONNAMES, and all evidence points to HO not H0 being the most common name in English, ergo the article should favor "HO", with "H0" given as an alternative name, and the text of the article should explain the matter. There is really nothing to argue about. NB: It's is misleading to characterize NMRA as "U.S."; it is broadly North American in general, happening to have an official address in the U.S., and its HO specs are used very broadly as de facto standards around the world. Characteri[s|z]ing this as yet another UK vs. U.S. pissing match is a transparently fallacious ploy. Non-disclaimer: I have zero connection to this issue or any emotional side of it, only the facts as presented in the article being verifiable, and the article adhering to WP's guidelines, including naming conventions. No one solicited my comments here, and I ran into this flamewar entirely by random accident, and was frankly pretty shocked that it was even a debate at all, given the clarity of WP guidelines on the matter and the obvious facts as presented thus far. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 04:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A look into the UK scene

A little looking at the UK scene is not that encouraging to those who want to claim them for the "H0" side. For one thing, there is a British branch of the NMRA (website here). Not surprisingly, they use "HO". So does every British model railroading shop I've found so far, but one, even for European-made equipment. I was able to find some H0 usage, but a lot of times I found it on a website which also used HO. So it seems to me that they can also be placed in the "HO" column, which pretty much wraps it up for the English-speaking world. Mangoe (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I sampled sellers listed on NMRA's worldwide directory. Lots of European sites used HO, including sellers in France, Norway, Luxembourg, Spain.... Even the Dutch were prone to using HO when referring to American-made equipment. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course they use HO for American-made equipment, that's because Americans use it. 195.169.227.2 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, let's look at the UK scene. I asked a leading British manufacturer and model railway magazine what convention the UK followed. His answer was:

"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 clear, but note he says "technically it (i.e. OO gauge) should be "double zero". Ergo, by extension technically this gauge should be H0. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
As we have been over and over here, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't do "technically". Generally, if you have to use "technically", that's not the name the article should use. Mangoe (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the word Bermicourt wants to use is "consistently" walk victor falk talk 13:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only Germany (uses zero)

I'm fascinated how many people here assume that when something is dominant in US and UK, it is dominant worldwide (although I do agree that English speaking countries are those relevant for English Wikipedia, still so many comments recklessly mention the "entire world"). Does UK+US combined make up a majority of world's population? Is Germany the only non-English speaking country? For example here in Czech (10 mil. people only - meant just as an example), H0 is used commonly and HO is perceived only as a misspelling. Please, don't make global assumptions from three countries. People from other countries, please add your H0/HO resolutions here, if there are enough votes, we could modify the second paragraph to mention "Germany and some other countries". Ayehow (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you will go below and check, I looked at a variety of non-English-speaking countries, and the results were, at best, mixed as far as preferring H0 was concerned. I don't see the merit of trying to spell out exactly which countries use which, especially since I've found some where both were used, but in any case even if most of the rest of Europe is found to use "H0" (which I doubt will be the case), this being the English Wikipedia it is the naming which English speakers use which is supposed to govern article names. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read my post completely before reacting. I don't suggest naming the article either way and I explicitly wrote that I do respect that English Wikipedia should follow English speaking countries' nomenclature. I just oppose the immediate generalisation used in this talk page and suggest a tiny change in one of the sentences in the article.
Concerning your mentioned research of the other countries, I did check it. I just suggest that some other people from around the world add their voice, because doing a few google searches just isn't the same as living in a country. Ayehow (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative option

Another option would be to title the article H0/HO gauge and have redirects from "HO gauge" and "H0 gauge". Not perfect, but at least neutral.

Or write to NMRA and NEM and ask them to agree a common name for the sake of world peace! ;) --Bermicourt (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be an abyssmal failure of the principle that titles should be something people would search for. No one's going to search with the slash. And the redirects don't excuse that. And we shouldn't use slashes unless they're necessary, which this isn't. Well meaning, but unworkable. oknazevad (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • One of main advantages of H0 as I see it is that it may pronounced as "aitch oh", "aitch zero", "half zero", "half zero scale", as one may prefer, whereas the other possibilities do not allow it. walk victor falk talk 16:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen any proof that it's called "half-zero" in English. oknazevad (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
All of those are quoting it as an explanation of the etymology of the term; none of them are actually using "half zero" as it's actually name. oknazevad (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Except for the first link which I included because it is interesting, all make clear "half zero" is still in use, especially in the UK. That is made clear by basically every second link in the google search. walk victor falk talk 16:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a verbal encyclopedia. It does not matter how people pronounce the title, since other articles like 90210 are commonly spoken as Nine-Oh-Two-One-Oh, but there is no debate on how it is spelled. walk victor falk talk just above myself gave plenty of information and citings of others who agree that while they may pronounce it with an "Oh", they understand that the designation came from being Half the size of Zero scale, or Half Zero, shortened to H0. Unitepunx (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The issue really has little to do with the pronunciation. HO is used officially in a number of countries that arguably represent a larger basis than H0. The main debate seems to be on whether Wikipedia should be etymologically and/or technically correct by using H0, or use the most common name per Wikipedia policy.
The technical argument is easily refuted. Wikipedia's policies aren't guidelines - they're intended to be followed unless there's a significantly compelling reason not to. Thus far the argument of 'but H0 is the technically correct term' is no different to the argument 'but Canis lupus familiaris is the technically correct term', yet nevertheless our article on that topic is located at the common name Dog. This leaves the argument as one of actual use - which is more commonly used, HO or H0? In the absence of compelling reasons to disregard Wikipedia's policies, this is the only argument that would justify retaining the H0 name.
I note that the article originally started as HO, and I skimmed prior discussions and didn't see a consensus to change it to H0. The correct procedure here per WP:BRD would be to revert the rename to HO and then discuss why it should be changed here, not the way it's been done so far. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it should be H0, because it isn't extinct and (bonus!) H0 can still be read as H "oh" by those who do. HO on the other hand is not yet accepted over the whole English speaking world population and can't be read as H "zero". It should NOT be HO, because it hasn't changed yet over the whole community. So hold your horses on HO until H0 isn't used anymore by English speaking train model fans.195.169.227.2 (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, pronunciation is largely irrelevant. Suggesting that the entire community must adopt HO before it can be used here is also false - Wikipedia's standards require it to be the most commonly used, not absolutely used. HO isn't a mere misunderstanding, it is the official usage in a number of countries. The origin of the term is certainly important, but the most common usage is more important, hence why it's enshrined in Wikipedia policy. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Who said anything about the whole community? It is sufficient that part of the community use it for HO or H0 (and as I have discovered in this discussion also "Half zero" and "Half oh") for it to be a wp:commonname (not quite the same as "the most common name", "the most used name", or "the name used by the biggest number of people"), like "maize" or "corn" is a common name for zea mays. Then considerations like precision, commonality, educational value, etc take hold. walk victor falk talk 16:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That is not what WP:COMMONNAME says. Mangoe (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Zero? Oh? what does wp:commonname say then? walk victor falk talk 22:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you click on it, and read it for yourself? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." [emphasis mine] TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes like, er, Myosotis alpestris. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
No, not like Myosotis alpestris which is an exception to WP:COMMONNAME because it is an article about a plant, and plants are an exception for a number of reasons clearly explained at WP:FLORA, none of which apply to this article, and among which is that the scientific name for the plant often is more commonly used in reliable sources than is the household name. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah so WP:COMMONNAME doesn't trump all! Touché!!! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Nothing trumps all in Wikipedia. But there has to be a good reason to make an exception to a fundamental naming principle listed in policy. Otherwise, anything can be rationalized per WP:JDLI. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said it was immutable, particularly given that almost everything in Wikipedia can change with consensus. From the same policy:

Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names[...] (emphasis mine)

Exceptions can be made to the policy, provided there are clear benefits outweighing the use of common names. That is really not the case here, and indeed its use in the flora project your linked article belongs to is controversial and comes under perennial debate as well. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Techno. I'm astonished by how many editors seem to believe, "Since there are exceptions to using the most common name, any exceptions for any reason (or no reason) are fine!", which appears to be the "argument" (using the term loosely) here. Like I said, it's really just WP:JDLI. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It has been established that 'both HO and H0 are common names. walk victor falk talk 12:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, it's also been established that HO is the most common name and should be used per WP:COMMONNAME. What aspect of policy is still being challenged here? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Which of the following name for this device is the most common name, "windshield wiper" or "windscreen wiper"? walk victor falk talk 12:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
That article is governed by WP:RETAIN, better known as the "whoever starts the article gets to determine which dialect of English gets used." But there also WP:ENGVAR which would come into play on this, because HO isn't as important in England as it is in the US, and anyway, Brits tend to use HO too. And if WP:RETAIN applies, then HO would be the prevailing name, since it was used first. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

History lesson

Back in the 1910s, when table top railways first became a commercial success, there were various gauges of rail. In descending order, Gauge 3, Gauge 2, Gauge 1 and Gauge 0 (note the number). Gauge 0 has be corrupted over the years to "O Gauge" and uses a ration of 7mm = 1ft (32mm track gauge). Eventually, a smaller scale was invented, at one-half of O gauge. This was known as H0 gauge (Half 0 Gauge, 16.5 mm track gauge). It has become corrupted over the years by the British habit of saying "Oh" instead of "Zero" to represent the numeral "0", and is now known as HO gauge. A related gauge uses 4mm = 1 ft, but 16.5 mm track gauge. It is called 00 gauge (corrupted to OO gauge). So, what you are hearing as HO and OO are in fact H0 and 00. Mjroots (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We've been over this. It's in the article and repeatedly been rehashed in the above discussions. And, as shown "HO" is not incorrect, but in fact the most common name for the scale.
Frankly, I find this post to be arrogant. For you to give us a "lesson" on something that is already well known, which you could have easily seen if you read the page, is unnecessary and condecending. It's not helpful at all. oknazevad (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
HO may be the most common name in the US, but not necessarily in the rest of the world and is not used by the standards organisation covering the country that invented it.
BTW Mjroots is entitled to clarify his arguments; you may not like it, but please refrain from personal criticism. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
People above have done some research and indicated that HO is used officially in USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. In Google Books, HO scale outnumbers H0 scale by roughly 5.6 times. A similar ratio exists in a regular Google search (4.5 times). A cursory survey of manufacturers shows that brands like Marklin and Roco use both H0 or HO depending on circumstance, Fleischmann uses H0 exclusively and brands like Wrenn, Lionel, MTH, Weaver and Williams use HO exclusively.
Even taking into account the systemic bias of the internet, this seems to be fairly clear as to what the dominant usage worldwide is. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a recommended way of establishing WP:COMMONNAME, which in any case is not automatically the decisive factor. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
GOOGLEHITS is an essay, but regardless it does say that "although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". I've used it to establish commonality, not suitability, as the essay suggests is useful. It also expressly notes that results from Google specialty tools like Google Scholar and Google Books (which I used above) are more likely to return reliable sources as results. WP:GOOGLE is a good guide for the search engine test that suggests how search engines can be used usefully, including point 2 (usage) and point 7 (names and terminology) that I've used here. As it says, search engines can "confirm roughly how popularly referenced an expression is".
Common name indeed isn't 'automatically' the deciding factor, but it is a policy and there have been no compelling arguments for why it shouldn't be followed in this case. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HO_scale/Archive_3&oldid=1136782473"