Talk:Model railroad layout

Trains: Transport modelling Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Rail transport modelling task force.

This article lacks references.

Toys Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Toys To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Barbie Queen of the Prom, Eve The Second Genesis CCG, More...
Assess : Rate the Unassessed Toys articles and Unknown-importance Toys articles.
Expand : Expand the doll pages, Expand Larami article
Infobox : Toys articles needing infoboxes
Photo : Request images that are needed from Wikipedia requested photographs of toys to included in each articles.
Stubs : work on stubs in Category:Toy stubs
Other : * Tag the talk pages of Toys-related articles with the {{WikiProject Toys}} banner.
- Help out with articles placed in Category:Toys articles needing attention

On 2 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Model railway layout. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Untitled

OK. i've got this going, lets see what we can do

--Alexander101010 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link in External References: http://nevada-railways.net/page05.html – Model Railroad Track Plans now results in Error 404 Not Found, so I have removed it. Perhaps someone can fix it and restore it. --JFistere (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit Warren definition .... The origin of this goes back to John Armstrong. This type of layout is elevated so that you can walk under the tables. This creates an area under the layout that Armstrong characterized as a "rabbit warren". The definition has NOTHING to do with the track design! See the "Design Handbook of Model Railroads" (1979) by Paul Mallery. Chapter 3, section 3.3 Benchwork Types (diagram E-Rabbit Warren) "Suitable only for rooms with adequate ceiling height is benchwork where the access aisles are interconnected by full headroom passages under the railroad as at E in Figure 9. Suggested as early as 1951, this form of benchwork, called rabbit warren after John Armstrong, has seldom been used even though it places the least restrictions on layout design." Note: Mallery was a member of The Model Railroad Club located in New Jersey, which used the rabbit warren design approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:29FF:1EF0:0:0:0:33 (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC) ... Ken Coulon Jacksonville, TX[reply]

C J Freezer (long time editor of a model railway magazine in UK) refers to 'rabbit warren' layouts as in the text. Murray Langton (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Model railroad layout → Model railway layout – Railway is more global and less US-specific Hexalogical (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:RETAIN. 162 etc. (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RETAIN. IIRC, the historical consensus of the Wikipedia community has been to reject "more globally used" as one of the WP:ENGVAR criteria, precisely because many such topics not tied to a specific country would be moved to American or British English, and result in significantly less articles rendered in South African English, New Zealand English, and other less used varieties of English. For example, if someone from India creates a new article on a generic topic written in Indian English, are you going to tell them that we have to change the page to British English because the Indian English version is not "globally used"? You may be confused with MOS:COMMONALITY, which states that "using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable" (emphasis added). Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.