Talk:O scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
	This page is within the scope of the Rail transport modelling task force.

April 26, 2007

In the section "O in the United States", there is a discussion of Kris Model Trains (KMT). Kris Model Trains, Inc. was the operation of Andrew Kriswalus, 121 Smithfield Drive (P.O. Box 754), Endicott, NY 13760, phone 607-748-7613. Please correct the spelling of "Kriswalus" in your encyclopedia. Note: members of his family still live at this address.

In addition to the high impact styrene box cars, stock cars, and reefers made in O Scale from the Kusan Model Trains dies, Andy Kriswalus made replacement frames for Lionel standard gauge and O gauge locos, and he sold repainted Gilbert S gauge cars in many railroads' designs.

Thank you, Marshall Reed 76.195.37.26 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC) m.j.reed@sbcglobal.net

[edit] Naming Conventions (zero or Oh)

This page has a title of O scale whereas throughout the article the terminology is correctly noted as 0 (zero) gauge. The reason that the digit used for this naming convention is the number zero, not the letter O, is that Gauge 0 is the lower progression from the older-established Gauges of 3, 2 and 1. What I propose is to change the title for this page to 0 gauge and redirect the following to it - O gauge, O scale and 0 scale. Adrianmc 07:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I must object to this redirect since O gauge is overwhelmingly more popular in the US than in the UK, and therein it's universally known as just that, "O gauge". Again, this is an encyclopedia of the now, not an encyclopedia of the historical. As pointed out in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country". While the "O vs 0" variation is not national variation in the sense implied by the guideline, it is relatively polarized along geographical divisions, meaning you don't see US or German hobbyists calling their layout "H0" instead of "HO". The opposite is not true, however, and the O-based notation appears to be present even in the UK, at least if we are to believe the online catalogs and materials of UK-based model railroad manufacturers such as Peco and Dapol. --Agamemnon2 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• To be fair, I seem to be confused with the continental European notation, who indeed are using the 0. Chalk it down to my reading too many American model railroad magazines. The case for O, however, stands. Since we're writing in English, we should be using either the American or the British standard of model railroad scale notation. And in the absence of any other qualifier, the American notation should triumph by sheer weight of numbers. --Agamemnon2 11:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My experience is that the vast majority of usage among English speakers is the letter 'O', rather than the numeral '0', when referring to anything remotely recent. If the article is about the gauge's historical origins, the '0' may be used, and it appears to be used extensively in Europe. However, common English usage should win out. I don't believe there is much disagreement between English-speaking nations, either - I know British usage favors the letter as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that O seems to be always used in the UK and on any US based websites I've looked at. There should probably be a note somewhere about the origin of the name coming from the number from the "lower progression from the older-established Gauges of 3, 2 and 1" but this is historical. Also the fact that it is called 0 in the NEM standard should be mentioned. --Zabdiel 09:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)