![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 02:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The article uses the zero character throughout, but the title uses the letter O. The external links point to one site that is called "Double [letter] O Gauge Association" and a site about the history of "Double [number] 0". Google turns up more pages referring to the letter. I know nothing about model railroads, but I would like to get this article consistent in the most common use of the term. Anyone know? - grubber 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
grubber: The original and correct notation is 00, which like the 0 and H0 (half-0) standards are progressions from the older 3, 2 and 1 gauge standards. OO, O and HO should still be present as redirects since they are widely used. But they are not the correct notations so they don't deserve to override the 0 notations as titles in an encyclopedia, even if there are more people who think the name is O and write that than there are people who write 0. I have corrected the article to use 0 notation, keeping it consistent with the 0 scale article. And I believe this article should be moved to the name 00 gauge, with 00 scale, OO gauge and OO scale as redirects. See also Talk:O_scale WinTakeAll ( talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not gonna touch this article, since I'm American and OO is primarily a British phenomenon, however it should be noted that the "correct" usage in North America is indeed OO, as defined by the NMRA (see: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-1_2.pdf). You guys do with it what you will... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.45.10 ( talk) 10:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the the introduction focuses too much on EM and P4. A brief comparison is usefull but more than half the introduction covers this. Maybe this could be moved into a new section?
Zabdiel 09:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi All
The letter Oh in scale/gauge ratio naming conventions should not be used. The correct character to be used in all of this is the numeric zero.
This is from the historic fact that when the Gauges 3, 2 and 1 were prevalent before the second world war and a smaller one was introduced they used the progressively smaller number of 0 (zero) as in Gauge 0. When the scale and gauge was halved for the new table top railway (literally half Gauge 0) the term H0 was used. The second character being a zero.
The confusion has set in with the pronounciation of this zero as Oh as in reciting a telephone number in the UK.
The situation has not been helped in that Hornby-Dublo was used as a brand name for a 00 range of models.
All naming conventions should reflect this use of the number zero.
Examples used in the UK market are as follows: 0 gauge, 0n16.5 gauge, 0n14 gauge, 0n9 gauge, 00 gauge, 00n9 gauge, H0 gauge, H0n9 gauge and 000 gauge. Other ratios of course are G, S, P4, EM, P87, TT, N and Z which are not affected by this.
The use of the term 'scale' is rarely used in the UK. The most popular UK model railway magazine and longest in print Railway Modeller, along with its sister magazine Continental Modeller, use the above terms correctly when describing a particular scale/gauge ratio which can trace its origin back to Gauge 0.
Thus all naming conventions within Wikipedia should in this context change to use the number zero instead of the letter Oh. Adrianmc 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As such, I am going to restore my edits within to OO, as it matches the title. If a move discussion is opened and decides on the 00 title, then I'll personally change all uses to that. But until then, the title and text should match. oknazevad ( talk) 02:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added the {{fact}} template where I think citations need to be added. --09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a paragraph on how the name is said in the various countries. I can't write it, I can only contribute that In the US, I usually hear it said "Double-O". Do British modelers say the same or is it "Ought-Ought" or "O-O" or something else? What is it generally called in Germany, and other countries that use the numeral 0 instead of the letter O? It would help people keep from making an embarrassing mistake if they want to discuss OO with other modelers. 70.112.248.254 ( talk) 01:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 02:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The article uses the zero character throughout, but the title uses the letter O. The external links point to one site that is called "Double [letter] O Gauge Association" and a site about the history of "Double [number] 0". Google turns up more pages referring to the letter. I know nothing about model railroads, but I would like to get this article consistent in the most common use of the term. Anyone know? - grubber 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
grubber: The original and correct notation is 00, which like the 0 and H0 (half-0) standards are progressions from the older 3, 2 and 1 gauge standards. OO, O and HO should still be present as redirects since they are widely used. But they are not the correct notations so they don't deserve to override the 0 notations as titles in an encyclopedia, even if there are more people who think the name is O and write that than there are people who write 0. I have corrected the article to use 0 notation, keeping it consistent with the 0 scale article. And I believe this article should be moved to the name 00 gauge, with 00 scale, OO gauge and OO scale as redirects. See also Talk:O_scale WinTakeAll ( talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not gonna touch this article, since I'm American and OO is primarily a British phenomenon, however it should be noted that the "correct" usage in North America is indeed OO, as defined by the NMRA (see: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-1_2.pdf). You guys do with it what you will... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.45.10 ( talk) 10:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the the introduction focuses too much on EM and P4. A brief comparison is usefull but more than half the introduction covers this. Maybe this could be moved into a new section?
Zabdiel 09:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi All
The letter Oh in scale/gauge ratio naming conventions should not be used. The correct character to be used in all of this is the numeric zero.
This is from the historic fact that when the Gauges 3, 2 and 1 were prevalent before the second world war and a smaller one was introduced they used the progressively smaller number of 0 (zero) as in Gauge 0. When the scale and gauge was halved for the new table top railway (literally half Gauge 0) the term H0 was used. The second character being a zero.
The confusion has set in with the pronounciation of this zero as Oh as in reciting a telephone number in the UK.
The situation has not been helped in that Hornby-Dublo was used as a brand name for a 00 range of models.
All naming conventions should reflect this use of the number zero.
Examples used in the UK market are as follows: 0 gauge, 0n16.5 gauge, 0n14 gauge, 0n9 gauge, 00 gauge, 00n9 gauge, H0 gauge, H0n9 gauge and 000 gauge. Other ratios of course are G, S, P4, EM, P87, TT, N and Z which are not affected by this.
The use of the term 'scale' is rarely used in the UK. The most popular UK model railway magazine and longest in print Railway Modeller, along with its sister magazine Continental Modeller, use the above terms correctly when describing a particular scale/gauge ratio which can trace its origin back to Gauge 0.
Thus all naming conventions within Wikipedia should in this context change to use the number zero instead of the letter Oh. Adrianmc 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As such, I am going to restore my edits within to OO, as it matches the title. If a move discussion is opened and decides on the 00 title, then I'll personally change all uses to that. But until then, the title and text should match. oknazevad ( talk) 02:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added the {{fact}} template where I think citations need to be added. --09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a paragraph on how the name is said in the various countries. I can't write it, I can only contribute that In the US, I usually hear it said "Double-O". Do British modelers say the same or is it "Ought-Ought" or "O-O" or something else? What is it generally called in Germany, and other countries that use the numeral 0 instead of the letter O? It would help people keep from making an embarrassing mistake if they want to discuss OO with other modelers. 70.112.248.254 ( talk) 01:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)