Talk:V scale (model railroading)

Move back proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived 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 moved. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

V scale (railroad model) → V scale (model railroading) – There was no reason to move the page, and no discussion took place. An editor just took it upon themselves for the supposed "good of Wikipedia" to decide what was "right" for the page, which isn't right at all. At least have a discussion about it! 98.253.4.40 (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, keep title V scale (railroad model) withdrawn, see Deor below. I did the contested move. The main argument mentioned by IP is that it was not discussed. But discussion is not a fatal requirment for a move (or for almost any edit). Indeed I did it for the "good of Wikipedia": that is what we are here for. If there are reasons to doubt my good faith, please state them.
 * A secondary argument is that there "was no reason to move the page". Actually I did mention my motive in the editsummary . I will expand on this. clearly the title V scale needs to be disambiguated. The disambiguation term was "(model railroading)", which has a conjugated verb. My title made that verb unneeded. Following WP:NATURALDIS about how to add such a disambiguation term in brackets, the more simple form is preferred. That is why I moved the page. There even could be a better disambiguation term, but that is not proposed by IP. -DePiep (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support V scale is not simply "a" railroad model - it is a clearly defined scale that encompasses all of "model railroading", obviously something DePiep knows little of or about or he wouldn't have moved the page. Therefore you cannot classify a known model railroad scale as simply a "railroad model".  That term implies a "static" model (no moving parts).  V scale is anything but.  It is not limited by physical space, so it can be expanded infinitely.  English be dammed, the title was there for months and nobody said a word!  204.8.10.99 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The addition does not say it is "a" model. Just that its topic is the railway model. This addition does not have to describe the title, it only has to disambiguate because there is another same title. That is why it can be more simple than an exact elaborate description. (The link I gave has the example for this: "Queen (band)", not "Queen (rock band)"). Also, a noun is more simple than a conjugated verb. And is the verb "to railroad" itself clear enough? Maybe I do not know the V scale thing enough, but I do know about disambiguation. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "A" is implied with "railroad model", whereas "model railroading" is inferred to be all encompassing of the hobby. That's the difference in the terminology, and I feel it was well disambiguated with the former.  There was no need to change it.  98.253.4.40 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. The gerund form (either "model railroading" or the UK equivalent "railway modelling") is a much more natural and idiomatic disambiguator, since it corresponds to the generally used name of the hobby—as used in the first sentence of Rail transport modelling, for instance. (And a gerund is a noun, not a finite ["conjugated"] verb form.) Deor (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I rest my case. You clarified the verb thing better, thanx, and I learned that in US parlance "railroading" is common usage (I am used to "modelling"). -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, per nom, Deor, et al. The gerund "model railroading" seems the more natural and common form.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  00:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Sometimes what is for the good of Wikipedia isn't for the good of the article.  Such is the case here.  There is no reason (outside of using "proper" English) for renaming the page.  Perfect English isn't possible in all cases.  Again, such is the case here, and if the opposer had a better grasp of the language perhaps they would see how they erred.  208.38.233.4 (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2013 (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.