Talk:G scale

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

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 sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Untitled

This article is confusing, misleading, I think mistaken, and seems to show bias. Seriously, I don't need a lecture on the puritanical. I don't need to hear about all of the misnomers in sacrifice of the facts. This article fails to answer the question it is titled for, "What is G-Scale?". Gauge 1? No - that is not G-scale! What is G-Scale?

Maybe someone with more expertise than I can answer the question, "What is G-scale", and leave the "what g-scale is not" to caveats after the fact.

And it is important. The subject of G-scale alone represent close to 100 million in Mag circulation and product in the US - much less the UK.

I was here looking for historical fact, current fact and reference. I got none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.128.75 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about indoor use?

Why does this article make no mention at all of the fact that G-gauge track is also used indoors with trains run against the wall near ceiling height? Is it because no one does that in the UK? (I smell a British-centric bias in the model rail articles.) JustinTime55 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article's omission of "trains around the ceiling" may just be an oversight (unlikely, I think, a deliberate one). But it may also be because trains-around-the-ceiling is something you can do with any scale, and therefore not a particularly defining trait of G. See, for example, ceilingtrainkit.com: "...run G Large Scale, Standard, O, On30, HO trains." Or this (UK!) Pinterest board with photos of trains-around-the-ceiling in various scales. Even Lego fans do it. Unless there's a reliable source out there saying that most trains-around-the-ceiling are G scale, I think we need not include this in the first sentence. PRRfan (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, was expanded to 10 entries, which is excessive. Three seems to be an acceptable number, and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a fourth. Consensus needs to determine this. A tag indicates concerns.

However, none is needed for article promotion.

Some links may be included in WP:ELNO, or What Wikipedia is not (policy) such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY or WP:NOTGUIDE.

WP:ELDEAD may apply.
In some cases ELCITE applies: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. Others, listed below:
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.

The External links guideline This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

- Please also note:
WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. Please do not add back more links without consensus. Simple solution to facilitate career maintenance tag. Move links here for discussion.

Moved links:

Article title

The current title is ambiguous. It would make more sense to rename G scale model trains. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the term "G gauge" unambiguously refers to the subject of this article and is more WP:CONCISE. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]