Talk:Z scale

Scale vers gauge

This article is about Z scale. Z scale covers the normal gauge (6.5 mm) and metric narrow gauge (4.5 mm) in 1:220. Using the word gauge instead of word scale is utterly confusing in this context.
Z220info 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about the 1972 date of "Z"

Garylcamp (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Garylcamp (talk) I was stationed in Stutgart Germany in mid 1968 to end of 1969. These "Z" trains were commen in the stores during this stay. I wanted to buy them as they were cheap (1$/engine 0.25$/car) and cute but GI pay was minuscule. The point here is that they were on the market in Germany in at least 1969 and possibly 68 and not 1972 release date as mentioned. If they were released to the rest of the world then it should be thus stated.

• They may not have been true Z scale, but some other miniature trains. --Janke | Talk 07:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• I very much doubt your findings since no German source supports the availability of z scale before 1972. In late 60s Märklin was experimenting with N scale products, which were never offered commercially. Instead, they started to develop a completely new model railway scale 1:220. Prior to 1972 there may have been some prototypes of z-scale products, but seeing them publicly in stores 3-4 years earlier sounds a bit unbelievable. - Z220info (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

dead link

In references, "Photo, 2001 NTS Best of Show"

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit

GB Fan **do not** remove content which you have no right to do, Wiki is about sharing information, not petty interference.DesmondW (talk)

Anyone can remove unsourced material. It is the responsibility of those adding material to source it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarieses verifiable information has been previously published in reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I think you were a bit harsh, here. All the info you removed is correct - if you own any of Märklin's Z-scale equipment, you would know... (I own 4 locos + a lot of other stuff.) --Janke | Talk 21:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's still unsourced. I shouldn't have to own the equipment to know it's correct. I should be able to verify it with a source. That's the point. oknazevad (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing harsh about stating that unsourced information does not belong in the article. If anyone was harsh it was DesmondW telling me I had no right to remove unsourced content and that what I was doing was petty interference. ~ GB fan 21:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

OknazevadCan't you read? You are being very petty DesmondW (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If every single statement in Wikipedia would need to be referenced, the list of refs would be longer than the article... Referring to the manufacturer's catalog is enough in a case like this, IMO. (I do have several of the catalogs myself...) --Janke | Talk 05:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to question Wikipedia policy on Verifiability or to try to justify circumventing it. If information is correct to include it will be readily sourced in the appropriate manner. There is no shortage of space for references.SovalValtos (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No one said that every single sentence in Wikipedia needs a reference. No one has even said that every single sentence in this article needs a reference. We are talking about 6 sentences that were added without adding any kind of reference at all. When something is finally added all it says is "Märklin product catalog". There is probably a good chance that most of the information is in the catalog but I don't believe the catalog would verify the first two sentences, "All small scales have problems with locomotive traction. Larger scales, such as N and H0, often use rubber traction tyres to improve grip, but the very small size of Z wheels makes this difficult." ~ GB fan 09:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

GB fan" I don't believe the catalog would verify the first two sentences" is easily verifiable by the catalogue as it specifically states the number of traction tyres. The implication that traction is a problem is easily inferred, not every reference need be specific.
I have given a valid references and am sick of meddlers who patrol edits looking for reversions. If you don't know better leave it alone. DesmondW (talk)

DesmondW, Implications are specifically not allowed. Every reference needs to be specifically support the material in the article. You might want to read Wikipedia:No original research. I don't patrol edits looking to revert content. ~ GB fan 17:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I really don't care participating in a discussion between inclusionists [[1]] and exclusionists [[2]], but as my final comment as a model railroader in both Z and H0, I know that all the added info was correct - even the sentence quoted above. Quoting Jimmy Wales: Deletions and deletionism goes against the entire basic premise of Wikipedia: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. --Janke | Talk 12:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm an inclusionist. But I also believe in the core policy of verifiability. It's what keeps this place from becoming a joke of vanity nonsense and fakery. This isn't asking for a reference that the sky is blue, but it's also not as complicated as a medical journal. Valid common knowledge should be trivial to source. oknazevad (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know who you are classifying as an inclusionist or exclusionist. I do believe when people start throwing labels around like that they really don't want to discuss anything at all. They think their opinion is right and any other opinion is wrong. My point in this whole conversation is not to exclude any information, it is to provide reliably sourced information for the article to make it more informative for the reader. ~ GB fan 13:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)