Talk:Miniature model (gaming)

message: Different uses of figures have different scaling conventions, but it's very much not the case that all measure to the top of the head.  In particular, the 25/28/32mm (and probably 30mm) figures generally measure to the eyes, not the top of the head.  So a 28mm figure is closer to 1/56, not the listed 1/64.  (And depending on how heroically proportioned, 1/50 might be better).
Which means this article is actively wrong for a purpose many people might reference it, and that should probably be fixed.
(As a historical matter, I believe Chainmail used 25mm figures, and beget D+D, which certainly used 25mm figures as their officially licensed size in the 80s.  Games Workshop started as a D+D miniature producer before creating Warhammer, and initially used the 25mm size.  They popularized 'heroic' proportions, and then later 28mm size (if they didn't outright originate it) as their scale creeped upward (and later popularized if not originated 32mm).  GW explicitly measures to the eyes, and many, if not most, modern miniatures in these sizes followed GW in how they scaled their miniatures.)
--2600:1702:1CA0:9680:1DF8:9157:C3F1:4601 (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Scale concerns

message: I have concerns about the line which read "due to the (unfounded) concerns about the safety of lead" and replaced it with "due to concerns about lead poisoning." I am extremely interested in why the original author said "unfounded" though--what safety measures, if any, do hobbyists take? Is there reason to believe that a good undercoat, a couple of layers of paint, and a sealant provide adequate protection? If some hobbyists believe that, I think it belongs in the article. But this is speculation on my part--I'm not a miniatures hobbyist, and I most definitely am not a doctor or someone else qualified to talk about lead poisoning. Dave Farquhar 14:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, although it did say *arguably*. And their case can most certainly be argued... Mathmo 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it says arguably, but who's arguing this? This qualifies as weasel words to avoid. It should be removed. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead poisoning

message: I'm concerned about the text reading - "Arguably the best sculptors the wargames industry has ever known." about Alan and Michael Perry. While I myself am a big fan of their sculpting, the statement seems overblown and out of place in this context, and has little to back it up. jaq 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, although it did say *arguably*. And their case can most certainly be argued... Mathmo 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it says arguably, but who's arguing this? This qualifies as weasel words to avoid. It should be removed. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perry Twins

message: I'm a roleplayer myself, but I have say: It's incredibly bizarre that this entry's lede only defines miniatures in regards to roleplaying.  Gaming-scale miniatures originated in wargaming, and the two hobbies (wargaming and miniature collecting) are still strongly connected.  This entry gives such short shrift to wargaming, it's almost roleplaying-chauvinism!
This entry needs some balance, and some better historical context. As it stands now, I'd be embarassed to show this entry to my wargamer friends. Michael Bauser 01:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Backwards History

message: WH40K related articles are going to be open to soapbox attempts (WP:SOAP) due to the commercial nature of modelling.  I've recently noted the Dark Angels conversion picture :Image:Dark_angel_captain.jpg used on 3 pages by the author and I think we should be wary of advertising.  Why should a 40K model represent "miniature gaming" and why should a private coversion be used in a 40K section? I realise it is a thin line and 1 model or company may well be used as imagery (and it is a nice image) but why one over another and why not more representative images?  Being posted by the painter is fairly blatant too.
Geordie michael 10:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have already said on the other talk pages, the original uploader only added it to here, and I was the editor who added it to the other two pages. I don't really see a problem with the other two articles, and I'm going to assume good faith with the editor who originally put the image here, but I would think it better to replace it with a "more representative" image, if you can find one that has been freely released.  --Grimhelm 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being posted by the painter makes it pretty clear that the image is properly licensed as free. I'd be willing to post an image of one of the fantasy minis I've painted, if that would help ease concerns that WH40K is getting undue exposure in the article. -- Kesh 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is of equal quality, then please, go ahead. What fantasy range is it from, by the way?  --Grimhelm 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a Beholder from the old TSR minis line, and a skeletal minotaur from Wizard's "Chainmail" D&D line I could use. -- Kesh 23:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think leaving this image up in the 40K modelling section and changing it here and in the WH40K online community sections (in time, with more suitable images) would be a fair compromise.  It would be nice to see an image of a historical gaming miniature here, given they are mentioned in this article/ and section. Look forward to the two proposals by Kesh. Geordie michael 09:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: Surely this is more like 1:900? At the stated 1:600, a 2mm tall model would correspond to a rather dwarfish 1.2m in real life!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.12.78 (talk) 19:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
:: 2 mm = 1/888 --Mrg3105 11:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2mm scale 

message: This comment could form the basis of an article in its own right; I wouldn't know where to look for verification though.
Michael.j.lacey (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scales 

message: I changed the wording in the scales section to note the 28mm's connection to 1:64 (when measured to top of head).
I haven't been involved with this page over time, so I'll just limit myself to the following proposals, and let the old timers yea or nay them.
Split the 25/28s - I suggest that 28mm figures be split off from 25s and given their own row in the SCALES table. "True" 25s don't seem to be made much these days, and many people seem to have stopped referring to "large" or "heroic" 25s, and simply call the big figures 28 mm. Might as well acknowledge the new order of things.
Significant digits - In science and engineering the concept of significant digits is important to accurate measurement. You can't come up with meaningful answers in ten-thousandths when your input data was rounded to tenths, or when your equipment can't measure better than hundredths. In the final answer, the excess places to the right of the decimal are meaningless and should be dropped, because they convey a sense of precision which in fact is false.
Measurements of gaming figures are absurdly imprecise - no one agrees whether the measurement is to the top of the head or to the eyes, whether to include bases, or boot-heels or bouffant hairdos, or whether the figure is to represent an idealized six-foot man or the average modern 5'10" Euro-dude  or the average  5'4" half-starved peasant of the historical period, etc. etc. So working out scale ratios (in the SCALES table) to thousandths not only violates the significant digits principle, but seems, well, a bit laughable. I propose you drop everything to the right of the decimal point. "1:52.251" just goes to the idealized 1:52. "1:121.92" rounds to the conventionalized 1:120. Likewise, round to the nearest half-mm when figuring the size of a scale foot. Mention somewhere that the ratios and feet are approximate and conventionalized.
54 mm listing notes - 54 mm used to be a standard size for dime-store plastic Army men, but in the era of the Dollar Store, my impression is that the baggie-figures are shrinking as manufacturers fudge down plastic soldiers and cowboys smaller and smaller to save material. You may want to check out the theory first, but a correction of the note might be in order.
Thanks for all the work that has been put into this page.
D.Helber (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  25/28 mm and other scale issues 

message: I removed the "notable" list from the article for one very simple reason: establishing who is "notable" is an impossible proposition.  It can only ever be POV.  Other articles which had similar lists are also removing them for the same reason.  Please do not re-instate it without discussion here first. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, wikipedia has many lists in it such as List of unit testing frameworks or List of cars manufactured in Argentina that are not POV. What I would have liked to have seen was the removal of the word "Notable" (because as you mentions this makes it a POV) and move the list onto a separate page so that it does not interfere with the main article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.227.193 (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable list

message: :Miniature model (gaming) →  – Obviously this article is about wargaming, I think we should rename it so that the word in parentheses says "wargaming" instead of "gaming". 2600:1700:1960:F100:AD53:CAC0:D213:C644 (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 June 2024