This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scale model article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moved the history lower it is longwinded and hard to read. There are thumbnail pics for most topics now. Fourdee 02:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The model ships and naval wargaming original article section had a variety of statements which are questionable, or at least obscure. I have attempted to clarify them as much as possible, including -
more accurate discussion of 1:1200 vs 1;1250 scale,
further discussion of role of 1:1200 scale models in postwar development of naval gaming,
correcting the scale of the models used by Fletcher Pratt,
correctly attributing 1:570 scale to Revell, not Monogram as listed,
introducing mention of resin kits,
correcting the rather limited and somewhat incorrect discussion of model scales and standardization.
Brooksindy 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Split-off this massive table to make the article more readable. If someone wants to create a small sample of examples for this main article, great, but I don't know enough to know which are notable enough to be examples. Staxringold 19:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who did it, but whoever moved "model kit" into this entry needs a swift kick in the @@@.
I looked up "model kit" HOPING to to find out how they originated - so much for THAT.
99.149.120.206 ( talk) 11:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Scale models are (or have been) almost essential for certain engineering projects. This article could use a lot more info on that subject. 84.197.185.2 ( talk) 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
~~~~
), which automatically adds your sig and timestamp to the post, like this: — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
20:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC) [Update 20:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC). Forgot to mention one more tip: your
Watchlist tracks changes to pages you care about, just use the star tab above the page to add the current page to it.]The structure of this article is a mess and needs reworking: it does not start with the most basic thing: the different types (purposes) of models. This causes it to immediately start floundering around similitude requirements, etc. It ignores the primary fact that models are built for different purposes; demonstration models are only intended for visualization (static display) purposes, and therefore have no requirements for "similitude" (e.g. Reynolds number), which are only required for engineering test or design models.
A static display model of, say an airplane, is intended (for hobby or toy purposes) simply to represent the visual appearance of the plane;. The next type would be a flying model, which is a deeper level of hobby or toy. The third type is an engineering model, which in this example would be used in design of a real plane for such things as wind tunnel testing to determine lift and drag coefficients. A fourth type of model popular nowadays is used in miniature wargaming. The similitude jazz of course applies only to type 3. I really feel the article should start with a section presenting these types. Then the "requirements" section would follow this, and refer mainly to the engineering models.
One stumbling block to this is lack of authoritative, reliable sources to document names used for the different types of models; absent these, some might cry "original research". I can only make educated guesses at what the different types are "officially" called. JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Trees seem to be ubiquitous accessories for model train kits, but I have seen some pictures of scale models where dozens of trees were done individually, to amazing effect. I would imagine sources could be found to support a section. BD2412 T 05:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scale model article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moved the history lower it is longwinded and hard to read. There are thumbnail pics for most topics now. Fourdee 02:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The model ships and naval wargaming original article section had a variety of statements which are questionable, or at least obscure. I have attempted to clarify them as much as possible, including -
more accurate discussion of 1:1200 vs 1;1250 scale,
further discussion of role of 1:1200 scale models in postwar development of naval gaming,
correcting the scale of the models used by Fletcher Pratt,
correctly attributing 1:570 scale to Revell, not Monogram as listed,
introducing mention of resin kits,
correcting the rather limited and somewhat incorrect discussion of model scales and standardization.
Brooksindy 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Split-off this massive table to make the article more readable. If someone wants to create a small sample of examples for this main article, great, but I don't know enough to know which are notable enough to be examples. Staxringold 19:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who did it, but whoever moved "model kit" into this entry needs a swift kick in the @@@.
I looked up "model kit" HOPING to to find out how they originated - so much for THAT.
99.149.120.206 ( talk) 11:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Scale models are (or have been) almost essential for certain engineering projects. This article could use a lot more info on that subject. 84.197.185.2 ( talk) 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
~~~~
), which automatically adds your sig and timestamp to the post, like this: — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
20:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC) [Update 20:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC). Forgot to mention one more tip: your
Watchlist tracks changes to pages you care about, just use the star tab above the page to add the current page to it.]The structure of this article is a mess and needs reworking: it does not start with the most basic thing: the different types (purposes) of models. This causes it to immediately start floundering around similitude requirements, etc. It ignores the primary fact that models are built for different purposes; demonstration models are only intended for visualization (static display) purposes, and therefore have no requirements for "similitude" (e.g. Reynolds number), which are only required for engineering test or design models.
A static display model of, say an airplane, is intended (for hobby or toy purposes) simply to represent the visual appearance of the plane;. The next type would be a flying model, which is a deeper level of hobby or toy. The third type is an engineering model, which in this example would be used in design of a real plane for such things as wind tunnel testing to determine lift and drag coefficients. A fourth type of model popular nowadays is used in miniature wargaming. The similitude jazz of course applies only to type 3. I really feel the article should start with a section presenting these types. Then the "requirements" section would follow this, and refer mainly to the engineering models.
One stumbling block to this is lack of authoritative, reliable sources to document names used for the different types of models; absent these, some might cry "original research". I can only make educated guesses at what the different types are "officially" called. JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Trees seem to be ubiquitous accessories for model train kits, but I have seen some pictures of scale models where dozens of trees were done individually, to amazing effect. I would imagine sources could be found to support a section. BD2412 T 05:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)