Talk:Miniature conversion

Games Workshop Spelling

The comment from the talk page of the previous old article Bitz I think is useful to remember:

"Long before Games Workshop tried to claim the ownership of an entire hobby 'bitz' were known by modelers more simply as 'bits'." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.240.58 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 December 2005

Mathmo 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Games Workshop tried to claim ownership of an entire hobby goes a bit far, but I have added the alternative spelling to the article. Grimhelm 17:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bitz is also some people's last name, German of origin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.10.65 (talk • contribs)

It is also a municipality of Zollernalbkreis. There should be a disambiguation page. Grimhelm 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the focus on GW?

This article is far too Games Workshop centric, minitaures from other manufacturers are converted too you know!

Added the "neutrality" warning box. The present article reads more like GW promotional material than an encyclopaedic entry.

I disagree with your assessment of the article's tone. Its focus is due to GW wargames being immensely more popular than those of other manufacturers. This is a problem, but the current version is in no way an advertisement for GW. --Agamemnon2 13:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. Yes, it's currently very GW-centric, but that's because GW and Wikipedia have similar target audiences (excitable twelve-year-olds). I'm sure it'll get better over time. Chris Cunningham 10:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

the second paragraph in particular is far too GW centric as it refers to several of their systems and finshes with 'along with other GW games' or words to that affect with no mention of anyother manufacturers. I feel some of the examples should be replaced with different examples as the practice is considerably older than GW. I personally think it should have references to Britons and Prince August as they're much older and used to be popular for conversions.(Morcus (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

I definitely agree that the article is too focused on GW and GW products. As is, it almost seems like it could be some not-quite-finished article straight out of White Dwarf. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah, that is a good way to put it. something straight out of WD this could have been. I suspect it just started down this path, and it then attracted more editing of that sort because it already looked like this and went further and further along... Mathmo ^Talk 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did a bit of quick two second google searching for references to use a starting point towards a more balanced perspective and here are a few: http://www.paintingclinic.com/clinic/converting.htm http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=110&art_id=412&kb_cat_id=25 http://theminiaturespage.com/workbench/ http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=110&kb_cat_id=25 etc... Mathmo ^Talk 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability?

I don't see any sources that establish this as a notable term or practice. Most claims appear to be unverified or Original Research. Could someone provide me with reason to believe that such sources exist in reputable sources that are independent of commercial entities? Lots of things are customized, that doesn't mean they modification/conversion of that thing deserves it's own article... -Verdatum (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

sure it is notable, there are entire categories devoted to this at competitions and conventions. Is a common focus in magazines etc, and workshops are ran on this. In my mind there is no doubt about this. Mathmo ^Talk 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Though reading the article there is a terrible unbalanced focus towards GW, as has been noted on this talk page. The concept itself is fine for an article, it just needs more added in to help balance against the GW stuff (though not surprising really about the unbalance, as it is a very short article. The shorter an article the more likely it is to be unbalanced). Mathmo ^Talk 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(Note to self, GW ::= Games Workshop, not Gundam Wing, hehe). Again, the content as is looks like Original Research, and I fail to see it as something that needs to be a separate topic from Miniature figure (gaming), so I've proposed such a merge. The merge should be discussed here. -Verdatum (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no modeler, but I know that this is a very common idea, and by no means limited to gaming. (In fact, I would expect more outside gaming than inside.) Again, I'm no modeler, but I'm pretty sure there's all sorts of 'how-to' books on detailing and modifying. Really, I'd think right now this article is crippled by it's miniatures/GW focus, which is limiting it out of the bulk of the subject. If there isn't already something on the general subject over in the modeling section (which I haven't really looked at, but I seem to remember noting is really underdeveloped), there should be, and then miniatures wargaming can discuss it as to how the concept specifically pertains there, or if needed, give full treatment here. But my guess is that this is going to need work on a pure modeling hobby viewpoint first. --Rindis (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is notable in itself--as Mathmo noted, when you have magazines (e.g. No Quarter and White Dwarf) and Websites (e.g. Reaper's craft pages and BrushThralls) that dedicate articles to the subject, it's obviously notable enough. I'd also argue that many of the techniques are unique enough to miniature hobbying (as opposed to model cars or trains) that it should remain its own thing. As for the GW focus, yes it's unbalanced, but that requires adding in mentions to other miniature companies like Reaper and Privateer Press (not to mention many, many others), not dismissing the entire article. (When I have time, I'll work on that myself if I can.) Finally, as for a merge, I'd find it far more relevant to merge it with Figure painting (hobby), which is another part of the same hobby. DeathQuaker (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, would be better off merging in to Figure painting (hobby) than Miniature figure (gaming). But that is only if you actually thought merging would be a good idea. It would seem the majority (including myself) believe it would be a bad idea to merge this article to anywhere, even merging it in to Figure painting (hobby). Mathmo ^Talk 07:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As Rindis said, this is not at all related to gaming specifically. Rather it is the other way round, converting has came into to the gaming sphere because of the massive influence it has open the modeling world. So to merge it in to that article would be a very bad idea. Mathmo ^Talk 03:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is that miniature conversion, as I see it, is really just an extention of customization in general. I use the same techniques whether modifying a 1/8th scale resin garage kit miniature, a Nerf gun, or a motorcycle (That is to say, Bondo Putty is my friend). Once you strip out the unnessisary GW focus, and render the content to be even slightly more generic, the article hardly says anything at all. It seems to me that it rather becomes a footnote along the lines of "There is a strong interest in the customization/modification of miniatures, models and model kits." The article, as is, specifically focuses on gaming miniatures, so it seems that's where this content should be merged. As far as adding content to other WP articles related to modelcrafting, I don't disagree with such an action, but I don't even know what those articles are titled, let alone if they already mention the practices. -Verdatum (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

the licensing segment is irrelavent.

As the above states its irrelavent. It is only aplicablr to the LOTR SBG and GW tournaments and as such belongs in th articles for one of those. As far as i'm aware licencsing laws have little impact on what modellers can and cannot do in a private setting. It should be removed. (Morcus (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Non wargaming perspective

The article implies hat it isn't exclusively about converting wargames minis but make no reference to any other areas where it is commom like terrain minis, Buses, trainsets and so on. Also in mentions no specific techniques. I am going to add something to try and remedy this. (Morcus (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miniature conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415224610/http://www.dropship.org.uk/library/40k002.asp to http://www.dropship.org.uk/library/40k002.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)