Talk:Scale model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Toys (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sculpture    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Engineering (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

New layout[edit]

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)

I think the history section works better at the top, since the rest of the artcle keeps referring to scales as its main point - maybe that's what needs changing in this article. The whole thing is very long, each section might better be reworked as summaries of their main articles. -ErinHowarth 05:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I reworked the aircraft section as a summary of the main article, adding a bunch of stuff about media and moving most of the discussion about scale to the main page. I think I'll add another image or two and then move on to another section. -ErinHowarth 14:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This whole page needs some work in terms of layout. The current Layout sells scale models short. I am currently implementing a new layout which will more accurately reflect scale models. Comments are welcome as soon as I get it done. This should be within the next hour to two hours. Thanks! Alexmead (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
So I have put in a lot of effort to reorganize the page to better reflect the field of scale models. That is, what scales models actually are in general and how to classify different types of scale models formally. I think the section "Examples..." still needs a lot of work, but I am out of time for now. Perhaps we can go through each one of those examples and add a few citations for each one. It would also be nice if we added in something about how they each work with the theory of similitude. Most of those models are only geometrically similar, but still it would be nice to get those a little more concise. A few of them, Model aircraft to name one, are way too long. Alexmead (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

wargraming[edit]

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)

List of scale model sizes[edit]

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)

So much for wikipedia[edit]

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)

We never had such an article. The phrase has been redirected to this article since it's the closest thing we have to the subject. If you would like to start to get the model kit article going, be my guest. Wikipedia articles get written by ordinary people like you. ThemFromSpace 11:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The section Origins of the plastic model kit (and the sections just above) does have some info, but it could probably do with some expansion/clarification. Siawase (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

scale models in engineering[edit]

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)

I fully agree on this point. I am a Ph.D. student studying engineering and have experience with scale models. It is a somewhat complex topic and I wonder if it would be better served in a new page titled something like, "Engineering scale models." I've looked around a little bit and can't seem to find a page with all the information in a nice place about engineering models. There is some in Similitude (model), some in Physical model, some in Geotechnical centrifuge modeling, as well as a little bit in others. Any thoughts on starting a new page, "Engineering scale models"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmead (talkcontribs) 23:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This article certainly needs more information about engineering scale models, as a whole it is badly designed and unbalanced. If you find enough to create a standalone article, by all means do so, but if you could find time to add at least a summary here, that would help too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I have plenty to make a stand alone page, but I would rather redo this one as I think it is selling scales models a little cheaply. They are a very deep topic and much of world we live in today couldn't exist without them. On a side note, Dollhouses are not scale models. Some maybe are, but not in general. I propose a complete rework of the layout of this page. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm not exactly sure how to proceed. I will just start to work on an outline, then I will start to implement the changes on the real page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmead (talkcontribs) 19:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. then. I agree fully with your comments, and would add that plastic aeroplane kits seem to have been given too much prominence. So I'd suggest your best guide to editing is the Be bold-revert-discuss cycle: get stuck in and if anybody protests, start a discussion here on the talk page. If you want any help with anything, here or anywhere else, you are welcome to drop me a line on my talk page. One other small thing: it is customary to sign off each post on these talk pages with four tildes (~~~~), 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.]
Thank you, it is already looking better. I have edited your lead section to be (hopefully) more readable and focused and in line with Wikipedia guidelines, if you have any issues please feel free to air them. I have also reshaped the legacy "additional comments" with a view to merging them into the main body of the article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Article's structure is tied in knots[edit]

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)