Talk:Miniature model (gaming)

Scale concerns

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)

Lead poisoning

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)

• If I remember correctly many miniature factory switched from lead to white metal because the New York state banned the use of lead in miniatures - the ban was lifted but the factory didn't switch back to lead (sorry my english it's not very good and it was many year ago)
  • I'd leave it how it was, because it is exactly that purely unfounded concerns with no records of wargamers ever getting lead poisoning. Think that one of the reasons lead was removed is because America has a culture of suing the pants off people at the slightest drop of the hat. Hence being way over the top carefull. The UK manufactures were generally a bit slower to adopt this, but eventually they did to because they would still be exporting to the USA. And just for the record I have been part of the wargaming scence for many years (however yet to become a MD! On the other hand I do come from a science background). Mathmo 12:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd strongly doubt that there was a change due to real concerns about people's health, rather manufactures where worried about the much more real legal risk they are exposed to in america. Mathmo 12:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I rewrote the paragraph, with citations. (I'm not sure I formatted the legal citation correcly; any lawyers about?). For the record, Dragon's miniatures column followed the New York bill in issues 192, 193, 194, 195, 198, 201, 205, and 210. That should be enough references for anybody. Ral Partha's 1993 catalog also has an editorial about their decision to stop using lead, but I haven't figured out how to cite a catalog. Michael Bauser 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perry Twins

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)

I'd agree, although it did say *arguably*. And their case can most certainly be argued... Mathmo 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

1listsculpting link

I just noticed that for some reason the link for 1listsculpting was removed. Comment was "rv - link not significant and likely linkspam". I'm not certain why this is since it's a list which is specialised in sculpting the miniatures which are discussed here. As it is, about one third or more of the sculptors listed in this article are a member of that list. I've got the feeling the editor missed this and will return the link. Having just typed the article on sculpting may make the situation clearer. If not, please contact me.

I intend to add an article on sculpting miniatures to wikipedia but will have to wait till after my holidays.

By the way, I'll be seeing the Perry twins in two days. They should find the discussion amusing. :)

Bye, Ming-Hua Kao Moderator 1listsculpting

Ah, it was I who removed the link. I checked it and saw that there were very few members and jumped to the conclusion that it was not significant. The fact that it was one of your earliest edits at Wikipedia and your name is "Minimaker", I assumed that it was self-promotional (also known as vanity at Wikipedia). My mistake! If you would readd it and give it a description that tells the reader why the yahoo group is significant (pretty much what you said above), I think it would be a good addition.

(Incidentally, you can automatically sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment where you'd like Wikipedia to insert your signature. You can also customise your signature in your user preferences.) — Saxifrage ✎ 23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Anyway, I've put the lnk into the section on sculpting. More relevant over there. I have another id at wikipedia but decided it was better to switch to "minimaker" for articles on miniatures since that nick is more familiar in the industry. Thanks for checking formatting etc. by the way.

minimaker 05:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Backwards History

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)

Concept too narrow?

Sooner or later, some attention will need to be given to the growing hobby of collecting miniature figures adapted from anime and manga, a phenomenon that seems to have developed under the influences of both D&D modelling and US-styled comic book "action figures." This entry completely ignores such miniatures, and in fact is presently so wargame-centered that it does not lend itself to any reasonable revision that would be more inclusive. Any suggestions? Bustter 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what you mean. Do you mean the type of miniature figures as discussed in the article? That is, figures primarilly designed as gaming figures (though nowadays many are more designed for painting collectors)? Or do you mean those Manga/Anime plastic painted small figures specifically made for collecting? Or the larger collector figures and garage kits?

If you mean the second I'd say it's best to create a separate page since it's a totally different type of figure in purpose and creation from the figures described here. You can always link to this page though.

If you mean Anime/Manga styled miniature gaming figures like the ranges by ground zero games, shadow forge and Anima, then it will depend on what direction this article should go into. Right now it's fairly generic. I think it could be a good idea to include a chapter that gives examples of different styles and genres available so people know there is a lot more than just historical, high fantasy and fighting SF. There is prehistoric (Jeff Valent), comic (Team Frog), anthropomorphic (Iron claw), Wild West (Black scorpion), steampunk (Wyrd), gangster (Dixon), Cyberpunk (Copplestone), etc. If you want a more extensive treatise per genre I'd say it's best to create a separate article and link it to this one.

minimaker 18:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wild West, at least, is surely covered by "historical". 85.8.12.78 12:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

External links list

The external links section is getting out-of-hand. Note that Wikipedia isn't a links directory and that the external links policy guides us to select a few high-quality links instead of many. The manufacturers in particular need to go—if any of them are notable, they ought to have their own article that can be linked from the "See also" section, and the rest aren't needed (per "not a links directory").

Thoughts? Am I completely off-base? — Saxifrage ✎ 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That list is far from complete. If I can make a suggestion. How about replacing it with a link to this page: http://theminiaturespage.com/man/ It's the manufacturer's list of the miniatures page and a much more extensive list than what you can put up here.

minimaker 18:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That page looks pretty good: low advertising, high content, no obvious biases (someone want to double-check me here?), and provides something Wikipedia can't: a links directory. Unless problems with that site come to light, when I do the links cleanup I'll include that. Thanks. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it counts but in my experience that index is not biased. The goal of the site is to supply information on miniatures and is not linked to companies etc.

minimaker 18:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the Miniatures Encyclopedia from external links. It's a startup wiki with only a handful of Spanish articles and nothing else. I didn't measure, but I think there may be more text on Wikipedia's Miniature figure article than on the Miniatures Encyclopedia. Aesire 22:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Schleich

I just saw that this company is listed in the article. Personally I don't think it fits the scope of the article since those figures are not made as gaming miniatures even though they can be used for it. My suggestion would be to remove the link from the main body of the article and move it to related articles. Your thoughts? minimaker 18:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the scope of the term "miniature figure" is probably slightly larger than just those used for gaming. Right now the article has an undue focus on their use in gaming, which should probably be addressed at some point. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. Still, I believe that the scope is what the writer intended. The title is generic since there is no specific term for these figures ("miniatures" is most common). So the writer had no choice but to use a generic term and define the scope in the introduction.

I would suggest against making the article more general by introducing other figures as:

- Several types are discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia (tin soldiers, model figures).

- Each type has a different public/scene, purpose, production, materials, etc.*

- This article has barely scratched the surface of the subject.**

My suggestion would be to keep this as a specialised article and to create a level above it as an index to all the figure articles on wikipedia. Still, perhaps the title can be made clearer by adding a remark between brackets like "(wargaming figures, miniatures)". I did that for the Dutch page since the Dutch name is even more generic.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on this.

• For example:

-Gaming miniatures generalised: mostly age 14+, wargamers, painters and collectors; gaming, painting, static display; mostly small to medium companies with low tech production methods, low melt tin based metals and polyurethane, painting and assembly required; medium to high price; specialist outlets; violent subjects, small size).

-Toy figures (mostly age 14 and below, kids with general intrests, playing, durable safe plastics, pre-painted and assembled; medium to high tech production, medium to high price, toy stores; any subject; any size but big enough for safety).

-Collector figures (mostly adults; both genders; static figures; medium to high tech production; pewter, vinyl and other plastics; often pre-painted or finished; any subject; high price; specialist outlets; any subject; large size).

Of course there is some mixing as gaming dragons are cast in pewter and polised for the collectors market and toy figures get drafted for gaming. Still, I feel each group has enough specific characteristics to warrant separate articles.

• • Much more can be told about it and having more than one type of figure here could result in an article that is unwieldy.

minimaker 23:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would need a change of name. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but at Wikipedia the name dictates the subject of the article rather than the article dictating the name. So, to make sure this article stays focused on gaming minis, we should move it to something like Miniature figure (gaming) or Miniature figure (games) and make Miniature figure a disambiguation page (essentially a navigation index). I think the -ing form is probably the best, and (wargaming) wouldn't work because not all games that use minis are wargames, just most of them are. What do you think? — Saxifrage ✎ 02:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think [Miniature figure (gaming miniatures)] will work best. I added miniatures since this is the common term used for these figures and people will use it in searches. Of course, even with this the scope will have to be explained in the introduction to exclude items like abstract gaming pieces (think monopoly) and include large size models (robots, vehicles - not strictly figures) and non-scaled/scaled up figures (fairy meat is 1:1 - faires just tend to be small :) ). Anyway, I'd be ok with this namechange and a generic navigation index.minimaker 08:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the second "miniatures" in the brackets should be avoided: the guidelines on article naming exhort us to be as brief as necessary within the brackets, only adding as much as is necessary to distinguish the article. If people are searching for "gaming miniatures", then the way to make sure they get here is to create a redirect (which I'll do right now!). — Saxifrage ✎ 05:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok to me. So, will you be doing all this rebuilding? Not sure if I understood that right.minimaker 22:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of it right now. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to say thanks. So: thanks. :) By the way, getting back to the original question. Since the Schleich figure are not gaming figures, shouldn't the link be moved to the toy figure article?~Oh, and to avoid misunderstanding. I do like the figures Schleich makes.minimaker 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

2mm scale

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)

Scales

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)

Miniature figure scales are commonly expressed as the height of a six-foot (183 cm) figure.

This is not right.
The height represents average TALLEST male human population in Norway and Sudan. In fact the scale for figures is calculated on the average male European population in 1938 I believe which was the figure available at the time the RAF proposed the 1/72 scale as the recognition scale for its block models. The average at the time was deemed to be 177cm, which also seems to be exaggerated to me by about 5 centimeters.
In any case, based on the American average for convenience of remembering deemed to be 177.6cm, the following scales were at some time used in wargaming:
197mm 1/9
120mm 1/14.8
111mm 1/16
90mm 1/19.7
53.8 mm 1/33
54mm 1/32.8
55.5mm 1/32
50.7mm 1/35
48mm 1/37
41.3mm O scale 1/43
37mm 1/48 US O Gauge 1/4 inch to 1ft
35.5mm 1/50 architectural models
30mm 1/59.2
28 mm 1/63 “heroic” 25mm
27.75mm 1/64 S gauge
25 mm 1/71
24.6mm 1/72 RAF scale
23.3mm 1/76
23 mm 1/77
20.4mm HO scale 1/87
20 mm 1/89
18.5 mm 1/96 traditional shipyard scale
18 mm 1/99
17.7mm 1/100
16.4mm 1/108 traditional shipyard scale
15 mm 1/118
14.8mm 1/120 TT scale
12.3mm 1/144
11 mm 1/160 N gage
10 mm 1/178
9.25mm micro scale 1/192 buildings and traditional shipyard scale
9 mm 1/197
8.9mm 1/200
8 mm 1/222
7 mm 1/254
6.2 mm 1/285 US Army
6 mm 1/296
5.92 mm 1/300 NATO scale
4mm 1/444
3 mm 1/600 Naval scale
2.5 mm 1/700 Naval scale
2 mm 1/888

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I think Miniature conversion should be merged here. The content in that article entirely relates to gaming miniatures, it does not establish notability that is independent from this topic, and neither article is large enough to justify a split for reasons of WP:SIZE. -Verdatum (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Miniature conversion is not just used for gaming, and can be a hobby in and of itself (for example, check out http://white-tiger-miniatures.com, the Website of a miniature conversion artist who alters his minis for display, not gameplay). And from the other POV, many miniature games do not use, restrict rules on, or may not even allow conversions. Discussing a hobby which many miniature gamers don't even engage in doesn't make sense for the "miniature gaming" article.

That said, I think Miniature conversion could be merged with Figure painting (hobby). Painting and converting miniatures are, in simplistic terms, two sides of the same hobby. What do people knowledgeable of the subjects think? I could add another merge suggestion on the appropriate pages if I get a sense of agreement. DeathQuaker (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miniature_conversion#Notability.3F (the general consensus appears to be to not merge) Mathmo ^Talk 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

25/28 mm and other scale issues

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)

Notable list

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)

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)