Talk:Ship model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article contains a lot of box characters and wicket characters. What are they supposed to be? -phma

Despite the fact that some fine artists painted and sculpted masterpieces of architecture and the human and animal form, it seems that no truly representative drawings of ships seems to have survived. Most surviving pictures or engravings are apparently greatly out of scale, although like maps of that period, they were greatly decorated with drawings of real and imagined sea monsters, leaving the nautical historian very little to work with.

How does this work? I have seen some Medieval pictures of ships, and they were horribly distorted, with the crew greatly enlarged relative to the size of the ship - in short, like Medieval pictures in general, where importance is indicated by size. On the other hand, the Greek and Roman pictures found on pots and reliefs seem to be fairly realistic, and sizes are not nearly so problematic. Since these images also lack sea monsters, am I to take it that the above passage wasn't considering this era?

The passage does say "most", but it would be useful to distinguish Greek/Roman representations, which are scaled reasonably, but for instance leave us mystified as to who sat where in triremes, from medieval pictures, which are just bad (oops, POV :-) ). Stan Shebs 02:44 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

There should be enough Greek and Roman pictures to counter the most. I was under the impression that the controversy over triremes stemmed almost entirely from a reluctance to believe in stacked oars, and that once the Olympias established the possibility, the controversy over whether they were used dried up. The larger galleys are still confusing, but they were cataphract, so the rowers shouldn't show up in the images anyways - though I'll agree the images aren't nearly as helpful as they should be in such matters. Btw, POV is fine in talk pages, and saying that Medieval pictures of ships suck is very close to an objective assessment.

There's one class of 'model ship' I miss here: the miniature ship model used in wargaming, like models of soldiers or vehicles that are used in table-top games. These ships are made of metal (pewter) and some assembly is required before painting them, but less than the wooden ship models in the article. Shouldn't there be a section for these ships? mover 23:55, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Go for it, they're certainly worth knowing about. Stan 00:07, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] model ship vs ship model

In case anybody is wondering, I moved to "ship model" because that is more common according to Google; also "model ship" potentially refers to a totally well-behaved crew (admittedly a hypothetical construct :-) ). Stan 17:24, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Google is not the gold standard as far as article naming here, and the number of returns (checking the plural versions also) is fairly close. Model ship is more frequently linked to than Ship model here on WikiP. It also falls in line with other modeling categories like model car, model aircraft, and model car. As an aside, you may have felt my change was inappropriate, but it made more of a mess correcting things without discussing first - redirects were in place in the meantime. Do we need to submit this issue to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment? -- Netoholic 05:41, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I put some of my points on your talk page. Please don't ever try to move things with cut-n-paste ever again - I or some other sysop will simply revert it all, and grumble under our breaths the whole time. Didn't it occur to you from looking at the history that maybe I had already spent some time thinking about and researching the most common usage? After all, ship modelling is one of my hobbies, and I have two shelves of authoritative references on the subject. Internal links in WP often just reflect editors' ignorance, they can never trump actual authorities. Stan 05:52, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
When someone visits here or writes an article, what do you think the most common search term/article name will they use - evidence shows its model ship? "Ship modelling" is probably the 'proper' term for the hobby ('model shipping' is obviously not right), but you are building model ships. I respect that you have a lot of knowledge in this area, but the last (and only) comment on the article name was made by you a year ago. I looked at the this while I was categorizing, read the history, and made the change. You shouldn't have "knee-jerk" responded so quickly in reverting. I'd have reverted myself if we'd talked, and then gained some other user consensus. Doing that makes me think that you feel you 'own' the information in this entry, rather than working as a community. -- Netoholic 06:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You had to have gone to some trouble to go around standard procedure, which says not to cut-n-paste because it trashes history. I don't consider that I own the article, but as a sysop I am expected to enforce the policy that you violated. If you convince me that "model ship" is right (there is at least one good reason that hasn't been mentioned yet, but you would have to know a lot about the field to come up with it - I'll let you work on it tonight, see if you can find it), I will personally delete the redir and move the page properly. Stan 06:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stan, please stop trying to change references to model ships until there is consensus. That is just completely irresponsible, considering my main point above is that more articles point to model ships Refering to these edits [1] [2] [3] [4] and more. -- Netoholic 06:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't have called attention to them then :-) - I was planning to fix those when I moved the article long ago, but got distracted and forgot. Half of the references to model ship are bogus irrelevancies anyway, I'm deleting as often as renaming. Stan 06:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've been looking at the recent changes; looks good. RK 14:27, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, some good changes! I've never liked the whole scaling bit, since it has little to do with ships specifically, and looks somewhat out of place to boot - perhaps it would be better at Scale modelling? Stan 14:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree the scale information (at least anything that's not specifically ship related) should go elsewhere. Would it be scale model, scale modeling, scale modelling, or elsewhere? Was the scale conversion information pulled from the cited book? -- Netoholic 23:46, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The scale info was there when I showed up at WP, dunno its origin. Scale model is kind of short now, and discussion of matters related to its key adjective seems completely relevant, so I'd vote for that. (The "ing"s should redir to it to I think - one could go the other way, but stylistically I prefer articles about objects to be about the objects rather than the process of creating them.) Note that scale (measurement) briefly mentions model scales, but it seems more like a disambigger than a content article. Stan 03:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial Links

I removed the Italian Ship Model Shop as a purely commercial link with no education value. I am inclined to remove the Model Expo Link for the same reason. I am using this policy page as my guide: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL) I would like to hear other user's opinions on this SeaPhoto 12:28, 10 June 2006

Since nobody has responded, I have decided to be bold and removed the ad copy behind the Model Expo link, for the time being. Also removed a category called Web Directories - we have a links section - and the general model link that was put there. This is an appropriate link for the Scale Model page, but not for every model page.


I think the Model Expo link is a good one, since their product pages also contain a history of the ships they sell, and they are one of very few manufacturers of ship models in the United States-rfin39

I left the link itself, but removed the various brand information and so forth, which was overtly commercial. Seaphoto 23:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My concern with commercial links is that they will proliferate. Unless someone has an objection, I intend to follow the WP guidelines and remove links to commercial sites unless they offer extraordinarily useful information. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Seaphoto 15:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the main outlines within the wikipedia guidlines on external links is to not add a website if you own it yourself. I see from your user page Seaphoto that your own website is listed as an external link here. Did you add this link yourself?--Modelbell 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a commercial link, but if you feel it should be removed - I would ask you to view the site first - then go ahead. I posted the site early in my WP editing process. Seaphoto 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading the guidelines, I removed the link myself. Seaphoto 23:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 20:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/i/Talk%7EShip_model_d8ab.html"