Talk:1:6 scale modeling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Scale Designation?

There are some out there that advocate the term "ActionScale" for use as the textual name of the 1:6 scale as it applies to action figures, like G.I. Joe. This distinction is not unreasonable, but it IS impractical for the following reasons:

1. A cursory Google search will show that "actionscale" has not come into regular usage.

2. Some aspects of sixth-scale modeling borrow heavily from the so-called feminine side of the hobby. Is a castle, barracks, headquarters or fort defined as "playscale" or "actionscale?" How about a house that is being raided by military figures? Does the name for a kitchen's scale change, if it is designated a galley?

3. Because of the lack of available femfigs [female action figures] many of those roles are being filled by posable dolls, such as artiBabs [articulated Barbie], in ALL genres, including military. Does the scale designation change with their inclusion? BTW, the standard term that encompasses posable dolls AND mandolls [redressable action figures], like the original G.I. Joe, is "action doll."

4. While scale designations "1:6" and "1/6th" are accurate, they are virtually unsearchable on most search engines because of their use in other fields of interest, besides scale modeling.

Therefore, I advocate the extended use of term "playscale," as it is established AND gender-neutral. The feminized form is "Barbie-scale." "[GI] Joe-scale" is a masculinized form, though it frequently refers to the 1:18 scale, the domain of "little" Joes. "Military modeling" and "dollhousing" are bookends to the same hobby.

Sextiliana Joe 03:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sextiliana Joe, could you provide a reference that substantiates "playscale" is established? Addhoc 22:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Playscale" or "Play Scale" is a standard term in dollhousing, but I don't know who coined it or when. Barbie-scale is used almost as often, but the former is more gender-neutral lending itself to cross-genre use. A Google search will demonstrate its standardized use, but none seem to give its history. Sextiliana Joe 02:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a reference and included a note that changes should be proposed on the talk page. Addhoc 13:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that Sextiliana Joe insists on using these terms "Playscale" and "Doll housing" when they are not to be found anywhere in the world of serious 1:6 scale figure modelling other than on his own site(s). The large majority - though by no means all - 1:6 figure modellers are involved in military subjects, plus of course there are the female doll enthusiasts, but I have not seen the terms used above anywhere and think they are inappropriate to this Wiki entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.172.52 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for your comment. Could you provide a reference that substantiates this... Addhoc 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Follow any of the links on the Wiki entry page to 1:6 scale forums, have a read - you will not see references to "Playscale", "Action scale", "Barbie-scale" or "Doll housing" in any but the most minor of boards. Suggest you try One Sixth Warriors, Sixth Division, OneSixScale etc., these are the largest boards. I would also point out that Action Figure modelling as such in 1:6 is totally and utterly separate from Barbie-type figures - there is NO connection.

Ok, that isn't what I meant. I'm not saying the Sixth Division chat forum discusses dolls houses. Currently, there is this reference [1], which appears to indicate that 1:6 scale modelling is sometimes referred to as playscale. Would you clarify whether you are suggesting Sextiliana Joe set up this site? Addhoc 12:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The site to which you refer is one I've never seen before. What is relates to are toys and dolls house articles which are totally un-connected to the type of 1:6 scale modelling described on the rest of this page and discussed on sites such as Sixth Division, OSW and OSS etc. These site cover very high detail, accurate military/sci-fi and other figures which are in a totally different world to "Barbie Scale" "Playscale" and "Dollhousing". Although I wish to remain anonymous, I have a good working knowledge of this topic, and feel that the entire subject is being diverted by this one person (Sextiliana Joe) - the thousands of collectors/modellers involved in modern 1:6 scale modelling would recognise the terms he uses. Whether or not Sextiliana Joe set up the site you have linked to or not, I just don't know, but it certainly would appear that it is along the lines of what he keeps adding to the 1:6 Modelling entry. The level of detail, accuracy and subjects covered in main-stream 1:6 modelling have no connection to the things covered on the site you have linked to. The subjects Sextiliana Joe refers to clearly indicate toys such as Barbie dolls - the 1:6 Modelling world has no concern with this sort of thing which are intended for children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.62.236 (talk)

Scale is a fact of mathematics.

Your emphasis on military-only themes should really be documented in the military modeling article, speaking to the benefits of this scale in that genre. I am certain that the techniques you use in that genre will transport very well into other genres, but this topic is much broader than the scope of your commentary and deletions.

Besides dollhouses (which, too, have their high-end proponents), there are civilian vehicles (scale replicas, model kits, or radio-controlled), which also have high-end proponents. This article should demonstrate a broad sampling of sixth-scale modeling and, maybe, introduce the possibility of integration.

When we discuss sixth-scale collectively, as generalists, it is perfectly acceptable to use the terms of its component hobbies, like "kit-bash" from model kit building, or "playscale" from dollhousing and accessories, as the cross-genre hobby is still pretty new and has very little of its own jargon. Considering it is a composite of many already well-established hobbies, it probably has minimal need for such, anyway. The existence of generalists takes nothing away from the specialists. High-enders, be they of military, fashion doll, ball-jointed doll, vehicle or dollhouse bent, may never be able to grasp how the rest of us can be happy kit-bashing playline resources.

Joe Webster pka S. Joe 06:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst Joe clearly has his own agenda, why not let the online communities show you what is and isn't dominant in 1:6 modelling. I would refer you to Sixthscale, Joe's own site - this is very limited in its coverage and has very few entries, I suspect his Sextiliana site is similar - I found the music etc. too much to bear to explore further. The true 1:6 forums - and I include such boards as "Men with dolls" in this category, show true high quality customising, none of which is related to Dollhousing etc., a totally different concept altogether.

Dollhousing, Playscale etc., are terms all but unknown in the true 1:6 world - please transfer his links, comments etc. to an entry on Barbie dolls, Dolls house or whatever,Playscale speaks for itself - Toys for playing with, kids stuff. They have no place here.

I have no agenda, but to facilitate communications with related hobbyists, so they can learn from each other. Each of my pages has a collection of forums emphasizing a different aspect of the 1:6 continuum, such as "Men with Dolls," on the "femfig" page. These are forums, which I have no control over; they are not advancing a personal cause or agenda.

Is it a question about what is dominant... or what is encompassed?

If by "here" you mean [[1:6 scale militarism]], you are right, but my computer reads it as "1:6 scale modeling," with no expression of high-end, low-end or genre included. Scale being a fact of mathematics, no amount of consensus can make a scale item cease to be a "true" scale item. The most you can do is attempt to censor its existence. Under the article's present title, Barbie DOES deserve an honorable mention, because, besides her clothing and accessories, many of the "Men with Dolls" use her head sculpts, as well. And the reason why they all are compatible is because, in fact, they are 1:6 scale.

Not to detract from the topic, but SixthScale isn't mine. That board's owner makes sixth-scale weapons and such, so it, decidedly, has that leaning. He's one of the regulars on "Men with Dolls."

Joe Webster 09:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, clearly you are not prepared to listen to anyone's point of view but your own. I have directed several people prominent in the 1:6 modelling world to read your recent additions to this Wiki entry and none have any idea what you are talking about. Your Dollhousing and Playscale etc., has nothing whatsoever to do with 1:6 modelling whether military or not - it is all about kids toys. Oh, and by the way - almost all the posts on Sixthscale are by one guy - the owner whoever he may be - hardly a prominent site is it?

As far as whose viewpoint I'm listening to, the terms I have collected, "wardoll" and "mandoll," were both coined on the military boards you previously referred to.

Are you saying that no kid's toy can satisfy the minimum mathematical requirements to be considered a 1:6 scale miniature?

Are you saying that dollhouses, Barbies, ball-jointed dolls and vehicular models don't have any high-end offerings taking them out of the category of toys, into the category of collectibles? Relegating items to the realm of merely "kid's toys" is a false distinction.

Your criticism of the progress of a newly-started board is a distraction from the debate at hand.

Joe Webster 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly we are not going to agree on this - your contentions are in my opinion not valid - Barbie etc. belongs in the Barbie entry in Wikipedia and not here, that is where such toys belong. What I totally fail to understand despite all your excuses is why nobody else in the serious 1:6 world uses these lame expressions you insist on appending to the 1:6 modelling entry here. Wake up and recognise that the world of 1:6 modelling does not recognise your terminology - this entry was previously well written and accurate, now it's a joke not worthy of the thousands who participate.

It would only be a "joke" if this debate were taking place under the military modeling article, where your proposed degree of detailing accuracy is both required AND expected (of weapons and uniforms, for instance). This, by the way, is another trait you share with the high-end dollhousers and, even, the high-end fashion doll collectors, for that matter, who can argue endlessly over the accuracy of a scale reproduction of a Bill Blass original.

General scale modeling, however, includes depictions of civilian or fictional themes. A rigorous degree of accuracy cannot be expected of such, especially if it is an original work, because it is left to interpretation.

Joe Webster 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbie

A reference to Barbie has been added, since it is non-encyclopedic to mention 1/6 scale without mentioning its use in the fashion doll world. 1/6 scale is not simply about military models and dioramas, and there is a need for the article to reflect this.--Ianmacm 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)