Talk:Fantasy Lords - First Series

From Lost Minis Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Why add these duplicate image slots for the Mirliton versions of the figures? I feel like this is really going to clutter up the listings and I would prefer that we find some cleaner way of doing this.

Mysticat: The Mirliton shots are not duplicated, and they are the current official shots that sell the figs; they have the added advantage of looking well together for having been shot (likely) by the same photographer and his equipment. Also, if you look at the caption, you will see that this fig has been referenced elsewhere - which means there wasn't a pic on the other site and I was filling a hole using the same jpg, which will change in both places, since I use the same filename everywhere for the same fig. In doing so, I am actually reducing the number of extra photos, and when find a cross-reference, I create a single pic and custom caption with the same info on it for each place it belongs. It has been my experience that people get upset when you remove their work unless you are the boss. I choose to replace only obviously uncontestably ugly photos, but scans of catalogs are the proof of the legitimate groupings, so I don't touch those (however ugly). If I were the boss, I would be using the commercial photos only for the thumbnail groupings, with an obvious link at each thumb to the page with alternate shots, where we can post however many we want (until the site gets bogged down and admin has to get it skinny). I'm new here and obviously not the boss, so I defer. I have mostly been setting up pages, cross-referencing, and filling in holes as I see them. I will have photos of my own stuff soon to add. ~ Mysticat 19:25, 11 August 2010 (MST)

I'm confused when you say that you are not duplicating the images. e.g. There was already a photo in place for the 'One Eyed Pit Monster' and you put an extra slot in place next for the Mirliton image/name ... ? I don't see the need for two slots here for the same figure simply because it is now available from Mirliton. The point of this page is to document the 'Fantasy Lords' range as it was available from Grenadier at the time. It is good to document that the figure has been reissued, but I'd rather see that done with a simple annotation not a whole new figure slot. Regarding a preference for the commercial photos, I'm fine with using the commercial photos when there isn't something else available but we are not going to state that the preference is for commercial photos over user provided photos across the board. On the Mirliton page feel free to use them in the same role that the catalog photos serve here, i.e. confirmation of the actual figures from the manufacturer. In the case of the NM010 Umberbulk, the Mirliton photo is inferior to the user provided photo since it is missing parts (the original had separate tusks/mandibles). I don't actually know if Mirliton is selling that figure without the extra bits or if they made a mistake in the photo. Regarding a secondary page to show additional photos, there is already a pattern in play for this you can add the extra photos to the image page itself. In galleries like this, the pattern has been to show one photo as the primary for the figure and then addtional photos are chained onto the image page, an example here would be Image:G-flbp-105a.jpg.

If you look at, you will see the same fig there as on this page - I made the fig up there, first, because there was no pic there. Also, the Mirliton pic has the advantage of no colour (which is good for printers) as well as being the larger fig as subject matter so that it shows up much better in thumbnail (I always crop relatively close to the fig for thumbnails). The earlier pic here simply sucks in thumbnail, but it has serious value as the better overall pic. Now if you would like to split it into two pics for front and back view, and put the back view as an alt pic, then I'd be more than happy to see the Mirliton overwritten with the front view pic of the pre-existing pic. What I'm most concerned about is having the text information as well as the best thumb-friendly pic (whoever's that is) transfer over to where the fig needs representation. I spend time cross-referencing these figs - perhaps more than I'd spend taking a photo of that pic, and I don't want to see this work undone. Another reason for posting a pic from a re-released fig to stand beside an old company's pic might be to show the modification that was done - Mega for instance, doesn't always reproduce the Grenadier with the weapons the originals came with (Death by Strangulation comes to mind). It's their right of course, and nothing's stopping the buyer from adding the weapon of choice. Also, some sculptors aren't happy with an earlier work and retool their figs for later productions (Black Cat Bases' book golem comes in one piece or two; there are Grenadiers with no bases and then with bases, and so on); at first blush they seem the same, but on closer inspection, there are slight differences - so we need both pics. The fig becomes more versatile when you do this. You'll notice that in the Nightmares ranges, I've put up a few interesting versions of the Quiet Guys. Without these, such a fig as my "Janitor" might not be considered because the mophead in the tools sprue isn't obvious. All sorts of evil plots come to mind with a janitor...  :D But seriously, I'm not trying to rock the boat, and I regret that I'm keeping you guys hopping after me as I learn, tidying up little things (I do have trouble remembering the different linking codes), but given some time, I'd have fixed those things myself. I require your patience and some trust. I may jump around on my whim, but there's reason to my "madness" that you might not see; one of those reasons is to fix something when I see it needs doing, before I forget to fix it. This is a great resource, and I've no intentions of mucking things up, or of irritating people so that I must leave the project. Despite my occassional and unintentional rubs and being green, you have to admit that I've shown I'm an asset. Trust me... I've no interest in being boss - I just want to see things working and looking good, and I know that's your goal, too. ~ Mysticat 06:16, 12 August 2010 (MST)
Personal tools