User talk:Mysticat

From Lost Minis Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Reddit

Hi Mysticat,

I've copied all the pictures from the Gallery of Unknowns page to a Flickr album and posted a link to it on the Lost Minis Wiki subreddit. I'm promoting the idea of using Reddit as a better place to post "unknown" images for the Lost Minis Wiki mainly because it's a forum-like website that allows threaded conversations (a wiki really isn't supposed to be used in that way and doing so encourages drive-by accounts from people who want some free mini identification - which is not a problem in small doses). It does, however, mean that LMW users will need to register with Reddit in order to use it (it's free!) but I can anticipate some reluctance to get yet another online account. Plus, in order to use the subreddit fully, users will also need an online image hosting website: Flickr is great but there are many others like Google Photos and Reddit's own imgur service. As you setup the Unknowns Gallery I'd be interested to know what you think about this? The two systems could run in parallel but I think the original wiki page would work better in a forum environment like reddit. (also... ahem... I would have emailed you but you don't have your email configured on the Lost Minis Wiki. :-) ) Cattwister 21:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)




Hi Mysticat,

I've moved that new image of the Well Dwelling Monster that you added today into the base image :Image:MetalMagic-FC-C1504a-cat.jpg. That way we can keep the images of the same figure in one place and if we just use the base image on a page then clicking on it shows you all the other related images. That's the idea. I think it keeps things tidier. You can add the new image back onto a page if you feel that works better for you. I hope you don't mind that I did this. Cattwister 22:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know the fig was in a diorama set and couldn't find it in the catalogs, so I uploaded the pic and put it in monsters... then I found the greyscale image in the dioramas and hadn't gotten to deleting my upload. For the record, the Topical Galleries is my brainchild... and since it's used for quick glance ID, I'll thank you for not working there. Your excessive use of categories for pages and your passion for tables I fear would seriously clutter it up so as to be non-functional. If they want details, all they have to do is go to the pic and find your remade pages. Less is More... KISS Principle... otherwise, you end up doing all the work yourself, you get exhausted, and the project dies. I had to learn that.--Mysticat 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you will probably have to go and take a look at your topical galleries pages as I have been editing in there. Helping out, I thought as wikis are meant to be a group effort. I changed stuff in there mainly to stop different images being used for the same figure. As for the excessive use of categories that is to cut down on overly long, complicated to edit and tedious to use pages - keeping it simple, as you say. And the passion for tables comment... well, I'll deal with that one on the Rules page. Cattwister 09:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If you haven't changed the categorization, I'm not too worried... and I know there have been double image postings there - and omitting the least informative pics was on my To Do list. If you've radically changed the categorization, there'll be steam coming out my ears and a factory siren... lol... I based my categories on my knowledge of how to set up biological keys from my university days and it was a lot of work. If you tell me now if you made changes in that structure, I promise I will give it a fair consideration before even thinking of rolling anything back. I'm not against change, but I am against illogical categorizations, and no offence, but you're new to me. StephanGRoy I trust, as he's been mucking around in there for a while now, but he respects the intent of the Keys I've set up and adds to them logically. It would be my hope that my hesitance for you will allow me to trust you in there well enough to add figs, just as I will respect the page look and feel of how you are beginning to set up the book-style pages that Colin seems to like. I'm quite literate and have a grasp for details and overall big picture... most people aren't this way. Most don't really know how to listen, so they prefer watching videos (which they tend to forget the content of) over reading, and when they bother to read, it's only managable to them in small chunks. To me that's like having tunnel vision and deafness. Give me a long text I can skim and scan with appropriate graphics and I'm happy. Scope is important to me. Blindfold three people and ask them to identify (an elephant) what they are touching, the one touching the tail might say a rope; the one given the trunk might say a snake; the one given the leg might say a tree. I'm good if you let me feel as much of the beast as possible... but happier still if you let me dispense with the blindfold and deal with the fact that I'm about to get trampled. So I've an imagination, but also a realist. There's only so much that one can impose on the nature of the beast you're studying. The field of mini collecting is a real beast. As for the tables comment... as you will read on the Admins page, I've been there, done that, learned by experience. (My Quickcode table was necessarily complicated to show what could be done.) PS. I'm by nature a reasonable passive type, but I tell you, if you twist my cat, I'll break your bones. JK :D Now that I've warned you, I can at least remember not to misspell your name in here... kept having to correct my typing from "Catwiser... lol--Mysticat 13:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I've not touched the categorization at all. What sent me in there was finding images from post-Hobby Products companies (Center Stage Miniatures being the main one) that hadn't been hooked into the Metal Magic pages, and different versions of the same Metal Magic figure (usually an alternative image fro Mega Minis). You should be totally fine. There was only a dozen or so. What I may have done though is removed the sculptor name - from the image slot since I have started including that on the SGIP image page itself. That's looking like a mistake now as I agree with your comments elsewhere about what to have in an image slot. Cattwister 15:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll put it near the top of my to-do list.--Mysticat 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________

Hi Mysticat,

I confirm Catalogues page is redundant. All info is on the Catalogs (Mithril) page so you can delete Catalogues.

Milo 17:14, 27 september 2012 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________


Hi Mysticat, I tried using the originals but got the "too big" message, so reduced them. I can put in the big pics, I'll just click the Ignore Warnings box. stephengroy 02:25, 15 June 2011 (CDT)

That would be great... I can snag them and resubmit them as compressed jpgs, without loss of the hi res. Don't reduce the size - compress instead. What graphics program are you using?--Mysticat 02:36, 15 June 2011 (CDT)

I did compress for Web Page size...MS Office Pic mgr. I won't do so this time.

_____________________________________________________________


Hi Mysticat,

I noted your statement regarding copyright law, as follows;

"Source unknown; but international copyright law determines photos of unpainted sculptures are the property of the holder of the rights to the sculpture, which is Mirliton in this case; they've given me permission to post any photos of their figs on here."

I don't doubt that your above statement is true, however I don't think this means that the party who took the photo looses any copyright they have claim too; in this instance it may be possible for more than one party to claim copyright. If it was the case that Mirliton held copyright of all said pictures, then one could argue that simply taking a photo of an unpainted miniature without permission is against copyright. These kinds of copyright laws are usually quite complex and I think unless we can cite a court case as an example it may be better to continue asking permission to use images from all known sources of the material.

All the best, Colin

BTW, great work on the Grenadier CoC ranges :o)

_____________________________________________________________

"...one could argue that simply taking a photo of an unpainted miniature without permission is against copyright."

Yup. It is - hands down and flat outright. (I used to work in publishing - graphic art and photography.) But in here there is little to fear by simply crediting the copyright holders of still in production figs because it serves the financial interests of the copyright holders (which may be joint in the case of sculptor and manufacturer both retaining rights). They 're going to be more concerned with derivative works made for profit and for artists, taking credit where none was due. A photograph is a derivative work, but only a flat representation of only half (at best) of the entire sculpture, and for the purposes of this site, obviously not for profit (by us, anyway - downloader use beware of course). It could be argued that a single photograph is less than 50% of a sculpt's visible surface and that the combined background and lighting as the photographer's contribution is more than 50% of the piece, which might then render it an original piece of work if one goes by quantity alone; but quality also matters to deter this kind of cheating - the courts would consider that a "substantial part" is also defined by the importance of the subject matter with respect to the piece, regardless of its footprint on the photo, so here's the quality aspect of the judgement.

A series of multiple photographs would clearly be a different matter. That information could be translated into computer imaging that could, with a 3D printer reproduce the original sculpt, provided the scale is known. Then again, what could be done if the photos are taken by many photographers, none of them in collaboration? The person who puts them together to reproduce the piece as a whole would be in clear violation, even though he did not do any artistic work at all (even if he had pieces of the sculpture reproduced by different persons).

I can see this happening with the 3D printing technology as it becomes more available to figure owners. Imagine being able to scan in a 35mm fig and "print off" the same except in 25mm, already pre-painted by your specifications if you like. So much for the work of the hand and sable - and the green stuff, for you could use the software to sculpt via computer. These technologies already exist, but they are cost prohibitive for most. A holographic "print off" of a ghost floating in air would be tres cool. No more stands for floating figs if you go holographic. But you'd better not breath in the same room with your holographic plate! LOL

To sum: I believe every photo in here should name the copyright holder(s), the sculptor, the photographer and the uploader. We need to try to identify and credit the sculptors more. Where no person can be named, and if the uploader wants to risk it, then the warning "Source Unknown" should be stated to warn downloaders.

Glad you like the work I'm doing. I believe it is our job as chroniclers to try to keep a record of the copyright ownerships, so that these lovely figs can be brought back into play some day. I'm so glad Mirliton and MEGA are doing this, and my placeholding "Mirliton: TBA" notation will encourage them to find and dust off those molds.

~ Mysticat

_______________________________________________________________________________

My 2 cents. I'm dubious about the notion that the copyright holder owns the rights to any photos of their copyrighted works. It makes sense to me that they can stop people from using such photos, but not that they can just take them and use them as they see fit. i.e. it makes sense to me that they can say 'you can't do that', but not 'what you've done is now mine'. Meaning that in this particular case I would be surprised if we really could use photos from anywhere of figures that Mirliton has the rights to simply because they said it was okay to use the photos that they took.
Regardless of the actual legalities, I believe that we should just play it safe and not use any images (be it from ebay, blogs, other collector web sites, etc.) without consent. If nothing else it would seem the polite and respectful thing to do.
I'm pretty sure that this particular image is from ebay. I've asked lots of ebay sellers for permission to use their images on the wiki, and the different responses are kind of interesting. A small handful flat out just say no, or simply ignore my inquiry. I've never pursued why but it seems that they feel that they've invested the time and effort (which I understand since I struggle with getting good photos myself) and that they are somehow losing something by giving permission to use the photos. Of the rest, about half simply don't care one way or the other. The photos have served their purpose and they are done with them. These people are not interested in being credited. The rest are happy to grant permission as long as they are credited with something like 'Image provided courtesy of xyz'.
Now, I might actually know who the ebay seller was in this particular case, I will check on that and try and get permission if I'm right.
-- Thegrouch 13:08, 25 July 2010 (MST)

_____________________________________________________________

I've removed the questionable ghost fig... and I will be taking a photo of my own bare metal fig. Thanks for making room for the Mi-go and Deep One... have replaced just now.

No need to dig out the camera (unless you can get an ever better picture). I tracked down the ebay seller and secured permission to use the photo (as well as a bunch more from his auctions). Waiting to hear back on how he wants to be attributed and then I'll repost it. Thegrouch 19:28, 25 July 2010 (MST)

Which brings me to this request.... would the owners of the following vehicles move them to the alt or painted spot to make room for Mirliton's unpainted photos on http://recipesrealm.com/wiki/index.php?title=Call_of_Cthulhu , please and thank you :) : 6502d Byahkee, 6502h Ghoul (A), 6502i Hound of Tindalos, 209 Ghouls, 209a Ghoul B, 209b Corpse in Casket, 209c Ghoul C, 216a Dimension(al) Shambler ~Mysticat

For the Byahkee, the three ghouls, and the hound, I think that the current images on the wiki are better than those from the Mirliton site and should be left as is. For the Dimensional Shambler go ahead and just overwrite that image. It is a subset of the existing 'additional' image and so nothing is lost there. The Corpse in Casket was originally posted by Stephen (I think) and I think it is worth posting up as an alternate since it shows a considerably different angle. Thegrouch 20:59, 25 July 2010 (MST)

And if you have any like photos on the Nightmares page, please do the same there as well. Mucho gracias.

Why not just use the one pic for those figs that are in multiple lines? There is nothing in the heirarchy better than a crystal clear photo (like you've been posting), of unpainted minis. See the Tomb of Spells entries.
SGR
______________________________________________________________

The Traveller Sea Bear from http://www.mirliton.it/popup_image.php?pID=17267 is way cleaner than the one we have currently. I didn't know they got Traveller also!!!
SGR
_______________________________________________________________

Didn't know they had Traveller, but I was wondering what that fig used to be called... now I know! LOL Think I should just overwrite the existing pic?

Nice. I hadn't noticed that before. Hopefully they will release more of those, I really like those Traveller aliens. 20:59, 25 July 2010 (MST)

_________________________________________________________________

make a category

Instead of creating the category itself first, create a line of miniatures by that manufacturer in it.

So just add the category tag at the bottom, or use {{clink|categoryname}} _____________________________________________________________

Total aside here, the figure of a dragon with the head that needs assembly is a Wizzards & Warriors Grenadier W38 Serpentine Dragon v.1. - Cynwyllyn

I'm neglected to mention in the previous statement that the miniature I was refering to is in the Gallery of Unknowns. That fig is WW Grenadier W38 v.1 - Cynwyllyn _____________________________________________________________

I'm not sure what was going on with the series of edits to your user page around the sculptor page link. FWIW, the right way to author a link to a category is to use the clink template. Like so:

{{clink|Sculptors}}

Which produces a link like this: Sculptors.

Note that this is not a standard mediawiki template, but is specific to this site. The built in way to link to a category page is like this:

[[:Category:Sculptors]]

Which produces a link like this: Category:Sculptors. Which is annoying because there is no way to not show the 'Category:' prefix. ____________________________________________________________

You probably missed them in the history list, but see my comments here:
Talk:Nightmares (Mirliton) and Talk:Fantasy Lords - First Series. ____________________________________________________________

FYI, noticed that when you moved 'Call of Cthulhu' to 'Call of Cthulhu (Grenadier)' you created a new page and copied over the old contents. Note that you can actually rename pages, note the 'Move' tab at the top of every page. The advantage of this is that it lets you move pages to a new name without losing the page editing history. The move operation does leave a page in place with the old name that redirects to the new name, but you can edit that page as you see fit. i.e. you could have moved 'CoC' to 'CoC (G)' and then edited the old 'CoC' page clearing the redirect marker and putting in your disambiguation content. ____________________________________________________________
Ok, thanks... good to know. I would have liked to have kept the history and the discussion. By the way... can you guys remember to sign and date your communiques? It feels like I'm conversing with an AI who doesn't know what time it is.  :D ~ Mysticat 05:34, 12 August 2010 (MST) ____________________________________________________________
I just added an ID for the Dragon that you had posted in the unknowns. It's EO-17 from Heritage's Earth of Olde line. ~ Cjensen 18:18, 1 October 2010 (PST) __________________________________________________________
hey Mysticat, in the Heritage Dungeon Dwellers series, you might want to check the images of actual blisters before changing some of the names. Eg, the blister for 1247 clearly shows "Zombies - Ghouls" rather than "Zombies/Ghouls", and 1255 states "Pixies", not "Pixies & Sprites". Some catalogs might have had variant names, but these were the names actually in production. Also, for figures that were "designed to be either", isn't it easier to not label them one way or the other? As long as a base code is available, isn't it redundant to say that any mini could be any mini from the pack? Bedoingy 10:38, 2 November 2010 (MST)

"Easier" is no substitute for "Accurate" or even "Functional." My 1255 clearly states "Pixies & Sprites" and DnDLead.com agrees with me. These four sculpts are touted as interchangeable with their partners by Heritage (personal experience), and so, no, I won't change their current captions - which I labelled for accuracy in order to continue with my Topical Galleries work (no captions doesn't bring them up properly in Searches). Heritage called these "zombies OR ghouls" and "pixies OR sprites." The virgule conventionally replaces the word "or." Prove your contentions and I concede. Gripe about miniscule, but logical changes is pointless. I find such comments must be ignored, or my will to do the work wanes in such an atmosphere of thanklessness. --Mysticat 12:15, 2 November 2010 (MST)
Hmmm... didn't realize the semicolon created bold. I meant to indent, not to shout! :D--Mysticat 12:21, 2 November 2010 (MST)
My comment and question were a comment and question, not an attack. No need to be so defensive. Bedoingy 13:30, 2 November 2010 (MST)
Seriously, I'm fine with being wrong, so long as you prove it to me. It's not about who's right or wrong, but that the truth gets out and is published. If one seems defensive (or "over-sensitive") to another, then is it not logical that the other is justified in believing one is being offensive (or "insensitive"), whether or not (s)he chooses to believe that, at least for that moment in time? It's all relative you know. I simply offered insight on how not to lose my contributions. I give you free permission to assume that my comment is also "just a comment." Either both of us have the right to judge the other or neither of us do. Which would you prefer? :P :D There's a lesson for life for all of us there. --Mysticat 14:22, 2 November 2010 (MST)

________________________________________________________

Personal tools