User talk:QueenofCredits

From Lost Minis Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Good Morning from the USA, Neil,

Just wanted to confirm that my donation to LMW was received okay. Hadn't heard back, so am checking in.

By the way, I am getting a lot of good use out of your LMW Search Engine. It has really been a time saver and big help. Thank you for all your continuing work on this.

Hope you are doing well! Kathryn QueenofCredits

Hi, Kathryn, I've just sent Colin an email (he has been kind of quiet lately). But from me: thanks for helping us out again, it really is always appreciated. - Neil, Cattwister 18:39, 9 March 2023 (EST)

Hi, Neil,

So, I'm having a mental breakdown. I'm trying to upgrade the image of the Crane Courtier I previously uploaded as it was pixelated. It was bugging me so I tried to re-upload the image, but it still looked like the original pixelated one. So, I re-took the photo of the mini, and tried to upload that. But it still shows the original pixelated nasty image. Ugh! I'm not sure what I'm doing incorrectly. The system shows the images were all uploaded, but the image that appears is the original pixelated one.

Can you assist and advise?

Thanks and hugs! Kathryn QueenofCredits

I've had a look at the 3 images: the earliest one and the one after it are from the same angle but the earlier one is more pixelated. The latest image is from a different angle but the colour seems to have been tweaked or maybe the lighting? The base flocking no longer looks green but is all yellow, and the skin tones are yellower as well. So all 3 images are genuinely different. I think the middle one is the best. I will re-upload the middle version and delete the rest to see what happens. It might also be your browser is caching the image locally but usually CTRL-F5 (on PC) forces a page refresh that re-downloads the images. - Cattwister 18:09, 22 July 2022 (BST)


I edited the topical category for Centaurs to show the images in alphabetical order. By doing so, it allowed seeing all the duplicates, which I removed. A problem I've noticed is that once topical group reaches a certain volume, editors inadvertently start adding duplicates if they don't immediately see an picture they think should be there. This makes the category even more voluminous which just accerbates the problem.

Topicals with smaller groups of images don't need alphabetization, but I think its helpful with the big groupings.

Let me know what you think, please. :)

-K. (QueenofCredits)

Hi. Yes, the overly long pages for Topical Gallery sections might cause editors to add duplicate images... if they forget to check if an image already has the gallery page in the "listed" section at the bottom of its image page. i.e.: at the bottom of image:Grenadier PFL 11.jpg you can see Half-Humans listed so you would know that it is already on the topical gallery page and so does not need adding. But, of course, this is hard (and tedious) to remember to do. You have alphabetized them by filename, I think, and that confused me! :-D But yes that works and does help. As far as I can tell there is no particular ordering to images within a topical gallery group, so feel free to order them how you wish. The topical galleries are a much more rigorous classification of figures than the taxonomy boxes I am adding to the bottom of image pages. At some point I will somehow use the Topical Galleries information in the TAXO block (or probably in a new block on the image page) and provide a link back to the correct topical gallery from both the image page and my "secret" LMW Search side-project - are you aware of this? Type "centaur" into the race box and hit the search button. Ideally, the LMW Search results should match the topical gallery centaur section. But this is a long way off. In a similar way to how you are spotting duplicates in the Topical Galleries, I have spotted quite a few duplicates on the wiki using the LMW Search tool. :-D - Cattwister 23:40, 4 August 2021 (BST)
I absolutely love your LMW Search machine. It is something that has been needed in the industry for a long time. There are thousands upon thousands of miniatures tho now in 2021, with countless more released each year. How will it ever be complete? But please don't quit! It is so helpful! --- K.

..... and as a follow-up, according to the forums it appears that Casketworks, their paper catalog, hasn't been printed since 2016...... so there's that in addition to what I wrote below.

. . . .

Hi, I propose we discontinue the use of the extra "NIC" (Not in Catalog) reference on Reaper Miniatures images because it doesn't add current or helpful information.

As we know, these are not discontinued models. And NIC reference isn't helpful because they are not permanently removed the catalogs. Reaper moves sculpts in and out of their catalogs depending on what genres are popular in a particular year, and the online catalogs also show the minis as available unless Reaper's license to produce the sculpt has expired or the market for the piece is so low currently that its sales are temporarily suspended. The paper copy of their catalog, Casketworks, doesn't truly represent their catalog anymore. Like most miniature manufacturers, Reaper relies on its online catalog to show what they currently produce.

Given that Reaper produces thousands of minis, unless editors want to stay on top of when the sculpt are "NIC" or back in the catalog, this seems like a never-ending and always-changing ocean of gratuitous minutia to try include.

I note that on the introduction to the "Dark Heaven Range" there is a paragraph that reads: "Annually, Reaper Miniatures removes a selection of the slowest selling models from the Casket Works product catalog. When this happens, distribution no longer will carry the removed items. However, this does not mean that you can’t get these models directly from Reaper Miniatures. The term OOP (Out Of Production) does not apply so we call these items NiCed or Not in Catalog." ~ Reaper, 2009 NICed Catalog (Found here:

The link is dead--actually it goes to a default page, and as we know what is NIC or not-NIC has been shuffled at least a dozen times in the last 12 years.

May I propose the paragraph be removed or revised? Just my two cents here at 3:30 am on the west coast of the USA.  :)

And by the way, how are you faring during the pandemic!? Warmly, Kathryn (QueenofCredits)

Hi, yes, I agree with what you are saying: the "NIC" isn't helpful and comes from a time when physical catalogs were still the primary source of information. I have been slowly moving "extra" details like NIC and "release dates" to the image pages when we have a figure image. Originally, Mysticat put these Reaper pages together and it was no small undertaking at the time but she's been inactive for a while now. I'll excise the NIC paragraphs and do a sweep for any "NIC" and "Release" comments that can be either removed altogether or put onto the related image page (but there will still be a lot of empty gallery cells that have release dates under them). The removal of the "NIC" paragraphs will make the pages seem tidier. The dead link can be turned into an link which still works (last good archive 2019-03-21) - I will find somewhere else to put the link. (3:30am? eek! The pandemic restrictions are easing a bit now that we have so many vaccinated in Scotland: hopefully things will keep on improving, but it is summer now and people be crazy) - Cattwister 14:55, 7 June 2021 (BST)
Dark Heaven Legends and the first part Dark Heaven Legends Pt.I: (2001-2299) completed - they are a lot cleaner. See what you think. - Cattwister 17:00, 7 June 2021 (BST)
I like it. Thumbs up from me. Cleaner and easier to read is better in my book. .... As for crazy, Scotland holds no patent. We, your American cousins, are no strangers to that. Perhaps folks need more hobbies, ... like miniature collecting!  :) --Kathryn

Hi, I've added Doster Company Entertainment to the Main Page (as "Doster" to fit the column width) and I've created the category page for the company (they are a bit tricky to figure out how to create/add - I normally type something like "Category:New Company Name" into the search box and hit "create page" when offered - if you don't put the "Category:" bit in front then you create a normal article page). The Doster Company Entertainment page that you created is an article page which we use to document the figures for a range but we don't need the company info box on that page - so I've moved it onto the category page for you. I did a quick search for info and I think the game shop that Doster runs/owns(?) might be in the process of shutting down :-( another FLGS bites the dust. - Cattwister 17:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at the Miniatures Workshop page that I added yesterday to see how I've been formatting things and update your Doster Company Entertainment page to match (if you want - non-standard is fine too). Miniatures Workshop is the same situation as Doster: a Category page with the company info box and then a single article page with the company's entire range listed on it. - Cattwister 17:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This wikia is the first I've been involved on. The page editing is at times both easy and tricky. Thank you for the help! - QueenofCredits, 19 February 2017

Hi, I've moved the Figone ranges onto their own page instead of on the Figone Miniatures category page. The main reason for this is that Category pages are not indexed for searching on the wiki. So typing "Jérémie" into the search box on the wiki, for example, will only return article pages and will not return the Figone Miniatures category page in the results - even though the word "Jérémie" is on the category page! Thanks for helping out and don't worry about just trying things - everything is kept safely in the history of each page and can be recovered. - Cattwister 12:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I uploaded a pic this evening for an image space marked with a purple ribbon. (Iron Wind Metals, DF-716) I did not remove the ribbon. Am I suppose to remove (or leave) the ribbon if I supply an image for a ribbon-marked mini? Thanks in advance for your help. --Kathryn QueenofCredits, 5 June 2017

Hi, I had to think why I'd done that! Then I realised that there is a note at the top of the page. For the Direct Fantasy page, I suspect that ALL of these figures should map back to earlier Ral Partha (original) era figures. Those that I haven't spotted on the Ral Partha pages I have marked on the Iron Wind page with a ribbon with a "?" mark in it. If you click on any other image (even blank ones!) you will see at least two pages listed in the "Links" section (ignoring User: pages). You can see that there are only a few "?" remaining: 63 out of 798 by my count. It's kind of a sanity check that reveals that our earlier Ral Partha pages must be incomplete in some way. :-D Please leave the ribbons in place, they will (hopefully) vanish eventually - they don't mean "we don't know what the figure looks like" (I can see why you would think that!). Sorry for the rambling explanation: "What's Clear to Me is Obscure to Others" (or I'm an Idiot) <== I need this in latin as my family motto. :-D Cattwister 11:46, 6 June 2017 (BST)

Thanks! That makes sense. --Kathryn QueenofCredits, 6 June 2017

Hi, I saw that you added "MSB Toys" and I've put it onto the main page for you. I've also moved the few figures we know about onto their own page. If you are keen to hunt down some more I tried the following search and found plenty of hits from The Miniatures page - we can't use the images but we can probably get some names and product details from them: try here and their archived site (which requires you to enable flash in your browser) is here. -- Cattwister 21:11, 11 June 2017 (BST)

Thank you! --Kathryn QueenofCredits, 13 June 2017

Hi there again. A quick update for your information. I asked Ed Pugh, President of Reaper Miniatures, if I could have his permission to post images from the Reaper website of their minis. I said I'd include a credit that said "Image property of Reaper Miniatures. Used with permission." He replied back to me today and gave his consent. The folks at Reaper, including sculptors, painters, and staff, have always been wonderful to me. I've been fortunate to become acquainted with a number of them over the years, and they are as genuinely nice as they are brilliantly creative. It's really kind of Ed to give his permission but he's a notoriously private person and protective of Reaper's IP, so we need to respect the expectation that any Reaper images posted include the IP reference. Just a head's up. :) Best regards as always, Kathryn QueenofCredits, 14 June 2017

That's really good! If you can, would you ask if we may use (or rather, "continue to use") the company logo on any wiki pages related to Reaper? Company logos really help anchor users visually to which area of the wiki they are in. (plus I'd actually prefer to use a more up-to-date logo than the one we have) I have added the IP details to the existing logo. - Cattwister 14:23, 15 June 2017 (BST)

Hi, I'll likely see Ed in October at ReaperCon. I'm teaching a class there this time. Woo hoo! I can ask more about IP usage if the opportunity presents. In general, however, showing a company's logo for certain limited purposes is considered "fair use" under intellectual property law, one of them being to correctly identify a company, brand, or service mark about which you are writing. It's slightly different rule than would apply to the wholesale use of their miniature images, .... which we of course have specific permission to use.

Speaking of Reaper, as I post images I'll replace any Bones sculpts that have been miscategorized as Dark Heaven Legends sculpts. It's slow going, as I just post as I am able when I get home from work and Reaper has produced a vast library of sculpts! But I'm on it.  :)

Kind regards as always, Kathryn QueenofCredits, 26 July 2017

Hi again. I'm working on my syllabus for the class I'm teaching at ReaperCon this year. I'm writing to ask permission to use photos you have posted on this website under your Cattwister user name. I will of course credit them back to you, and to that end, it would be helpful if I knew your actual name to give proper credit.  :) Please let me know if I have your kind consent and what name to use for credits. Thank you, Kathryn QueenofCredits, 1 August 2017

Hi, yes. That's fine. I've sent you an email with my details. - Cattwister 07:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Neil! Got it. :) Do you prefer I communicate with you here on LMW about things not specifically related to the Wiki, or do you prefer such communications by email? Please let me know so I don't overstep. Best, Kathryn QueenofCredits, 7 August 2017

Hi, Non-LMW stuff is best handled by email, I think. I've seen other conversations (from years ago) on some of the wiki talk pages that go off on a tangent and have nowt to do with the wiki... and they always seem very out of place. This was probably one of the reasons that a forum was suggested ages ago and why we started up a subreddit... and also why that email option exists in the mediawiki software in the first place. Note: there is no problem with listing things like your (very relevant!) ReaperCon class on your user page. :) - Cattwister 08:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools