Talk:Revell

Untitled

In the text mention is made of AMT, a rival model maker. I delinked this when nothing on the disambiguation page came close. MPC, a defunct maker of plastic models, is mentioned on another disambiguation page - but this is a red link. Any modeller who is familiar with the subject may wish to expand the relevant entries. Also, Airfix is(was) a major competitor in the UK/European market where Revell has a presence.LessHeard vanU 19:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Monogram models - they are a single company now

Monogram and Revell are a single company now - Monogram name is used for a single line of model kits. Proposing that they be merged into a single article (with misc redirects). --Eqdoktor 16:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say no to merge, for the fact they were at one time rivals who happened to be brought out by the same parent company, also for the fact the German operation is a independent company as claimed by the this page, who also list Monogram as an imports/export to the US, as I have a few catalogues of both companies of the 1990s to prove this. Willirennen 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No finer detailed molding than Revell, Inc.

Since the 1950s and 1960s, almost 50 years ago, I have neglected to discard a number of plastic models I assembled as a preteen and teenager. In particular, I still have a collection of military soldiers that accompanied Revell's military model tanks, cannon, jeeps, etc. I have compared these plastic soldiers with similar ones that came in Monogram model kits (also military models of wartime vehicles), and there is no comparison! The Revell model plastic soldiers stand up to scrutiny under a microscope! They are the most detailed, most exquisite miniatures of combat soldiers that I have ever seen. You can look at them under a magnifying glass and wonder how any commercial company could ever take the time to mold these in such unbeleivable detail! The mold-maker or person responsible for creating the molds for these accessory figures must have certainly been an expert in his field, and way beyond in quality what really was needed for his job. These plastic figures in combat poses are like nothing I have ever seen since.

Yeah, Revell has a noticably good quality of models and easy-to-follow instructions. I only trust them for models :P 70.44.147.242 01:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have consistently looked, over the years, for comments regarding Revell's outstanding detailed moldings compared to competitors, and have found nothing until now. The above reviewer's comments are exactly my own. Revell's modeling of military figures compared to competitor's molding of accompanying military figures are not even in the same class! Revell's military figures are the best most detailed figures I have ever seen and even under a microscope one wonders how any company could have afforded to make such precision moldings of plastic figures. It is amazing that no one until now has brought up this subject of such exquisite detail in what I would expect would eventually be collectible figures of rare availability. If you can compare a Revell figure against a say Monogram figure, it is like the difference between unaffordable impossible precision and common-market mass-produced artifacts. 71.125.151.162 (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In Line Citations - Bane of Good Research

In line citations do not improve articles - too bad Wikipedia supports them. They are cumbersome, difficult to construct and a nightmare to alter when new references are added, especially in this system. They discourage the reader from actually looking at them, thus hide valid (or not so valid) resource information. They are not normally used in most respectable publishing outlets; professional outlets use APA or MLA. APA systems are much more direct, easy to interpret and, electronically, easy to alter. I support Wikipedia allowing other more professional forms of citation/referencing that would encourage writers to cite better. In-line citations, don't--Cstevencampbell (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

APA Style citations in parentheses, though not favored by Wikipedia do site to the references below at exactly the same place as the in-line citations - at the end of a sentence - so...they are no less clear.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

But you can use a wide variety of citing styles on Wikipedia, including APA, Harvard, MLA etc. Even if they are less common they are still in use and covered under the citing guidelines. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and in particular Wikipedia:Citing sources#Short citations and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing. Siawase (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Cstevencampbell (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Once you become familiar with the <ref> syntax and the variety of templates that can be inserted between <ref> tags, you'll never want to go back to the old way of doing it. — Quicksilver^{T @} 05:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've started using in-line citations for longer articles, but it is still a bit unwieldy. I'm not as harsh about it as I was. Still, parenthetical referencing leaves a more complete and easily searchable and accessible reference list with page numbers more accurately rendered (say article or chapter #s compared to page #s for the cited information). They also make it difficult to edit material within editing mode because they make it difficult to distinguish article text from reference --Cstevencampbell (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing Link

The external link "Revell Model Tips & Tricks" pointing to revellmodels.org does not work, so would someone who knows where it went please redirect it ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)