Talk:Monogram (company)

Merge proposal with Revell - 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 16:22, 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 Revell 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 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be merged, but with paragraphs on each as they were previously separated. If you do this, then the German (and Chinese/Asian) Revell franchises would need to be listed separately, as they are separate. mercator79 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote against merging. I wrote a short (fictional) story years ago based on the competition between Monogram and Revell. I am about to re-publish this story for my grandchildren. This information probably would not have found by searching had it been included with Revell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.63.22 (talk) 17:00, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I think merging would be fine, as long as a search for Monogram would point to the merged page. Same for Revell. --Kding 08:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I say no to merging. I agree with the above. Volvo Motor Company is now owned by Chinese Geely - should we propose that the two be merged? Absolutely not. Mentioning the merger in both the Monogram and Revell pages is OK, but merging them gives the impression that they were always together and always will be. Corgi Toys used to be owned by Mattel but now is separate again. Merging those in the past would have presented a dilemma later on. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MonogramCatalogMontage.jpg
Image:MonogramCatalogMontage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation style
I find confusing the style of inline citation used in this article (which I've noticed in other related articles on scale modeling); unless there is a sound reason not to proceed, I'll change the citations to a footnote style. This would take me a few days. Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Very heavy on content regarding the car models
The article could use more content on the other kit genres; it sounds like it was written by a car modeler. The airplane kits and armor kits were meat-and-potatoes for Monogram, and were actually the first subjects produced; the cars came later. There's also no mention of the brochures authored by the late modeler and painter Shep Paine. I've got a copy of Thomas Graham's book, too, which I can use as a reference. I'll see how best to add such content. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)theBaron0503
 * That's mostly my fault, because I don't know as much about the other kits.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)