Separate companiesEdit

It's my understanding that these are separate companies again, or at least marketed that way. Shouldn't there be separate pages then? - Archduk3 15:48, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Ertl no longer exists, and the company now markets its Trek releases (which are re-releases) under "AMT/Round2" (or something like that). Methinks the new name should likely link here though. -- sulfur 16:05, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Not quite, as I understand it, Ertl still exists, but now as subsidiary of RC2 Corporation (Racing Champions)[1]; it still has its own website [2]. It apparently has returned to its roots, a manufacturer of agricultural models. An option for linking through might be renaming the article AMT/Round 2, (though the re-releases are marketed under the original AMT-imprint) the most current denominator, and add a link AMT/Ertl, though most of us still have a strong association with AMT/Ertl...-Sennim 16:33, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
The problem is... the old stuff was all released as "AMT/Ertl", so that page has to continue to exist as such. The company went dormant and the brand re-started (for all intents and purposes), and is now "AMT/Round2". It might even be worth creating a new page for that one, linking across to the "AMT/Ertl" article for re-releases, and any brand-new releases going into the "AMT/Round2" article. -- sulfur 17:41, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it as released as AMT and then as AMT/Ertl if I'm reading this right. We could move the page to AMT, since I think more people will look for it there and that's the constant, while creating a redirect at AMT/Round2. - Archduk3 17:47, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

To compound matters even further the correct order is AMT, AMT/Lesney, AMT/Ertl, AMT/RC2 and AMT/Round 2, but I personally am not too keen on splitting them all into their separate pages. AMT is the common denominator for all kits and I think people looking for the kits might appreciate it having them all on one page instead of having them fragmented. Another possibility for the future might be renaming this page "AMT Star Trek model kits" and having separate pages for the parent companies AMT (an article of sorts already exists in the first 2 paragraphs of the "History"-section), Lesney, Ertl (or AMT/Ertl), RC2 (page already exists as Racing Champions) and Round 2 LLC with links linking to this page much like what has been done with VHS for example. As for truly new releases, I don't think AMT (whoever owns it) will be getting these. All really new releases from 2003 onward went to Polar Lights.-Sennim 18:52, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we would need all those pages, thought we should have pages for the parent companies. I still think moving this to AMT with just a plethora of redirects is the best and simplest solution to the ever changing name, and I definitely think we shouldn't break up the models if they're just re-releases of the old ones. - Archduk3 19:41, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Would work for me. The article as it now stands would largely remain as is, only renamed "AMT" New articles have to be written of:
  • Ertl
  • Lesney
  • Round 2 LLC

and RC2 has to be finetuned. Redirects could take the form of: for individual modelkit releases see: AMT--Sennim 22:04, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Correct Scale Listed? Edit

The AMT/Ertl 8778: Deep Space 9 Space Station Kit is listed as being at the scale of 1:3300 but the box art as depicted states that it is a 1:2500 scale kit. Further more, I’ve actually got this particular kit my self (as yet unassembled) and the assembly manual also describes it as being 1:2500.

Is this an error on the page, and the kit simply needs to be move to within the 1:2500 scale section of the article? Or is the assertion that this particular kit is 1:2500 scale, a known factual error that has been corrected here?

I’ve been trying to find the answer to this particular question for sometime, so would really love an answer. 22:44, February 8, 2013 (UTC)