Should Origami models be reviewed on the DTB?

[Killekor]

Hi,
I don't know if this is the right board where I should start this topic, a sorry if this is not.
I really like to fold Origami models, and seeing that some paper craft dinosaurs have been reviewed on the DTB, I had the idea to review some origami dinosaurs. But then I'd think: should they be reviewed?

Here's some considerations I made about that:

positive considerations/advantages.

- Origami (for me) can be considered toys and (in some cases) sculptures. So why they shouldn't be reviewed?

- Origami dinosaurs would add even more variety to the blog reviews.

- this reviews maybe could encourage some origami artist to post a cp of one of his/her prehistoric designs to make them review.

difficulties.

- the instructions for most of the most interesting models are not available. Plus, usually they are in limited or exclusive books/magazines.

-Origami models in 99% of the cases aren't scientifically accurate, especially in proportions, so they could be uninteresting to many of the people here.

Requierements.

-The instructions to fold the reviewed model should be available somewhere (in a book, a magazine, or simply somewhere on the internet). They could be any tipe of instructions (diagrams, photo-diagrams, Crease patterns or video tutorials). But you can't upload yourself the instructions of the model if they're not intended to be leaked online (for ex. If you want to review "dinosaur" by "designer" and it's instructions are only available in "book A", which it's on sale in various shops, you can't upload the instructions for "dinosaur" or the entire "book A" in the blog). This rule it's made to not break copyright rules.

-the reviewed model shouldn't be your own design, to prevent a conflict of interest.

-The reviews should also contain information about what paper you used and your experience on folding it (again, at least for me). Plus, they should contain the size of the paper and the resulting size of the model (for ex. "...From a 40x40cm sheet you obtain a 20 cm long model...") Naturally it should just be a short note. The review should be principally of the finished model, not about the folding process.

What do you think about it?

Killekor

[suspsy]

I'm going to say no.

[Halichoeres]

What about an entire book of prehistoric origami patterns?

[Lanthanotus]

I'd like to see, not only because I am myself have some books and like folding, but also because I agree on most of your points. I'd think a requirement should be that there's some kind of instructions available (either free by download, or for purchase via book or download or at least a crease pattern available), one of a kind paper sculpts should probably not be included.

[Ravonium]

Review layman here, I don't see the harm in reviewing origami models as long as they're not your own creation (largely for the reason of a potential conflict of interest). As for copyright, the only way I could see it unambiguously breaking copyright legislation is if you downloaded the original net and hosted it without permission, which is unlikely to happen and easy to prevent.

[BRONSON]

You can put whatever you want on for me, any skill like that should be encouraged as its a good thing to have that not that many can do.

[stargatedalek]

Hi,
I don't know if this is the right board where I should start this topic, a sorry if this is not.
I really like to fold Origami models, and seeing that some paper craft dinosaurs have been reviewed on the DTB, I had the idea to review some origami dinosaurs. But then I'd think: should they be reviewed?

Papercaft models have been accepted, and I agree with that, at least so long as any model kits are accepted. But origami is a whole other thing.

I think if they are pre-designed and patterned origami sheets with patterns printed specifically for the dinosaur in question, (IE something like this pigeon: https://creativepark.canon/en/contents/CNT-0000148/index.html ) than I would say yes. But I don't think plain or coloured paper with instructions obtained separately is enough to consider it for review.

Books or sets of instructions might also be enough to get in, though I personally would draw the line at specifically patterned paper.

-the reviewed model should be folded perfectly, in an impeccabile way (at least for me); and it could become a lot boring to fold, especially if it is a super complex model that needs a lot of pre-creasing.

-The reviews should also contain information about what paper you used and your experience on folding it (again, at least for me).

That sounds like overkill to me. The review should touch on difficulty of assembly sure, but that shouldn't be the priority let alone mandatory.

[Killekor]

I'd like to see, not only because I am myself have some books and like folding, but also because I agree on most of your points. I'd think a requirement should be that there's some kind of instructions available (either free by download, or for purchase via book or download or at least a crease pattern available).

Review layman here, I don't see the harm in reviewing origami models as long as they're not your own creation (largely for the reason of a potential conflict of interest). As for copyright, the only way I could see it unambiguously breaking copyright legislation is if you downloaded the original net and hosted it without permission, which is unlikely to happen and easy to prevent.

-the reviewed model should be folded perfectly, in an impeccabile way (at least for me); and it could become a lot boring to fold, especially if it is a super complex model that needs a lot of pre-creasing.

-The reviews should also contain information about what paper you used and your experience on folding it (again, at least for me).

That sounds like overkill to me. The review should touch on difficulty of assembly sure, but that shouldn't be the priority let alone mandatory.

Thanks for your answer! I completely agree with both of you. In fact I modified the first post including your considerations plus some more other ideas.

one of a kind paper sculpts should probably not be included.

What do you mean?

Hi,
I don't know if this is the right board where I should start this topic, a sorry if this is not.
I really like to fold Origami models, and seeing that some paper craft dinosaurs have been reviewed on the DTB, I had the idea to review some origami dinosaurs. But then I'd think: should they be reviewed?

Papercaft models have been accepted, and I agree with that, at least so long as any model kits are accepted. But origami is a whole other thing.

I think if they are pre-designed and patterned origami sheets with patterns printed specifically for the dinosaur in question, (IE something like this pigeon: https://creativepark.canon/en/contents/CNT-0000148/index.html ) than I would say yes. But I don't think plain or coloured paper with instructions obtained separately is enough to consider it for review.

Books or sets of instructions might also be enough to get in, though I personally would draw the line at specifically patterned paper.

For me the simple, unicolor models can absolutely be folded with patterned paper. It could make the review more funny and interesting than with an unicolor paper, so thanks for the idea!
But I don't agree about more complex models, in particular if they have one or more color changes. I think that those models should be folded with a more "serious" paper, also because a patterned paper should inevitably need to be printed, and a 20 cm square of printer paper it's not exactly the best for Kamiya's Spinosaurus (apart from the fact that I don't think that most models really need a patterned paper, like any origami mammoth).

What about an entire book of prehistoric origami patterns?

There are yet various books about that tipe of origami, if you are interested  .

Killekor

[Lanthanotus]

What do you mean?

I mean origami sculpts that are made without the creator ever published any instructions or crease patterns, so basically making it impossible to recreate his/her sculpt. There are lot of such creations out there, aswell as for other materials, like stone, LEGO MOCs and others. In general such "one of a kind" sculpts are not reviewed here on the blog, but only sculpts/figures that are produced in certain numbers or at least have some instructions that allow others to recreate them - same should go for origami sculpts if the community deceides for welcoming them on the blog.

[Libraraptor]

I am pro diversity and contra arbitrariness on the blog.

Hence my tendency would be "Yes, origami, why not?"

[Killekor]

What do you mean?

I mean origami sculpts that are made without the creator ever published any instructions or crease patterns, so basically making it impossible to recreate his/her sculpt. There are lot of such creations out there, aswell as for other materials, like stone, LEGO MOCs and others. In general such "one of a kind" sculpts are not reviewed here on the blog, but only sculpts/figures that are produced in certain numbers or at least have some instructions that allow others to recreate them - same should go for origami sculpts if the community deceides for welcoming them on the blog.

Thanks for the explanation, Lanthanotus! I completely agree with you.

Seeing that many of the users who answered to this thread sayd that they'll Like to see reviews of origami dinosaurs, I think that the answer to the title of this thread is «yes», right? If this is the answer, I'll soon start a review of one of an origami dinosaur.

Killekor

[suspsy]

What do you mean?

I mean origami sculpts that are made without the creator ever published any instructions or crease patterns, so basically making it impossible to recreate his/her sculpt. There are lot of such creations out there, aswell as for other materials, like stone, LEGO MOCs and others. In general such "one of a kind" sculpts are not reviewed here on the blog, but only sculpts/figures that are produced in certain numbers or at least have some instructions that allow others to recreate them - same should go for origami sculpts if the community deceides for welcoming them on the blog.

Thanks for the explanation, Lanthanotus! I completely agree with you.

Seeing that many of the users who answered to this thread sayd that they'll Like to see reviews of origami dinosaurs, I think that the answer to the title of this thread is «yes», right? If this is the answer, I'll soon start a review of one of an origami dinosaur.

Killekor

I still have reservations about this, but I will consider any submission you send.

[stargatedalek]

I still have strong reservations. Origami sold as sets is one thing, but "everyone knows this one" kind of instructions pulled off the web doesn't quite sit right. It feels to much like not being a production model.

[suspsy]

I still have strong reservations. Origami sold as sets is one thing, but "everyone knows this one" kind of instructions pulled off the web doesn't quite sit right. It feels to much like not being a production model.

Precisely my sentiments. Again, I'll at least consider any submission given, but I'm highly skeptical. I should probably mention that I'm an origami buff myself. If I thought that they had any place on the blog, I'd have done reviews myself ages ago.

[DinoToyForum]

My feeling is that commercially available branded origami kits or books are fair game for review, but not random origami from the web.

[Killekor]

I still have strong reservations. Origami sold as sets is one thing, but "everyone knows this one" kind of instructions pulled off the web doesn't quite sit right. It feels to much like not being a production model.

Precisely my sentiments. Again, I'll at least consider any submission given, but I'm highly skeptical. I should probably mention that I'm an origami buff myself. If I thought that they had any place on the blog, I'd have done reviews myself ages ago.

My feeling is that commercially available branded origami kits or books are fair game for review, but not random origami from the web.

Thanks for the answers. I understand what you mean. Probably review origami on the blog it's not a good idea.

Killekor