Corrections for Toy Animal Wiki

Birdsage wrote:

That butterfly is not, in fact, just identified as a generic butterfly that is large and white; it is the species (Pieris brassicae) called the Large White. It is nothing like a Peppered Moth for your information; you were probably just guessing. This confusion wouldn’t have happened if the entry had used capital letters to denote a species.


The Peppered Moth (not “peppered moth”)

The “Large White” or “Cabbage White”. (not “large white” and definitely not “white butterfly”; I am not sure why you read it as just “white butterfly”) The lowercase “butterfly” can be added to the names (e.g. Large White butterfly) to give context when necessary (because butterflies, as well as many hummingbirds, have such needlessly whimsical and abstract common names that the average reader would not know that it was butterflies or hummingbirds that are being discussed).

(Sorry, I am quite sensitive about species nomenclature)

The vulture was already identified as a Turkey Vulture the whole time.

Birdsage wrote:

This is why we should use capital letters for species names.

You do not capitalize common names that are not proper nouns.  By the way common names have absolutely nothing to do with scientific nomenclature.

I have known about this. You may be correct that common names are unscientific, inconsistent, and often vary between peoples and that scientific names are more unique and useful, but I deliberately glossed over this subject because the average person does not use scientific names. This is what proves my point. Scientific organizations use capital letters for common names because the people won’t get used to calling Yellow Warblers “Setophaga petecia”, and for the reasons listed, a Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petecia) must be distinguished from a yellow warbler (any of a number of New World and Old World species). Thus, you would be right that it would be a little less confusing if we all used the unique scientific names. Then, we wouldn’t have to distinguish a (North American) Black Vulture from just a black vulture because the former would just be referred to as Coragyps atratus, and the latter is just generic. Unfortunately for the average English grammar teacher (and you), most citizens don’t use (and can’t even pronounce) the unique scientific names, so when the two have to be distinguished in text, Audubon, Cornell, INaturalist, the Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, etc. need to capitalize the one that refers to a particular species in order to help normal people understand.

Now, I have my own corrections to make.
In the US Garden Tube, there is a “Santa Cruz Garter Snake”. That name refers to the Aquatic Garter Snake, so it shouldn’t be considered a Ribbon Snake.
In that same tube, the squirrel should be identified as Fox Squirrel, the reddest squirrel in North America. Yes, even surpassing the American Red Squirrel! This is assuming the squirrel is not marked as a Gray Squirrel, which it probably isn’t.
The Schleich Mini Robin is of course a European Robin, and it is shown on that page. However, the figure’s entry is linked to the American Robin.
The German name of the Schleich Mini “Crow”, “Rabe”, actually translates to “raven”. Change the species to Common Raven.
The AAA Blanding’s Turtle page is linked in the Spotted Turtle page and has a dead link.
The AAA Keeled Box Turtle is a mislabeled Russian Tortoise: it has an almost identical mold to the largest AAA Russian Tortoise.
A Florida Panther subspecies page linked to the Puma page could be given for the K&M Florida Panther and if possible any other figures of said subspecies.
It has been confirmed (via eBay listings) that there is no panda or macaw in the K&M Rainforest Adventure Tube, so remove that acknowledgment from the tube’s page.
The K&M Spotted Frog is probably Oregon Spotted Frog. It looks nothing like the Spencer’s River Tree Frog.
The Colorata Zoogeography Grant’s Zebra is incorrectly linked to Plains Zebra.

Blaine is 100% right in the way we should use common names. "cabbage white" and "peppered moth" are absolutely correct common names. Capitalized ones are less correct. Sorry my friend but nomenclature the most sensitive issue for me.

@Birdsage, I understand your suggestions of the use of capital letters and others but editing a Wiki is a science on its own.
Actually, the correct was to call the page of the Large White Butterfly, just K&M Butterfly because it is the way this figure is known in that tube.
Though, there is a tube of butterflies, none of them is identified and the American garden tube also has a butterfly.
Rule number 1 while editing a wiki, two different pages can't have the same name.
So, we needed to use common names we think that correspond to the species represented in each figure. However, it was not enough to solve all problems because the butterfly of the American Garden tube is a Monarch and there's a Monarch on butterflies tube. So, the figure on butterflies tube is in a page called "K&M Monarch" while the figure on American Garden tube is called "K&M Monarch Butterfly". Thus, the use of the scientific name would not solve anything once both pages would end called "K&M Danaus plexippus" - to avoid it once they are different figures, one would need to be called "K&M American Garden Danaus plexippus" while the other "K&M Butterflies Danaus plexippus" - aren't these names a little silly?
There's another evident disadvantage while using scientific names, for more scientific knowledge that we may have, we all are more confortable with common names. You can't immagine how boring it is to most of the collectors trying to find a giant panda figure in a list of animals with scientific names instead of their common names.
Capital letters also do not represents a solution. OK, in the case of the Large White Butterfly surely Paige could understand immediately that the word "large" was part of the species name but that is the function of the table we have inside each figure page. If Paige had checked each page, both for vulture and butterfly, she could easily find out that they are identified as Turkey Vulture and Large White Butterfly. Paige assumed it was her little mistake but the important is that Paige, once more, tried to help and she is contributing a lot to this project that even with mistakes is super useful to many collectors.
@Birdsage, I also enjoy your effort to help identifying species, I often spend most of the time editing and searching species requires a lot of time so it is good to have your imput here. I will now check your suggestions but if you ever want to edit at the wiki, you will find that things are not so easy and systematic because when you build something in a community project, you must consider that we must find a compromise between the work of different editors.
What about telling me what do you think about the chuckwalla suggestion @Sbell gave to the K&M Uromastyx, looks a very sensate approach, no?

Birdsage wrote:

Now, I have my own corrections to make.

1. In the US Garden Tube, there is a “Santa Cruz Garter Snake”. That name refers to the Aquatic Garter Snake, so it shouldn’t be considered a Ribbon Snake.

- Well spotted, fixed now.

2. In that same tube, the squirrel should be identified as Fox Squirrel, the reddest squirrel in North America. Yes, even surpassing the American Red Squirrel! This is assuming the squirrel is not marked as a Gray Squirrel, which it probably isn’t.

- It is likely marked just as squirrel, before I make any changes, have you noticed it has two color versions?

3. The Schleich Mini Robin is of course a European Robin, and it is shown on that page. However, the figure’s entry is linked to the American Robin.

- Weird, fixed now.

4. The German name of the Schleich Mini “Crow”, “Rabe”, actually translates to “raven”. Change the species to Common Raven.

- Well, I followed your suggestion although it is hard to tell what the figure is.

5. The AAA Blanding’s Turtle page is linked in the Spotted Turtle page and has a dead link.

- How did you find this mistake, have you used the "waht links here" page? Fixed!

6. The AAA Keeled Box Turtle is a mislabeled Russian Tortoise: it has an almost identical mold to the largest AAA Russian Tortoise.

- Are you confortable with this identification?

7. A Florida Panther subspecies page linked to the Puma page could be given for the K&M Florida Panther and if possible any other figures of said subspecies.

- Sometimes subspecies pages take some time to be done. Mostly when these subspecies are not easy to identify or rarely marketed. I will do it anyway.

8. It has been confirmed (via eBay listings) that there is no panda or macaw in the K&M Rainforest Adventure Tube, so remove that acknowledgment from the tube’s page.

- Done, do you have a link?

9. The K&M Spotted Frog is probably Oregon Spotted Frog. It looks nothing like the Spencer’s River Tree Frog.

- One more guess, maybe we just should list it meanwhile as an unidentified true frog once it is not probably a tree frog.

10. The Colorata Zoogeography Grant’s Zebra is incorrectly linked to Plains Zebra.

- Done

Birdsage wrote:

I have known about this. You may be correct that common names are unscientific, inconsistent, and often vary between peoples and that scientific names are more unique and useful, but I deliberately glossed over this subject because the average person does not use scientific names. This is what proves my point. Scientific organizations use capital letters for common names because the people won’t get used to calling Yellow Warblers “Setophaga petecia”, and for the reasons listed, a Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petecia) must be distinguished from a yellow warbler (any of a number of New World and Old World species). Thus, you would be right that it would be a little less confusing if we all used the unique scientific names. Then, we wouldn’t have to distinguish a (North American) Black Vulture from just a black vulture because the former would just be referred to as Coragyps atratus, and the latter is just generic. Unfortunately for the average English grammar teacher (and you), most citizens don’t use (and can’t even pronounce) the unique scientific names, so when the two have to be distinguished in text, Audubon, Cornell, INaturalist, the Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, etc. need to capitalize the one that refers to a particular species in order to help normal people understand.

I am not an average US citizen. I am a professional biologist with over 50 scientific publications. I know how to write (and pronounce) names, common and Latin ;-)

Birders like to capitalize names, but that is a quirk in their culture (and I am now part of that culture) - it is not normal practice for common names.

Roger wrote:

Birdsage wrote:

Now, I have my own corrections to make.

2. In that same tube, the squirrel should be identified as Fox Squirrel, the reddest squirrel in North America. Yes, even surpassing the American Red Squirrel! This is assuming the squirrel is not marked as a Gray Squirrel, which it probably isn’t.

- It is likely marked just as squirrel, before I make any changes, have you noticed it has two color versions?

Oops! I thought that was just a custom repaint. It does have two color versions, representing different species.

Roger wrote:

@Birdsage, I understand your suggestions of the use of capital letters and others but editing a Wiki is a science on its own.
Actually, the correct was to call the page of the Large White Butterfly, just K&M Butterfly because it is the way this figure is known in that tube.
Though, there is a tube of butterflies, none of them is identified and the American garden tube also has a butterfly.
Rule number 1 while editing a wiki, two different pages can't have the same name.
So, we needed to use common names we think that correspond to the species represented in each figure. However, it was not enough to solve all problems because the butterfly of the American Garden tube is a Monarch and there's a Monarch on butterflies tube. So, the figure on butterflies tube is in a page called "K&M Monarch" while the figure on American Garden tube is called "K&M Monarch Butterfly".  Thus, the use of the scientific name would not solve anything once both pages would end called "K&M Danaus plexippus" - to avoid it once they are different figures, one would need to be called "K&M American Garden Danaus plexippus" while the other "K&M Butterflies Danaus plexippus" - aren't these names a little silly?
There's another evident disadvantage while using scientific names, for more scientific knowledge that we may have, we all are more confortable with common names. You can't immagine how boring it is to most of the collectors trying to find a giant panda figure in a list of animals with scientific names instead of their common names.
Capital letters also do not represents a solution. OK, in the case of the Large White Butterfly surely Paige could understand immediately that the word "large" was part of the species name but that is the function of the table we have inside each figure page. If Paige had checked each page, both for vulture and butterfly, she could easily find out that they are identified as Turkey Vulture and Large White Butterfly. Paige assumed it was her little mistake but the important is that Paige, once more, tried to help and she is contributing a lot to this project that even with mistakes is super useful to many collectors.
@Birdsage, I also enjoy your effort to help identifying species, I often spend most of the time editing and searching species requires a lot of time so it is good to have your imput here. I will now check your suggestions but if you ever want to edit at the wiki, you will find that things are not so easy and systematic because when you build something in a community project, you must consider that we must find a compromise between the work of different editors.
What about telling me what do you think about the chuckwalla suggestion @Sbell gave to the K&M Uromastyx, looks a very sensate approach, no?

Yes, using scientific names only is not really acceptable because not everyone has gotten used to using them as names. I alluded to that. I guess you are also right that the species’ common name is just shown by itself in the link to the species, and the capital name would thus be less appropriate or necessary in this application. But at least use standardized and consistent naming conventions. Why are some pages in British/Australian English and some in American English (for example, gray squirrel, gray whale, and gray wolf, but grey seal, grey-headed flying fox, grey heron)? I see that the usage often correlates to where the species are found, but some are natively found in areas that would use both names (gray wolves and grey seals are both found in North America as well as Eurasia). Please choose a standard. If the standard says to use lowercase letters for common names then stick with that. With that, if you prefer lowercase names, please lowercase any capitalized common names: e.g. White-faced Saki or Masked Titi, the latter of which is more commonly called the Atlantic titi.

bmathison1972 wrote:

Birders like to capitalize names, but that is a quirk in their culture (and I am now part of that culture) - it is not normal practice for common names.

It’s not just birders. Officially, many major scientific and zoological organizations, besides the bird-specific ones, say to capitalize the names of reptiles, butterflies and other insects, fish, mammals, amphibians, and plants. In other words, pretty much everything.

Clearly the Keeled Box Turtle is just a copy of the largest Russian Tortoise. It can’t be based on a Keeled Box Turtle at all.
Now, there is another AAA turtle marked “Notched Turtle” and that is not the same as the existing “Notched Turtles”. It IS in fact based on a Keeled Box Turtle, so create a page for it with these photos.



The existing notched turtles on the other hand, are probably not the island-endemic Ryukyu Black-breasted Leaf Turtle, but are most likely cast from the Southeast Asian mainland species called simply the Black-breasted Leaf Turtle, as many AAA figures are cast from species native to Southern China and Southeast Asia.
I think the reason why it was put into a species page for the former because many Japanese figures existed of that species, while there were no figures of the mainland species. Thus, change the species and put it into a new species page for “Black-breasted leaf turtle”.

Birdsage wrote:

Yes, using scientific names only is not really acceptable because not everyone has gotten used to using them as names. I alluded to that. I guess you are also right that the species’ common name is just shown by itself in the link to the species, and the capital name would thus be less appropriate or necessary in this application. But at least use standardized and consistent naming conventions. Why are some pages in British/Australian English and some in American English (for example, gray squirrel, gray whale, and gray wolf, but grey seal, grey-headed flying fox, grey heron)? I see that the usage often correlates to where the species are found, but some are natively found in areas that would use both names (gray wolves and grey seals are both found in North America as well as Eurasia). Please choose a standard. If the standard says to use lowercase letters for common names then stick with that. With that, if you prefer lowercase names, please lowercase any capitalized common names: e.g. White-faced Saki or Masked Titi, the latter of which is more commonly called the Atlantic titi.

We use the names we find on Wikipedia. Why Wikipedia sometimes uses gray instead of grey? I don't know. Why we use Wikipedia? Exactly because our taxonomic section and I think we are the only website of animal collecting that has a comprehensive taxonomical approach. If all editors use the Wikipedia entries, we will all use the same exact names for the same species without caring if the editor is British, American or from any other country. We will also not worry about if we should use grey or gray and many other examples. When working in a community of contributors that give their time for free, the most important is that we try to use the same language and I mean the Wiki language, not if it is British or North American English. I think it doesn't make any relevant difference for a collector if it is written grey fox or gray fox but for editors, it makes all the difference to know which name other editors are using. In a somewhat initial stage, different editors opened different pages for the same species or used different species in the same pages. If we don't share the same source, we risk to have a page called orca and another called killer whale when both names are used to the same species.
When the number of species was just a few hundreds, I checked the whole taxonomic section and renamed all pages to match the Wikipedia naming. It took a good number of weeks, now it would be impossible. There are a few exceptions, we are not using the name cougar but puma instead, I don't know if it was Wikipedia who changed the name later or if we never fixed it.
You will always find a few inconsistencies but you have to understand that it is a work made by non professional people and for free. We are also just a few editing this huge wiki. Also, never forget it is a Wiki with all what it means and essentially a guide for collectors and not a scientific book. About the white-faced saki, it is a page that was not edited for the last 5 years so it is normal this capital letter got forgoten but it is just a minor thing.

I think you're all doing a fantastic job, and making decisions which make perfect sense, both to the integrity of the wiki and the vast majority of users who find it, whether it's being visited time and again as a regular resource for collectors, or a random one-off visit to someone who just wants to track down one toy animal. I'm new AND a collector, so both kinds of visitor at once, and found it logical and easy to work from my very first attempt :)

I find it quite useful for a lot of historical data. I understand the issues with trying to keep things straight to the species level; even now most companies rarely give that much detail, or make it easier to determine.

The important thing for TAI is that it is user friendly for a collector audience. Following Wikipedia might not always be 100% with the latest taxonomy, BUT it allows for consistency with is better for the user. One of those scenarios were information retrieval is more beneficial than what the latest phylogenetic theories are.

I will often suggest corrections to TAI based on taxonomic changes, but if the editors don't accept those changes, it's OK.

How about this?
For the titles of figure pages use the names the figures are marked as or identified as in official catalogs whenever possible, even if the name is not correct. This may help normal collectors who are searching for figures based on their official names and are not being picky or scientific about the species’ more correct IDs. The species pages, of course, will have the Wikipedia-correct names. and they will be linked as such. Thus, “Puma” gets changed to “Cougar”, “Masked Titi” to “Atlantic titi”, etc.
“American yellow warbler” is an exception; while that is the title of the Wikipedia page, the rest of the article simply calls it a “yellow warbler”, and no one in real life seems to call it an American yellow warbler, unless they are referencing the article. I think this is because there is a group of Eurasian birds called “yellow warblers” and clarity was needed, but the only SPECIES called a yellow warbler is Setophaga petechia. Change that species title to “yellow warbler”.
Another exception is “Burmese peacock softshell”. Once again, this is the Wikipedia page title, but it appears to be a mistake. It is referred to in the article as its full name, “Burmese peacock softshell turtle”, and the other species, the Indian softshell turtle, is referred to in full.

Change the following figures’ titles:
Play Visions Red-eared Slider to Red-necked Pond Turtle.
Play Visions Head Louse, Bedbug, Gulf Coast Tick, and Soft Tick to Head Lice, Bedbug Lice, Deer Tick and Chigger respectively.
Nayab American Buffalo, Giant Forest Hog, Bezoar Ibex, and White Stork to Yak, Boar, Alpine Ibex, and Siberian Crane respectively.
Safari Ltd Warbler and Woodpecker to Yellow Warbler and Pileated Woodpecker.
Safari Ltd Lilly Pad to Lily Pad.
Etc.

Species split corrections:
The Kaiyodo Furuta Green Pheasant is officially named Common Pheasant. This should be in its title, but the species represents the Green Pheasant which has since been split, so keep the species.
The Kaiyodo Varied Tit “owstoni” refers to a former subspecies of the Varied Tit that has since been split. The title stays as “Varied Tit owstoni” but the species should be changed.

Nayab Large Badger

Birdsage wrote:

How about this?
For the titles of figure pages use the names the figures are marked as or identified as in official catalogs whenever possible, even if the name is not correct. This may help normal collectors who are searching for figures based on their official names and are not being picky or scientific about the species’ more correct IDs. The species pages, of course, will have the Wikipedia-correct names. and they will be linked as such. Thus, “Puma” gets changed to “Cougar”, “Masked Titi” to “Atlantic titi”, etc.
“American yellow warbler” is an exception; while that is the title of the Wikipedia page, the rest of the article simply calls it a “yellow warbler”, and no one in real life seems to call it an American yellow warbler, unless they are referencing the article. I think this is because there is a group of Eurasian birds called “yellow warblers” and clarity was needed, but the only SPECIES  called a yellow warbler is Setophaga petechia. Change that species title to “yellow warbler”.
Another exception is “Burmese peacock softshell”. Once again, this is the Wikipedia page title, but it appears to be a mistake. It is referred to in the article as its full name, “Burmese peacock softshell turtle”, and the other species, the Indian softshell turtle, is referred to in full.

Change the following figures’ titles:
Play Visions Red-eared Slider to Red-necked Pond Turtle.
Play Visions Head Louse, Bedbug, Gulf Coast Tick, and Soft Tick to Head Lice, Bedbug Lice, Deer Tick and Chigger respectively.
Nayab American Buffalo, Giant Forest Hog, Bezoar Ibex, and White Stork to Yak, Boar, Alpine Ibex, and Siberian Crane respectively.
Safari Ltd Warbler and Woodpecker to Yellow Warbler and Pileated Woodpecker.
Safari Ltd Lilly Pad to Lily Pad.
Etc.

Species split corrections:
The Kaiyodo Furuta Green Pheasant is officially named Common Pheasant. This should be in its title, but the species represents the Green Pheasant which has since been split, so keep the species.
The Kaiyodo Varied Tit “owstoni” refers to a former subspecies of the Varied Tit that has since been split. The title stays as “Varied Tit owstoni” but the species should be changed.

I think you are really over complicating things and I don´t see why some of our few members who are working on the TAW should change things back and forth. For exemple the Bezoar Ibex (that you already suggested to change by the way) was changed from alpine to bezoar after some debates. But there were pictures proving the inspiration Nayab had, so there was work done to change it. The same for the Giant Forest Hog, which was registred a long time as boar, but is now identified by the help of members and literature into a Giant Forest Hog. Changing it now back to Boar is frustrating not only for the members who helped identifying the species, but for the editors, too. I cannot say how thankful I´m for the work that is done on TAW, but I think the few editors have much other things to do than changing things every month back and forth. As Roger said, it´s a wiki and it can´t please everybody and it can´t be completed. It´s not the "bible", it´s just a useful help for collectors.

I really appreciate your motivation and your knowledge with this age is impressive. But you see "problems" that aren´t really problems (for me at least). I think there are other sections that need more work than changing names, that have already been changed a few times. I don´t even really understand what you want, speaking for the Nayabs for exemple. With this logic, we should change the sika deer to deer. But you started a poll to change it into a Thorold’s Deer. So, it´s not so easy as you might think.
It surprises me, too, that you don´t really accept for exemple Blaine´s point of view, even that he has proven knowledge concerning names. I mean 50 scientific publications (!) and you still are arguing I´m working for a nature conservation organisation and only can agree with Blaine.

Duck-Anch-Amun wrote:

Birdsage wrote:

How about this?
For the titles of figure pages use the names the figures are marked as or identified as in official catalogs whenever possible, even if the name is not correct. This may help normal collectors who are searching for figures based on their official names and are not being picky or scientific about the species’ more correct IDs. The species pages, of course, will have the Wikipedia-correct names. and they will be linked as such. Thus, “Puma” gets changed to “Cougar”, “Masked Titi” to “Atlantic titi”, etc.
“American yellow warbler” is an exception; while that is the title of the Wikipedia page, the rest of the article simply calls it a “yellow warbler”, and no one in real life seems to call it an American yellow warbler, unless they are referencing the article. I think this is because there is a group of Eurasian birds called “yellow warblers” and clarity was needed, but the only SPECIES  called a yellow warbler is Setophaga petechia. Change that species title to “yellow warbler”.
Another exception is “Burmese peacock softshell”. Once again, this is the Wikipedia page title, but it appears to be a mistake. It is referred to in the article as its full name, “Burmese peacock softshell turtle”, and the other species, the Indian softshell turtle, is referred to in full.

Change the following figures’ titles:
Play Visions Red-eared Slider to Red-necked Pond Turtle.
Play Visions Head Louse, Bedbug, Gulf Coast Tick, and Soft Tick to Head Lice, Bedbug Lice, Deer Tick and Chigger respectively.
Nayab American Buffalo, Giant Forest Hog, Bezoar Ibex, and White Stork to Yak, Boar, Alpine Ibex, and Siberian Crane respectively.
Safari Ltd Warbler and Woodpecker to Yellow Warbler and Pileated Woodpecker.
Safari Ltd Lilly Pad to Lily Pad.
Etc.

Species split corrections:
The Kaiyodo Furuta Green Pheasant is officially named Common Pheasant. This should be in its title, but the species represents the Green Pheasant which has since been split, so keep the species.
The Kaiyodo Varied Tit “owstoni” refers to a former subspecies of the Varied Tit that has since been split. The title stays as “Varied Tit owstoni” but the species should be changed.

I think you are really over complicating things and I don´t see why some of our few members who are working on the TAW should change things back and forth. For exemple the Bezoar Ibex (that you already suggested to change by the way) was changed from alpine to bezoar after some debates. But there were pictures proving the inspiration Nayab had, so there was work done to change it. The same for the Giant Forest Hog, which was registred a long time as boar, but is now identified by the help of members and literature into a Giant Forest Hog. Changing it now back to Boar is frustrating not only for the members who helped identifying the species, but for the editors, too. I cannot say how thankful I´m for the work that is done on TAW, but I think the few editors have much other things to do than changing things every month back and forth. As Roger said, it´s a wiki and it can´t please everybody and it can´t be completed. It´s not the "bible", it´s just a useful help for collectors.

I really appreciate your motivation and your knowledge with this age is impressive. But you see "problems" that aren´t really problems (for me at least). I think there are other sections that need more work than changing names, that have already been changed a few times. I don´t even really understand what you want, speaking for the Nayabs for exemple. With this logic, we should change the sika deer to deer. But you started a poll to change it into a Thorold’s Deer. So, it´s not so easy as you might think.
It surprises me, too, that you don´t really accept for exemple Blaine´s point of view, even that he has proven knowledge concerning names. I mean 50 scientific publications (!) and you still are arguing I´m working for a nature conservation organisation and only can agree with Blaine.

I agree (with regards to the attempt at re-inventing TAI). There is a reason the names on TAI are what they are. In the case of the PV arthropods, the names on the figures are absolutely wrong.
The 'chigger' is a soft tick
The 'deer tick' is clearly not a deer tick (Gulf Coast tick is best guess, with features available)
There is no such thing as a 'bedbug louse' (bed bugs and lice are unrelated insects)

There is no reason to reinvent the wheel and I highly doubt TAI editors are going to make these changes.

I guess you would be right that it would be rather silly to have official yet far-off IDs for the titles.

So, at least correct the titi, cougar, and any examples like this. Also, my question is, should names like “American yellow warbler” and “Burmese peacock softshell” be changed to names like “yellow warbler” and “Burmese peacock softshell turtle” because the article actually refers to them by the latter names? The former title names might just be for disambiguation reasons or sometimes just mistakes. Like I already said, the “American” yellow warbler example is because there is a group of Old World warblers known as yellow warblers. Yet, that is just for disambiguation reasons, and the rest of the article pretty much just calls this a yellow warbler, as almost no one actually refers to this bird as an American yellow warbler. The other just seems like an inconsistency mistake.

Really wise words, Duck-Anch-Amun You expressed perfectly my own feelings regarding this subject :)

Please answer my question.

First I want to thank the support of everyone. Editing on TAW really requires a lot of time and dedication.

@Birdsage, if I debate all these minor details with you, I won't be able of using my time on TAW.
These Nayab won't be changed again. Nayab catalogue is probably not even the official identifications, we are not even sure these figures are original Nayab and Del Prado identification are sometimes different.
It is a recomendation and not a editing rule. I will only give you an extreme example, the Extralarge Nayab maned wolf is marked as Aspargarus and it is not sensate we name it as Nayab Extralarge Aspargarus, though, we should put a note that it is marked like htat, thus, someone searching for that word will find that page.
Please don't take your time with these minor details.
About the inconsistency of the herited names from Wikipedia, they are a minor consequence from a useful tool for editors. It doesn't hurt me the common names are not the best choices. If you search for scientific name, you will find the page anyway.
However, from your observations I fixed the little typo of the lily pad, the Owston tit has now its own page and the masked titi was renamed to Atlantic titi. I may rename the puma page to cougar but to avoid loads of redirects, I have to edit 30 pages and it requires some time.
Your help is more useful if you help us identifying species in those sets with very debatable models.
Please try to be always kind, that's a forum rule and we don't have a boss, we do it for the benefit of our community. :)