Corrections for Toy Animal Wiki

endogenylove wrote:

I believe that the Natural History Naturally Adorkable series was produced by Naturalism, the maker of the owls with tilted heads and the eagles that were recently released. Is it appropriate for me to move the two series over to the Naturalism page which I have created?

And i think it is PVC, not resin

widukind wrote:

endogenylove wrote:

I believe that the Natural History Naturally Adorkable series was produced by Naturalism, the maker of the owls with tilted heads and the eagles that were recently released. Is it appropriate for me to move the two series over to the Naturalism page which I have created?

And i think it is PVC, not resin

Yes, it is PVC, I have some of the figures. Later today I will make these changes.

The edits are done. Naturally Adorkable is now a section on the Naturalism page and the Naturally Adorkable page redirects there.

endogenylove wrote:

The edits are done. Naturally Adorkable is now a section on the Naturalism page and the Naturally Adorkable page redirects there.

Great job, London! As the number of series is increasing, as long as more pictures are added, we may open individual pages with galleries for each species as we'be been doing on many brands.

@Roger I think that Animal, other Life kingdoms and Legendary creatures should have been kept for historical references. Probably redirected to Animalia. It was the Animalia page for a long time. In fact, couldn't you have moved it to Animalia rather than copying and pasting?

It seems that many redundant pages are deleted rather than turned into redirects on TAW. This may be because when using the search bar, redirects show up too, just like other pages. By contrast, the search bar on the English Wikipedia only shows redirects if the actual page isn't shown. For example, Columbid will not show up if you search for it but Dove will. This is probably due to the MediaWiki versions used. Wikipedia's is newer.

Roger wrote:

endogenylove wrote:

The edits are done. Naturally Adorkable is now a section on the Naturalism page and the Naturally Adorkable page redirects there.

Great job, London! As the number of series is increasing, as long as more pictures are added, we may open individual pages with galleries for each species as we'be been doing on many brands.

Indeed great job

Even if we don't need to open new pages for Naturalism series now we could replace listings by galleries when a series is complete or nearly complete.

I have again an issue with my eyes, I spent too much hours in front of a computer screen and I now pay for it with dry eyes and pain for several days, even weeks, so unfortunately I will hardly be present these days.  I will follow STS as much as I can but no TAW for me now.

About the Sarcopterygii page, I would like to see the Axelrodichthys entry coming back on this page and add the "West Indian Ocean coelacanth" on this page too. Even if someone add the Ikimon "Indonesian coelacanth" one day, there will be only 9 species on the Sarcopterygii page so no reason to merge anything. Could London or you Rogério do the job ? Thanks

Kikimalou wrote:

I have again an issue with my eyes, I spent too much hours in front of a computer screen and I now pay for it with dry eyes and pain for several days, even weeks, so unfortunately I will hardly be present these days.  I will follow STS as much as I can but no TAW for me now.

About the Sarcopterygii page, I would like to see the Axelrodichthys entry coming back on this page and add the "West Indian Ocean coelacanth" on this page too. Even if someone add the Ikimon "Indonesian coelacanth" one day, there will be only 9 species on the Sarcopterygii page so no reason to merge anything. Could London or you Rogério do the job ? Thanks

I did it, Christophe, I hope it is as you suggested.Please take care of your eyes.

Spinosaurus wrote:

@Roger I think that Animal, other Life kingdoms and Legendary creatures should have been kept for historical references. Probably redirected to Animalia. It was the Animalia page for a long time. In fact, couldn't you have moved it to Animalia rather than copying and pasting?

It seems that many redundant pages are deleted rather than turned into redirects on TAW. This may be because when using the search bar, redirects show up too, just like other pages. By contrast, the search bar on the English Wikipedia only shows redirects if the actual page isn't shown. For example, Columbid will not show up if you search for it but Dove will. This is probably due to the MediaWiki versions used. Wikipedia's is newer.

It wasn't finished yet, just waiting for other editor opinions. Though, as those are more technical questions, feel free to message me if you wish.

The name of this set is 'Hokkaido' not 'Kyoku'.

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Kaiyodo_CapsuleQ_Kyoku_2014

As such, the flying squirrel is the Siberian flying squirrel, which occurs in Hokkaido (in fact, this figure was specifically marketed as the subspecies P. v. orii). The Japanese dwarf flying squirrel occurs on Honshu and Kyushu, not Hokkaido.

Also, the Eikoh flying squirrel probably cannot be determined below genus (unless Eikoh indicated otherwise, which they rarely do).

bmathison1972 wrote:

The name of this set is 'Hokkaido' not 'Kyoku'.

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Kaiyodo_CapsuleQ_Kyoku_2014

As such, the flying squirrel is the Siberian flying squirrel, which occurs in Hokkaido (in fact, this figure was specifically marketed as the subspecies P. v. orii). The Japanese dwarf flying squirrel occurs on Honshu and Kyushu, not Hokkaido.

Also, the Eikoh flying squirrel probably cannot be determined below genus (unless Eikoh indicated otherwise, which they rarely do).

I fixed the squirrel to a siberian flying squirrel and moved it to the appropriate page. I also fixed the name of the set to Hokkaido. I have not changed the Eikoh squirrel because I don't know where the ID came from.

endogenylove wrote:

bmathison1972 wrote:

The name of this set is 'Hokkaido' not 'Kyoku'.

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Kaiyodo_CapsuleQ_Kyoku_2014

As such, the flying squirrel is the Siberian flying squirrel, which occurs in Hokkaido (in fact, this figure was specifically marketed as the subspecies P. v. orii). The Japanese dwarf flying squirrel occurs on Honshu and Kyushu, not Hokkaido.

Also, the Eikoh flying squirrel probably cannot be determined below genus (unless Eikoh indicated otherwise, which they rarely do).

I fixed the squirrel to a siberian flying squirrel and moved it to the appropriate page. I also fixed the name of the set to Hokkaido. I have not changed the Eikoh squirrel because I don't know where the ID came from.

Yes, the paper is labeling the squirrel as Exo flying squirrel. Curiously the chipmunk is also identified as a Ezo chipmun, a subspecies of Siberian squirrel. With this one we have at least two different chipmunk identifications:
- Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus)
- Ezo chipmunk (Tamias sibiricus lineatus)
It means the chipmunk page will probably get links for these two someday.
I believe the Eikoh flying squirrel identification is community based. I will try to find the paper or the topic where we discussed it.

Here is the information I've found online and it seems the Eikoh flying squirrel is correctly identified. The raccoon dog, we discussed before, is a common raccoon dog what is very nice!

that's great news about the flying squirrel, but with regards to the raccoon dog, Eikoh was probably using an older name. If this is a Japanese-centric set, it must be intended to be the Japanese species.

bmathison1972 wrote:

that's great news about the flying squirrel, but with regards to the raccoon dog, Eikoh was probably using an older name. If this is a Japanese-centric set, it must be intended to be the Japanese species.

Yes, we discussed it before but seeing the scientific name of the common raccoon dog, it was automatic. Though, I agree. This pair of sets is composed exclusively by Japanese animals and it surely represents the Japanese species but using the scientific name of the species when Japanese raccoon dogs were just considered subspecies.I will try to write it simple and move back to Japanese.
I used the chance to rename the pages of this figures according to the way they are marketed, it avoids excessive notes or constant doubts about their identifications. It means I need to open a few subspecies pages, namely the Japanese boar, (Sus scrofa leucomystax) and moved both Eikoh and a Yujin to it. I suspect the Technicolor is a Japanese boar too but I'm not sure. There's also a Ryukyu boar which seems to be a different subspecies.

I opened a page to the Japanese black bear (Ursus thibetanus japonicus) subspecies of the Asian black bear.
I moved to this new page, 3 figures specifically marketed as Japanese black bears more a Kaiyodo one from the series below. This one is marketed to the species level but it represents animals of the mountains around Tokyo, so it can only be a Japanese black bear.
The same theory can be used to the golden eagle and it is supposed to represent a Japanese golden eagle.
I'm convinced if not all, most of the other Asian black bears from Japanese brands represent this particular species, so, if someone is confortable with that identification, please let me know or feel free to move them.

I'd say that all black bears by Japanese companies are Japanese black bears. Japanese black bears look a bit different from most other Asian black bears in that they don't have thick fur around their head (although I believe Ussuri black bears don't have this either).

It turns out that this bear cub is a brown bear rather than a black bear as we previously thought. See here and here (assuming that Google translate knows the difference between black and brown).

Similarly, I'd say that all wild boar by Japanese companies are Japanese wild boar. Except probably the Yujin because it was also used by PlayVisions and PlaySpaces (marked as "hog" if I remember correctly).

rogerpgvg wrote:

I'd say that all black bears by Japanese companies are Japanese black bears. Japanese black bears look a bit different from most other Asian black bears in that they don't have thick fur around their head (although I believe Ussuri black bears don't have this either).

It turns out that this bear cub is a brown bear rather than a black bear as we previously thought. See here and here (assuming that Google translate knows the difference between black and brown).

Similarly, I'd say that all wild boar by Japanese companies are Japanese wild boar. Except probably the Yujin because it was also used by PlayVisions and PlaySpaces (marked as "hog" if I remember correctly).

About the Japanese brand black bears I tend to agree. I remember reading your post about Asian black bears mentioning those differences. You're right, those features are not exclusive to the Japanese subspecies. I also don't think Colorata needs a Japanese brown bear for their Wild Bears set but I think I'll move them all.
That cub also translates Ezo brown bear from the leaflet. Those bears are also known as black grizzly bears and it was believed the black ones were hybrids what ended being not confirmed. The description of the first link, as the large Japanese carnivore, also matches with the species. I will open a page for Ussuri brown bear subspecies which is the name Wikipedia gives to it.
About the boar I understand but it is specifically listed as a Japanese boar and other Zodiac figures represent Japanese creatures too, namely the dog, the macaque, etc. Even if the mold was not originally used to represent a generic wild boar, maybe it was really marketed as a Japanese boar.

I would let the Colorata as asian black bears, the boxes aren't Japanese oriented.

[quote="Roger"]

rogerpgvg wrote:

About the boar I understand but it is specifically listed as a Japanese boar and other Zodiac figures represent Japanese creatures too, namely the dog, the macaque, etc. Even if the mold was not originally used to represent a generic wild boar, maybe it was really marketed as a Japanese boar.

Ah, yes, that makes sense.

Roger, I'm glad it makes sense because the word "not" was not supposed to be in that sentence.
Thanks also Christophe. I moved the Kaiyodo Asian black bears which were part of sets dedicated to Japanese fauna to the Japanese black bear page.
Both Colorata from global sets and Bandaï pair of the Australasian set continue as Asian black bears because there's no reason to represent specifically a Japanese black bear in those sets.
Now I'm going to open a page to the Ussuri brown bear and put that ex misidentified cub before he gets lost again. It is interesting the Wikipedia page shows a bear with a lighter chest patch which looks somewhat like the figure.

About Brown bears:
- The Kitan model, is just marketed as a brown bear but the descriptive text on leaflet combined to the fact of representing Japanese fauna, puts Ussuri brown bear as the only possible identification.
- The Kaiyodo Furuta Chocoegg 2 Brown bear, is also from a series of Japanese fauna, should it go with the Kitan?
- the Kaiyodo ChocoQ Animatales 8 Marsican Brown Bear is really a Marsican ? Those are probably just an Italian population of the Eurasian brown bear and it doesn't make sense in a Japanese fauna set. Please check leaflet below, it only describes it as a brown bear, is it a mistake?
- Opentoys model was marketed specifically as European brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos), Eurasian brown bear on Wikipedia but this is actually the correct identification for most of the brown bears not identified to the subspecies level so maybe a subspecies page to this one is not needed.
- Those sold by Papo as Pyrennees brown bears are supposed to be (Ursus arctos pyrenaicus), Cantabrian brown bears on Wikipedia. Should I open a subspecies page since they were marketed like that?

This is a centipede, not a millipede:
https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Bullyland_68453_Glow-in-the-dark_Millipede

if it is marked 'millipede' that is an editorial error by the manufacturers. Morphologically, there is no way this is a millipede.

Roger wrote:

About Brown bears:
- The Kitan model, is just marketed as a brown bear but the descriptive text on leaflet combined to the fact of representing Japanese fauna, puts Ussuri brown bear as the only possible identification.

The only Kitan brown bear I know was part of the Nature of Japan series.

Roger wrote:

- The Kaiyodo Furuta Chocoegg 2 Brown bear, is also from a series of Japanese fauna, should it go with the Kitan?

It's part of the Japanese Animals series, so I'd say yes. Interestingly, my version of this sitting bear is black (but this is possible for an Ussuri bear, as you said).

Roger wrote:

- the Kaiyodo ChocoQ Animatales 8 Marsican Brown Bear  is really a Marsican ? Those are probably just an Italian population of the Eurasian brown bear and it doesn't make sense in a Japanese fauna set. Please check leaflet below, it only describes it as a brown bear, is it a mistake?

It never made sense to me. I think it's a mistake. This website says it is an Ezo brown bear.

Roger wrote:

- Opentoys model was marketed specifically as European brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos), Eurasian brown bear on Wikipedia but this is actually the correct identification for most of the brown bears not identified to the subspecies level so maybe a subspecies page to this one is not needed.
- Those sold by Papo as Pyrennees brown bears are supposed to be (Ursus arctos pyrenaicus), Cantabrian brown bears on Wikipedia. Should I open a subspecies page since they were marketed like that?

I don't have a strong opinion about it. Given that we have separate entries for the Ussuri and Grizzly bears, it would make sense to have a European brown bear entry, but we'd also need a page for brown bears whose subspecies is unclear.

Only indirectly related to this, but it would be useful if TAW made a distinction between "model name" and "animal" (or perhaps it should be called (sub)species). For TAW users, it isn't so clear whether "animal" in the table refers to the model name that the company used to market it or the species as identified by the editors. Also, when there is a conflict between the model name and the species, my feeling is that editors don't always resolve this in the same way. Making a distinction would clarify this.

Roger, thanks for your feedback. Sorry for not replying using an intercalated mode or it will result very confuse, I guess.
1. Kitan brown bear is on Ussuri brown bear page.
2. Kaiyodo sitting bear was moved to the Ussuri brown bear page too. If yours is black, it supports the identification and maybe we will need a picture of it.
3. Marsican name desapeared and this bear is now listed as a Ussuri too.
thanks for the link.
4. We both don't have a strong opinion about the European and Pyrenees bears, maybe it would be great to hear more opinions about it. My only problem with the Pyrenées bear is that it is probably just a romanticism to turn the figure more appealing to Papo's target. But it probably refers to the population of Cantabrian bears who got almost extinct some years ago and those are the Pyrenés bears. If nobody objects, I'll open a page for Cantabrian bears.
Species is the main taxon for classifications and also the most used for toy animal figures. Subspecies are just sub(species). So, there's no such thing as unidentified brown bears because regardless of the identification as a subspecies, it is already identified as species. What we have is a section for non identified bears. That's the reason why often, subspecies pages are displayed inside of each species pages. It is not being applied for 100% but that's the tendency. If you scroll the brown bear page, you will find the subspecies pages embbed (transcluded) on it. Also, if you check the page for bears, they are sorted alphabetically but the subspecies are listed after the corresponding species regardless of the general alphabetic order. Those are tendencies some of us adopt, not a rule, maybe we could discuss it to find a formula to be used in the same way by all editors.
5. I noticed you're using fields for model and species/breed. I think it is good since you work it coerently for a certain series.
The way I work is to use tendencially the name a figure is marketed for the name of the page of the figure., it will preserves the history of the series and help someone searching on TAW through catalogue or online references. Then, for the field animal, I use the name Wikipedia gives to the species, subspecies or breed. Alternatively, I also use other non conflictant common names opening redirects to the page with the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article.
For example, using Ezo brown bear but redirecting to Ussuri brown bear. I explained much before why we should use Wikipedia names for TAW pages, it is to avoid editing confusions like one editor opening a Ussuri brown bear page and other opening another called Ezo brown bear when both pages represent the same subspecies. Though, if you create redirects to this page, someone typing Ezo brown bear in the search bar, will be redirected to the right page and it is very practical. Take the example of the K&M Alsatian Dog. The figure is marked Alsatian, so, someone searching for it would feel tempted to look up for Alsatian in the Wiki. If the collector writes Alsatian, he will be redirected to the German shepherd page which is the commonest name these dogs are known and fortunately the name Wikipedia uses. If the collector writes K&M Alsatian, the wiki will perform a search and provide a link to the K&M Alsatian dog. Another little advantage is that the variety in names avoid us from using repetitive names for pages, as you know, we can't have two different pages with the same name and that was and still is a big problem for some brands, namely K&M.
Sorry for my long posts, My English is not the best and I can't write short and clear.

Thanks for the explanations about the brown bear. Sorry, I was confused; of course there would always be a species page for brown bear.

It makes a lot of sense to me that TAW refers to animal (sub)species in the same way as Wikipedia does.

If I know how a figure was marketed, I normally also use that for the figure page, though I am afraid that I may not have been as consistent as I should have been. Difficulty arises if we don’t know how a figure was marketed. In that case, we need to make up a name for the figure page. For a TAW user/reader, it is therefore unclear whether the figure page name refers to how the figure was marketed or whether it is “just” a name that a TAW editor came up with. (And for some editors like silly me, it may be unclear that this is how it is done and they then introduce inconsistencies.)

To be unambiguous, I was thinking that it would be useful to have an additional field for “model name (as marketed by the company)”. In the same way as we do now, the page name would also be the model name if we know how it was marketed and a “made-up” name if we don’t know. And the current “animal” field would also remain the same, linking to the Wikipedia page for the animal. I am not suggesting that we now go through all the TAW pages to add a “model name” field, but if this makes sense to everyone else, it could be a slow, gradual change when we edit pages and create new pages. Does it make any sense?

Here is a photo of my black brown bear and the "Marsican" bear:


When I am back with my black brown bear again, I'll take an individual photo and put it on TAW.

Roger, your editing work has been irreproachable, and there isn't anything to be changed.
Using the way a figure is marketed to name a page is just a guideline and a guideline is not a rule. A rule is to avoid the same name for two different figures.
I tend to use it but often I don't use and sometimes we can't do it because we have no idea how some figures were marketed. There's still the bizarre examples like the Nayab maned wolf marked with the name of a plant.
I think for some brands your suggestion is good but for many brands it may be not very useful. Perfect for Britains with figures having their own lexic among collectors but how to use it for Nayab? We rarely know how these figures are marketed, even species identification is not easy and consensual.
I almost never used two fields that were suggested since the start of the project. One of them was the German name, I believe it is useful but I'm not sure it is worth the effort because I took a long time to find this information.
The other field is the color of the figure, color blind as I am, it is very useful when I find this information as a TAW visitor but I can't do it as a TAW editor. I think about these as facultative, if we use it is OK but it is not a problem if we don't use.
The functional links like animal, brand and series are truly important and the product number and availability when they're known.
If we create too many rules, it will result demotivating for new editors. Actually, most of the guidelines exist to facilitate the editing job.
Thanks for sharing your bears. This is surely not a "marzipan" bear.