Corrections for Toy Animal Wiki

Thank you for your comments, Duck-Anch-Amun. I like "Identified as". What do other editors think?

rogerpgvg wrote:

Thank you for your comments, Duck-Anch-Amun. I like "Identified as". What do other editors think?

I think why not ? With one condition, no question of spending whole days modifying all the pages of figurines that already exist

No, that would almost be a life-time job.. When we add a new figure, I can't quite make up my mind whether it is better to go for "identified as", which makes very clear what we mean, or "animal", which we have always used and would therefore be consistent with the figures we previously added.

I think @Duck-Anch-Amun's post is very interesting and quite enriching to our perception of how TAW is used. I continue seeing these fields as facultative and depending of what each figure requires from us and they will open new questions anyway.
However, since we will use marketed as/marked, why we need the identified? If we mention a hedgehog is marketed as hedgehog and we put "common hedgehog" on "Animal" field, isn't it clear enough to understand it was how the figure was identified?
Or for a misidentified figure, if we list the animal as "Indian cobra" and open a field "Marketed as" King cobra, isn't it enough?
Sure we will not everything previously made but I will check a few previous entries where notes were added to explain why the identification is not matching the way it is marketed.
One of the question I have is, while using marketed as what is supposed to be used, the catalogue or website identification? They do not always match. Also, translations do not always correspond to the original language on catalogue, i remember it happening with one of the recent Papo birds. If we use the original language, it will be complex to write the Japanese names but I realy hope you don't want me to do it.

Well we should use a compromise: Whenever the brand identification does not correspond to the commonly accepted identification, we could use this "marketed as" entry and we could keep "Animal" instead of "Identified as" to keep consistency with the thousands of pages already edited on TAW.
As for the new Tiger page, I really like it too

Roger wrote:

I think @Duck-Anch-Amun's post is very interesting and quite enriching to our perception of how TAW is used. I continue seeing these fields as facultative and depending of what each figure requires from us and they will open new questions anyway.
However, since we will use marketed as/marked, why we need the identified? If we mention a hedgehog is marketed as hedgehog and we put "common hedgehog" on "Animal" field, isn't it clear enough to understand it was how the figure was identified?
Or for a misidentified figure, if we list the animal as "Indian cobra" and open a field "Marketed as" King cobra, isn't it enough?
Sure we will not everything previously made but I will check a few previous entries where notes were added to explain why the identification is not matching the way it is marketed.
One of the question I have is, while using marketed as what is supposed to be used, the catalogue or website identification? They do not always match. Also, translations do not always correspond to the original language on catalogue, i remember it happening with one of the recent Papo birds. If we use the original language, it will be complex to write the Japanese names but I realy hope you don't want me to do it.

Yeah, no question, "identified as" = the animal that we use in the "animal" field. I think as Kiki said, this would be the compromis as it´s rather clear. I don´t see any profit in adding: "animal" --> Indian Kobra, "marketed as" ---> King cobra, "identified as" ---> Indian Kobra.

Our question shows the complexity of our hobby^^ It´s a good question that I can´t answer for myself. Often I use the identification that conforts me the most For example, I bought the Schleich Warthog as the website specified it as "Desert Warthog". Although, I´m rather sure that it´s labeled as "Warthog" in the catalog and that it represent in reality rather a "common warthog"

rogerpgvg wrote:

Roger wrote:

On the other hand, the wolf subspecies  have links/thumbs in the lower taxon level, next to the wolf link but in the same page as you find foxes, jackals, etc while tiger do not have the links of the subspecies mixed in the same page where lions, leopards, jaguars, etc., are listed.
I understand it is not easy to get because I can't explain it very well. I don't mind the model we use, I only think we should use the same to every single page requiring a similar layout. However, I like the fact subspecies have their own pages.

Ah, now I see. The way the tiger subspecies are done seems more logical to me than the way the wolf subspecies are done. I don't know whether it is that important though. I think subconsciously I have been aware that the species pages aren't always exactly the same, but it has never bothered me. One way or another, I've been able to find what i needed.

Roger wrote:

About the field "Marketed as", I already used it in the past. Look at this page. Instead of using a note, I added this field because it seemed important to point it. I even renamed the page from the way it was marketed to a simpler version. It was sold as a Red Deer Hind and this page is linked on both species. Red Deer, the one it was marketed,and White-tailed deer, the one Taylor pointed us as the correct identification.

Thanks, I'll use "marketed". I think Christophe is right and making a link to the species pages from the "marketed" field can make it rather complex. For me, it is more important that the field is there. For the editor, it may often feel redundant, but for the user, it is the only way to know whether the page name shows how the model was marketed or whether the editor "invented" the name.

I like those footnotes

I have been following this conversation silently. I actually proposed something similar years ago but it never materialized.

There are essentially three kinds of 'corrections/additions':
1. When the 'marketed as' is clearly wrong and we must correct it (for example, the PV 'chigger')
2. When a 'marketed as' is generic and we take the ID further
3. When the company does not indicate (at least not at a genus or species level) and we outright ID the critter

Comments with the community ID differ from what the product was sold as is important. Many people might use TAI that do not visit this forum and won't know the history of the species designation or why a correction was made. I think you should also list evidence for what it can be called something else (morphologic descriptors).

This is a case where perhaps we need to add some more information in the guidelines about the topic of the Animal field on figure pages.

Here is what it says currently

Quote :

Animal names should be the most common one likely to be used, check the By Animal tree to find the best location to link to. Capitalization matters, be sure to use the exact spelling as used in By Animal. Some animals like dogs may link to their breeds.

"most common one likely to be used" is no longer specific enough I think after this discussion.

I propose we switch it to:
"The Animal field in the table is intended to be a link to the By Animal tree. The placement in By Animal should be closest to what the figure represents. Usually this will correspond to what it has been sold as by the maker. In some cases the name the maker uses may not match how the figure appears to collectors. In those cases the Animal line may be changed to Marketed As, what the maker called the animal in sales and marketing. Another line should then be added to the table immediately beneath called Identified As. On that line place the link to the By Animal tree, leaving the Marketed As field contents as regular text.  When this is done the main text of the page should include the justification for the identification for future reference."

So in this iteration of the guidelines, the concept of Marketed As we have been discussing would replace the Animal field. Identified As would be what we use to declare a disagreement with the company's marketing. So it becomes either Animal when there is no disagreement, or the pairing of Marketed As and Identified As.

How does that sound to everyone?

I'd say it's simpler to always have both an "identified as" (or "animal") field and a "marketed as" field:

- If we use both fields with all the new figures we add, then it is clear to the user which figures have the new labelling system and which figures still have the old system. If the user doesn't know whether the old or new system was used, they don't know whether the "animal" field means that it was marketed as such (new system) or whether it could be either marketed as such or the editor identified the animal this way (old system).

- Users often don't read guidelines and if we have both fields, they they don't have to read them to find out how the "animal" field is used. Conceptually, it is also easier to understand what the fields mean if they are always the same rather than dependent on whether the figure was marketed and identified in the same way.

I'm glad to see Kiki and @Duck-Anch-Amun think "Animal" is suggestive enough to work as "Identified as" without the need of using the latter one.
On the given example of the former CollectA deer, the use of the link to the "marketed as" field was not my personal choice. I find it confusing too. It was decided to include the link after a forum discussion because "Red deer" is the page a collector would look for it.
I like the 3 points Blaine mentions and they show what I mean and I think the "marketed as" is enough to cover all 3.
Though, I insist we should use whether "marketed as" or "marked" according to the way we obtain the information.
Basically it is the same field, we don't need to use both. Often we don't know how a figure is marketed and it is important to know the information was obtained because the figure is marked like that.
Rarely, some figures are also marketed differently from what they are marked.
The famous Nayab Maned Wolf (extralarge) shows the difference, I think telling it is marketed as a (Myers Asparagus) is quite inaccurate, though, it is interesting and important to help identifying the model to mention it is marked "Myers Asparagus".

For Blaine's example #1 we have the Papo King cobra.
It is marketed as a "King cobra" and the hood shape marking correspond to an Indian cobra. So, it is identified as an Indian cobra.
Animal: Indian cobra
Marketed as: King cobra
This is enough to me in terms of fields, . A note should be added.

For Blaine's #2:
We have Papo (current) Fox.
It is just marketed as a "Fox"
Though, it is unequivocally a red fox.
Our identification is not because Papo is an European company. The model is unambiguous and despite the fact the name fox is generic, we also know that in this hobby, when a figure is just marketed as a fox, it is much likely a red fox. It is one of the reasons why I've been suggesting for a long time that we should identify a model to a very comon species level when it is applicable and there's no evidences it is not the commonest species. Fox to red fox, Hedgehog to common hedgehog, hippopotamus to common hippopotamus, zebra to plains zebra, etc.
Animal: Red fox
Marketed: Fox
It is enough to me, no note needed.

For Blaine's #3.
We have the Papo ladybird. Ladybird is the common name for family Coccinellidae, thus, it covers multiple species.
As it is red with 7 spots and Papo is an European brand, it is relatively evident it is a Seven-spot ladybird which is the commonest species at least in Europe.
Animal: Seven-spot ladybird
Marketed as: Ladybird
It is again enough for me. A little note might help.

I would like to add a 4th issue. It is when the figure is not marked and we have no idea how it was marketed.
Nayab set of 36 assorted small wild animals is a very good example.
The page starts with an aardvark, there's no doubts about the species even if it is not known how it is marketed.
Though, there's also the Jaguarundi, it is surely a very optimistic identification, I accept it and it might support Roger's idea of using the field "Marketed as" "unknown" to suggest to a visitor it is clearly a community identification.
I know this figure was sold on Wild Republic Wildepedia set for their North American animals. Are you sure it was supposed to be sold as a jaguarundi? Much likely it intended to represent a black jaguar.
However, let me show you how the same solution results so different for two figures of the same set.
Animal: Aardvark
Marketed as: Unknown

Animal: Jaguarundi
Marketed as: Unknown

Both are fine to me but this mention sounds quite useless for the aardvark figure but I also don't know where is the border between an easily identifiable figure and a very ambiguous figure. If it serves to keep consistency, it is fine.

When we know how a figure is marked but we don't know how it was marketed and I know it sounds the same to most of you, we should use "Marked" instead. It is just my opinion.
Let's take the example of the XL Nayab genet.
Animal: Common gennet
Marked: Viverricula indica
This is the scientific name of the Small Indian civet.

Actually, during my editing job, I've been considering these aspects. I've used as always as it was possible, the marketed name for the name of the page. It allows someone finding it easily when Googling. It also tells how it is marketed even if it is not clear at first.
I've been adding notes, sometimes whether using wiki code or not, when something is ambiguous.
i also have used often on series page introductory text, mentions when the identifications are conjectural or community based. For set pages, not necesarily to each individual figure.

Concluding, I find the "Marketed as" a useful field as long as it is not mandatory because it is useless for many figures.
Though, I don't think @Tiermann suggestion to change the guidelines is the most adjusted.
I would prefer to keep Animal as it is now, with our identifications and linking to the corresponding animal page.
The "Marketed as" as a complement to the Animal field when needed and without any link.
Explaining text is always useful but the function of these fields should be to reduce the needing of extra text. Though, it is sometimes unavoidable.
I don't think we need additional text (note) to explain why we identify a red fox which is marketed as a fox.
Though, it might be important to the king cobra being identified as an Indian cobra or the ladybird as a 7-spot one.

'marketed as' means what the company advertised it as when they released it. 'marked' implies there is some stamp on the animal saying what it is. Typically a company markets a figure based on what is stamped on it, but I suppose there are times were there could be errors. And them some companies may have one thing on the animal but another on their website. For example, Safari and Schleich animals might be generically marked but they may have Latin names on their websites.

I entirely agree with all the examples you give, Rogério. And "animal" or "identified as" mean the same thing, so either is fine, it's just a matter of preference how we word it.

Roger wrote:

I find the "Marketed as" a useful field as long as it is not mandatory because it is useless for many figures.

If on all model pages that don't have the "marketed as" field, "animal" = "marketed as", then it's indeed useless. However, there are currently many model pages where this isn't the case. In other words, there are many pages where we don't have a "marketed as" field, but the "animal" field is not how the animal was marketed.

Example 1:

Page name: Jecsan ostrich
Animal: Ostrich
(No "marketed as" field because the editor didn't know)

If in the absence of a "marketed as" field, "animal" = "marketed as", then the user would conclude that Jecsan marketed the figure as an ostrich. But we probably don't know how Jecsan marketed it.

You might say that in this case, we should add "marketed as = unknown" and you are right. However, it will take us a long time to do this for all figures and until we have done this for all figures, it is unclear to the user what the "animal" field means in cases where there is no "marketed as" field. (In addition, editors won't know whether "animal" = "marketed as" or not, so they don't know whether they still need to add the "marketed as" field)

Example 2:

Let's say I add a new figure, the CollectA Blue whale. I enter:

Page name: CollectA Blue whale
Animal: Blue whale
(No "marketed as" field because "animal" = "marketed as")

How does the user know whether "animal" = "marketed as", or as in example 1, the editor didn't know how it was marketed? We can only make this clear by adding a "marketed as" field.

If other editors don't want to do this, I am happy to do the same as everyone else, but my impression is that I haven't made my point sufficiently clear for people to understand. Sorry for going on about it.

I arranged the Gorillas in subspecies as for the Tigers. I only moved the "marketed as" gorillas. Let me know what you think before I change every page of moved figures.

I chose this page because it seems perfect for an experiment

Sure Blaine, it is what I'm trying to explain. Using the marked name when the marketed name is not known. If we know both, and they correspond, marketed as is enough.
Roger, I understand your example, I assumed it was enough to give the marketed name to the name of the page when it is known but effectively there's a big number of figures we have no idea how they were marketed and there's no way to know.
I embrace the use of the "Marketed as" field but since "Animal" and "Identified as" are the same, I don't see any good reason to use the latter.
I have a question regarding this. the Animal field was to link the animal to the species (or taxon) page but I also used it to put the gender when relevant or information if it was a youngster, regardless it was marketed or not like that. Let me give you an example which I'll explore deeper later.
The Schleich 14396 was just marketed as a gazelle. We collectively accepted it for a Thomson's gazelle (female) even if this information was never provided by the company. Actually, we will see the story is very different.
Should I continue using the "Animal" in the same way?
I also would love to know if we should always use the English language on "Marketed as" field or should we use the original language when convenient as we already do for some German and French companies?

Now, since Blaine mentions the fact some companies give a more complete identification on their websites, what should we do when it does not match our identifications but also it does not contradict the more generic name the figure is marketed?
I think it is important to retain this info of the website.
In my perception, "Marketed as" refers to the commercial name used on catalogues and not on the website. Certainly the website identifications are important most of the time.

I remember seeing the Schleich 2008 crocodile identified on Schleich's official website as Osteolaemus tetraspis and the gazelle and fawn as Gazella cuvieri
The crocodile, marketed as crocodile, is at the moment using just "Crocodile" on "Animal" field but it is linking to the Nile Crocodile page.

This example is also good to reply to the warthog question. It is just marketed as warzenschwein, so warthog.
The website describes it as a desert warthog and it is completely facultative. It is good to remember the Desert warthog received the scientific name of the warthog before the species split.

Let's get the example of the Schleich chipmunk. It is marketed as chipmunk, website description was generic for chipmunk but the given scientific name was for a Eastern chipmunk which seems correct to me. If the field marketed as reads chipmunk, how do a user knows we obtained the species identification through Schleich's official website?

Let's now take a look to the gazelle which was marketed as Gazelle. ... but on website the scientific name was the Couvier's gazelle one.
Sorry also for being a little exhaustive but I want to explain why it apparently solves a few questions but open many others.

Schleich 14396 Gazelle
[img][/img]

Picture of a actual Thomson's gazelle female

Externally linked

A real Couvier's Gazelle

Externally linked

I agree totally Roger :)
I think sometimes Schleich just used an outdated nomenclature, as in the case of the warthog (but that's OK, cuz it gives me an excuse to use it as a desert warthog )

Remember, and I can't remember if I mentioned this, there could be a lot of people using TAI as a reference who don't visit this or other forums. So they are not privy to the internal discussions that generate these IDs. Everything on TAI should have somewhere what it was marketed as so people searching for it can find it easily. Or at the very least, multiple pages should link to an image. For example, the Schleich warthog, both a general warthog page and a desert warthog page could/should link to a pic of it.

thanks Blaine. Warthog is another page needing some debat. Maybe we should use the "List of Species" thread on forum which was a not very good idea, to use to open topics to discuss some ambiguous taxa. In that way we could easily find information about a specific taxon instead of discussing it through this very long topic.

Kikimalou wrote:

I arranged the Gorillas in subspecies as for the Tigers. I only moved the "marketed as" gorillas. Let me know what you think before I change every page of moved figures.

I chose this page because it seems perfect for an experiment

Yes, it is a very good one, I can't tell you how many times I wanted to do it but it also shows how there's no miraclous layout. Most gorillas are just identified to the Genus level contrarily to what happens with tigers which are identified to the species level.
Also, gorillas are now, according to Wikipedia, divided in two species with two subspecies each which is not very nice to be translated into the usual Wiki layout.
I agree that we use the genus page for all subspecies giving individual pages to them but transcluding into the genus page instead of the species page as we have for tigers.
My headache was about the lowland gorillas.
Both species, Eastern and Western, have subspecies of lowland gorillas.

My proposal to sort them is the following one:

1. Gorilla (genus)
1.1. Western gorilla , G. gorilla
1.1.1. Western lowland gorilla , G. g. gorilla
1.1.2. Cross River gorilla, G. g. diehli (no figures yet so page is not needed)
1.2. Eastern gorilla, G. beringei
1.2.1. Mountain gorilla, G. b. beringei
1.2.2. Eastern lowland gorilla, G. b. graueri

Using heading level 3 to subspecies and heading level 2 to species.

Most of these Lowland gorillas, are the Western subspecies. I think it is safe to assume it for most of them. it is the gorilla we traditionally find in zoos. I think only the Antwerp Zoo has two Eastern lowland gorillas.
However, it seems the Eastern lowland gorilla is the iconic subspecies in Rainforests.
Should we use one identification to Zoo sets and the other to Rainforest sets?

Since there's no page to the Albino gorillas, you can also assume it is a Western lowland gorilla because Snowflake is the animal who served as inspiration to albino gorilla models and he was a Western lowland gorilla. I'm even convinced the Papo regular gorilla which served as mould for the albino and its baby are also the same subspecies. It may explains why Papo marketed the "King Kong" model specifically as a Mountain gorilla.

Roger wrote:

I embrace the use of the "Marketed as" field but since "Animal" and "Identified as" are the same, I don't see any good reason to use the latter.

Either seems fine to me, but we probably want to be consistent and always use "animal".

Roger wrote:

I have a question regarding this. the Animal field was to link the animal to the species (or taxon) page but I also used it to put the gender when relevant or information if it was a youngster, regardless it was marketed or not like that. Let me give you an example which I'll explore deeper later.
The Schleich 14396 was just marketed as a gazelle. We collectively accepted it for a Thomson's gazelle (female) even if this information was never provided by the company. Actually, we will see the story is very different.
Should I continue using the "Animal" in the same way?

I'd say it is useful to give this extra information. If we have a separate "marketed as" field, then it is clear for the user that the "animal" field is the editor's view of what the animal is. They can make up their own mind whether the gazelle is really a female. TAW gives a useful suggestion and the user can decide whether they agree.

This is one reason why I am so keen to have separate "animal" and "marketed as" fields. A user can disagree with how the editor identified the animal, but how the company marketed the figure is a fact.

Roger wrote:

I also would love to know if we should always use the English language on "Marketed as" field or should we use the original language when convenient as we already do for some German and French companies?

It doesn't do any harm and in some cases it may be interesting. Doesn't Papo sometimes give us the wrong translation or a less specific translation than the French original? However, I think we can leave it up to the editor whether they would like to give this additional information. It would depend on the language too. I don't know whether we would be confident to do this with Japanese figures, for example.

Roger wrote:

Now, since Blaine mentions the fact some companies give a more complete identification on their websites, what should we do when it does not match our identifications but also it does not contradict the more generic name the figure is marketed?
I think it is important to retain this info of the website.
In my perception, "Marketed as" refers to the commercial name used on catalogues and not on the website. Certainly the website identifications are important most of the time.

Yes, things can become complex. Sometimes companies market the same figure differently in different catalogues too. Websites, online and printed catalogues are all ways of marketing. So if the way a company marketed a figure is different online and in their catalogue, then we could make this clear by having a field for "marketed online as" and a field for "marketed in catalogue as".

Roger wrote:

I remember seeing the Schleich 2008 crocodile identified on Schleich's official website as Osteolaemus tetraspis and the gazelle and fawn as Gazella cuvieri
The crocodile, marketed as crocodile, is at the moment using just "Crocodile" on "Animal" field but it is linking to the Nile Crocodile page.

This example is also good to reply to the warthog question. It is just marketed as warzenschwein, so warthog.
The website describes it as a desert warthog and it is completely facultative. It is good to remember the Desert warthog received the scientific name of the warthog before the species split.

Let's get the example of the Schleich chipmunk. It is marketed as chipmunk, website description was generic for chipmunk but the given scientific name was for a Eastern chipmunk which seems correct to me. If the field marketed as reads chipmunk, how do a user knows we obtained the species identification through Schleich's official website?

Let's now take a look to the gazelle which was marketed as Gazelle.  ... but on website the scientific name was the Couvier's gazelle one.
Sorry also for being a little exhaustive but I want to explain why it apparently solves a few questions but open many others.

If an editor wanted to be very thorough for the crocodile, then they could do something like (I am making up some of the details):
Marketed on website as:  Osteolaemus tetraspis (2008-2016) or crocodile (from 2017)
Marketed in catalogue as: Crocodile
Marked as: Crocodile
Animal: Dwarf crocodile

Something similar with the gazelle and chipmunk.

But I can understand if an editor only used the "marketed in catalogue" and "animal" fields to save time. It may be a better use of an editor's time to enter more figures rather than to find out exactly how the animal was marketed online, in the catalogue and at different times.

honestly Roger, I appreciate all your effort to answer all my questions.
however, after reading and rereading them, I'm not sure I get the idea and I think they're not translatable to the guidelines page.
With so many different fields, it looks like those forms we have to fill up for customs after the Brexit.  
Nevertheless, , you've been doing a fantastic job on TAW and I think some of the ideas are useful.
Just an interesting little editing work of today to illustrate how it is not easy sometimes.

I added this Nayab wild feline. Its species identification was discussed before on forum.
What's that? This is the smallest of the Nayab lynxes, part of the set #166. How do I know it if they are neither marked or marketed with animal name?
A lynx? With such a long tail?  Basically Nayab have 4 versions of the same animals with a few exceptions. The hollow we call extralarge and large, the small version and these mini versions of the set #166.
Only the extralarge is marked with the outdated scientific name of the Eurasian lynx. Thus, we identify the smaller versions taking in consideration the extralarge model when the identification is plausible.
How should I identify it? Eurasian lynx to keep consistency  accepting it is just a lynx with an innacurate long tail or should I list it as a serval assuming Nayab retooled it to offer one more species?
Also, how do these fields work here? Isn't it easier to add a note?




indian name list

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that editors should always use "marketed online as" and "marked as" (see the last sentence in my previous post). Only if they are keen and want to be extremely thorough.

Just the "animal" and "identified as" fields would be sufficient, but I think it's important to always have both.

For the lynx, I'd say:
Animal = whatever the editor thinks the animal represents. Perhaps Eurasian lynx or serval.
Marketed as = unknown

The difficulty here isn't with the "marketed as" field, but with the animal field because the figure species is ambiguous. This problem isn't caused by adding the "marketed as" field. The "marketed as" field just makes clear to the user that we don't know how this figure was marketed. Without "marketed as", the user cannot tell.

For the Schleich 2008 crocodile, I'd say:
Animal = Dwarf crocodile (or Nile crocodile if the editor thinks it better represents this species)
Marketed as = Crocodile (if the editor wanted to be more thorough, they could say "Osteolaemus tetraspis or crocodile"

Of course, there will always be exceptions and difficult cases, where the editor will have to make a judgement about what is best, but they exist regardless of whether we have a "marketed as" field.

OK Roger, I used the "Marketed as" to the whole Nayab Realistic figures series which is one where our identifications do not match the way they are marketed. At least for a good number of them. I think the result is positive and I'll adopt this field. Curiously I used the chance to add size information provided by Nayab which is another facultative field but very useful to some collectors.

Looks great!

One more thing about the "marketed as" solution.

Look what I found on the Official Schleich France website  

This guy is marketed as a Bengal tiger and also as a Siberian one

It happens a lot, Christophe!
It is marketed on catalogue just as a Tiger. It does not even mention it is a male.
Descriptive text is usually generic information and often it does not match the model. Some descriptive texts mention more than one subspecies. This is one of the reasons why I asked so many questions when the "Marketed as" is a good idea. I already faced many bizarre things. French website is marketing it as a Bengal tiger male which is very interesting. You even have this model in your collection as a Sumatran, I know.
By the way, it is really beautiful model, I need to get one.

Here's a TAW editing Wild Republic question I've never able of finding a satifactory solution.
Now that I'm working more efficiently the Nayab section, I'm finding it even more complex than I thought.
Wild Republic figures are basically listed with two different names. K&M when they're marked K&M Int or when non marked figures are offered together with K&M marked figures.
Those just marked China are listed as Wild Republic.
Naturally, they're all from the same brand and they should have been listed with the same exact brand name. I'm blaming myself because I've built most of the structure.
Why it happened? More than an encyclopedia of toys, TAW is a collector's guide. Thus, we often favour the way figures are popularly known among collectors instead of giving them an accurate branding name.
Wild Republic is a trademark of K&M International, so, regardless of what is marked on them, they are all Wild Republic.
No, I don't want to rename many hundreds of K&M pages. I agree that we favour a popular name. We do it with Science and Nature, the brand name is Animals of Australia, it is not the series name. We do it with Eikoh, the brand name is Miniatureplanet, etc.
So, whilst I like the name Wild Republic being used to the set or series names, I find it confusing when those non marked "K&M Int." figures are listed as Wild Republic. It is because when we list them on species pages, sorting alphabetically, they won't get together as it is supposed, between K and W we often get many other branded figures.
OK, we sometimes solve it ignoring the alphabetical order and listing the Wild Republic named figures just after the K&M named figures.
Though, I've been debating myself with something more difficult to decide. Most of these named Wild Republic figures are non marked models from the Polybag series.
They're defintely produced by Nayab and not copied, after reading some posts on forum from members with experience in the toy business, it is evident. Also, while browsing Nayab website, I've been finding all Polybag figures, distributed in different Nayab sets. The exception are the most recent polybags.
So, I started linking the Polybags to the corresponding Nayab pages.
It means that if you search a polybag figure by company, you'll find it easily, though, if you search the same figure by classification, it will be listed as Nayab in its respective species page.
It is much easier structurally, to open a manufacturer page for a figure and crosslink from other brands to that page. We do it when listing AAA models. It works with AAA because they're marked AAA and the manufacturer is easily identifiable even if we don't know the brand who sold it.
With these specific Nayab hollow large models, it is exactly the other way round, figures are not marked and they're better known as Wild Republic Polybag models than as Nayab figures.
As an editor, linking them to the corresponding Nayab figure is the most convenient but I'm not having always the best feedback from collectors to this particular solution.
Also, some polybag models show a painting layout different from the one presented on manufacturers catalogue. I'd say the Polybag figures show often a painting job superior to the one we find on Nayab website. The Okapi is an evident example.
Recently, I faced a different dilema since the Wild Republic polybag Dingo is actually one of the Nayab large dogs repainted as a dingo.
Of course I can list both color versions in a single page as we did with the okapi but okapis are okapis regardless of the color and here one is a dog (probably a Husky) and the other variation is a Dingo.
However, this is an example of two very distinct figures despite sharing the same mould and probably opening a page to each one is the most correct way.
How about your opinions about it, either as editors or collectors?

As a bonus for my dissertation, here is the Nayab page showing two variations of the bighorn we can find either in the Yosemite and the Grand Canyon polybags.



Here you can see the Polybag Dingo



Here the same figure as a dog in Nayab's website.


These are not the only examples, I think there are recolored bears, skunks and more intending to represent different species from the ones presented on manufacturers catalogue.

If two companies sold the same figure, then I assumed we'd have two pages for that figure and list it twice in the species page. Examples are Playvisions, Playspaces and Yujin, which sometimes had the same figures. And VEB Plaho and Marolin. Or is this not what you are asking?