Corrections for Toy Animal Wiki

Yes Roger, it is basically what I am asking. I know I write a lot and I'm not always clear.
Those examples you're giving are about figures which can be identified from each others.
Between Nayab and Wild Republic versions it is hard to tell. Unless it is an evident difference in painting as we see with the Dingo/Husky. All versions are marked exactly alike so, it is only possible to know the origin if it is bought in its original packaging.
Also, we can't list them anytime we find it sold by a different brand. The Nayab Realistic series is listed on TAW with figures from at least 5 different brands I can recognize and that are not relevant to this hobby.
We are also not listing AAA models with the names they are originally branded.That's why I ask, not all examples are alike even if the commercial use is the exact same.

As far as I know, the Yujin are identical to the Playvisions and K&M even though we list them separately. But yes, I see why it is complicated. We don't want to have the Nayabs listed under 5 different brands.

However, if the K&Ms are painted differently from the other Nayabs, then there may be a good reason to list them separately because their paint style would make them recognisable as K&M.

And as you said, it is often important how the figures are known amongst collectors. K&M is a well-known brand and these figures may be better known as K&M than Nayab. Just my thoughts.

Great, I feel we're going in the same direction.
My idea is basically this. I have this Fox female and I remember getting it as a Mamejo Nature model. It beared a tag so it was easy to identify. Though, without a tag, it is only identifiable as AAA because it is marked like that.
As Mamejo Nature is not a key brand in this hobby and it is only known for selling AAA models, these figures are naturally listed as AA.
However, Wild Republic is a key brand, with many other series and their polybag figures are relevant to this hobby. So, I agree it won't hurt to list some as K&M/Wild Republic and others as Nayab. Thus, two similar types of business, two different ways to show them on TAW. Though, justification is given and sounds reasonable.
However, I can see easily the differences between the dingo and the dog, the okapi on Wild Republic polybag with the okapi on Nayab website but most of them I cannot see any noticiable difference. So, how do I know if those listed on TAW are Wild Republic or not? I believe even the owners often don't know it.
I feel I'm turning it into a boring subject when those hollow figures are not interesting to most collectors. I really wanted to do my best but I'm not even sure which is the best way.
I can also list all of them in Nayab named pages, each one with all variations and build the Wild Republic polybag galleries with the variations that match better the Polybag versions and list on page species under both brand names but linking to the Nayab page. Confusing and boring, I know. Hahah!

I think there is confusion at times between manufacturer, brand name, and series. They are three different things. Maker/Manufactuer is the company that made it. Brand is a marketing grouping used by makers often printed big on packaging and even included on the figure mold, and series is a theme within a brand.
So Safari Ltd is a maker, and Birds of the World is a Series.
Nayab is a maker, K & M I would class as a brand as would be Wild Republic. That's the big thing on the boxes and may be imprinted on the figures.
What to do with this though? For one thing I think it would be reasonable if we know that Nayab makes K&M and Wild Republic to add a manufacturer line to the table for figures including that. So Wild Republic figures would list
Brand: Wild Republic
Maker: Nayab

I would also consider that instead of repeating figures, adding the Brand as a transcluded page within the maker. So K&M and Wild Republic would each have their own page listing all the figures marked or sold as such, but those pages would be transcluded into Nayab as sections. Similar sections could be created for other Nayab brands or lines that are distinct in some way.

Hope that makes some sense.

The main problem with transcluded pages is you need to update the host page each time you make a change on a transcluded one. It isn't automatic like in the past.

I have a problem with the "PNSO Prehistoric Animals" page. I find it confusing.

I would prefer if we split it between "Prehistoric Animal Models" and "Prehistoric Animal Toys (minis)"

Kikimalou wrote:

I have a problem with the "PNSO Prehistoric Animals" page. I find it confusing.

I would prefer if we split it between "Prehistoric Animal Models" and "Prehistoric Animal Toys (minis)"

Do you mean devoting a specific page to the Minis with a direct link from the main PNSO page preserving the whole structure?
Just the first 24 of the 2nd table or the whole table?
PNSO is a section with a long contribution history from Terrible Dactyl who upgraded decisively the PNSO page, it would be great to know his opinion even if I see it as a relatively unintrusive modification if you're referring to the whole table.
I actually don't find it so confusing since everything is explained but a link from the main page to the Minis could turn it more intuitive.
If your idea is to give a dedicated page to the first 24 of the 2nd table, it will require a second thought.

I mean opening two pages: "Prehistoric Animal Models" and "Prehistoric Animal Toys (minis)".

I find it confusing when trying to reach pages through "taxonomy".
In fact I was looking at the "Pachyrhinosaurus" page and I was attracted by this PNSO 038 without photo.
When you follow the link you fall on the "PNSO Prehistoric Animals" page and you come across the first table with another Pachyrhinosaurus. You have to scroll to the second table to find the 038. It's not intuitive at all.
As many PNSOs don't have photos, we are quickly lost.
Separating the two tables, and therefore the two series would help to see things clearly.

Kikimalou wrote:

I mean opening two pages: "Prehistoric Animal Models" and "Prehistoric Animal Toys (minis)".

I find it confusing when trying to reach pages through "taxonomy".
In fact I was looking at the "Pachyrhinosaurus" page and I was attracted by this PNSO 038 without photo.
When you follow the link you fall on the "PNSO Prehistoric Animals" page and you come across the first table with another Pachyrhinosaurus. You have to scroll to the second table to find the 038. It's not intuitive at all.
As many PNSOs don't have photos, we are quickly lost.
Separating the two tables, and therefore the two series would help to see things clearly.

I understand, actually all the figures of the 2nd table are redirecting through a page called "PNSO Prehistoric Animal Toys)"
It seems a soft transition to me as I mentioned before and a functional improvement to the actual model.
We do it for other series too like when we split horses from the farm sets.

The job is done

There are mix-ups with some of the Yowie nudibranchs, possibly due to errors on the papers (?). Cadbury does that sometimes.

This figure: https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Yowies_Series_3_Nudibranch
is Hypdelodoris bennetti, not Chromodoris elizabethina

This figure: https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Yowies_Series_4_Bennets_Nudibranch
is not H. bennetti, but I don't know what it is as I don't have it, yet (although H. bennetti comes in different color forms so it might be an alternate color)

But either way, the first one from Series 3 is most certainly not C. elizabethina

bmathison1972 wrote:

There are mix-ups with some of the Yowie nudibranchs, possibly due to errors on the papers (?). Cadbury does that sometimes.

This figure: https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Yowies_Series_3_Nudibranch
is Hypdelodoris bennetti, not Chromodoris elizabethina

This figure: https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Yowies_Series_4_Bennets_Nudibranch
is not H. bennetti, but I don't know what it is as I don't have it, yet (although H. bennetti comes in different color forms so it might be an alternate color)

But either way, the first one from Series 3 is most certainly not C. elizabethina

In Yowie collector's websites I find both as Hypdelodoris bennetti so I am going to fix the first, thanks.

Kikimalou wrote:

The main problem with transcluded pages is you need to update the host page each time you make a change on a transcluded one. It isn't automatic like in the past.

This may be related to the issue of the Category pages not updating. I have also noticed that the change I made to the sidebar for By Taxonomy is intermittent. It seems to be there on recently updated pages but not on the main page or older pages. I suspect there is a deeper issue with the public side getting updated versions of hte databse. I've opened a ticket at the hosts, so we will see what they come up with.

A question more than a comment on the S&N boobook owl:

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Southern_boobook

Is 'southern boobook' community-based? Or did Jason Smits or someone confirm the ID? Who's to say it isn't an Australian boobook (N. boobook)?
thanks!

bmathison1972 wrote:

A question more than a comment on the S&N boobook owl:

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Southern_boobook

Is 'southern boobook' community-based? Or did Jason Smits or someone confirm the ID? Who's to say it isn't an Australian boobook (N. boobook)?
thanks!

That's a very good question and this is an old page on TAW which I will update. According to the brand given description, it is a Morepork and the geographic references coincided to the Southern boobook. Though, I Diermodel is selling it as an Australian boobook. Also, the TAW page is describing one and linking to the other but that's because Wikipedia pages, from where this one is based on, were meanwhile updated. Maybe we have to ask Jason or just try to see which identification is better to match the model.

Roger wrote:

bmathison1972 wrote:

A question more than a comment on the S&N boobook owl:

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Southern_boobook

Is 'southern boobook' community-based? Or did Jason Smits or someone confirm the ID? Who's to say it isn't an Australian boobook (N. boobook)?
thanks!

That's a very good question and this is an old page on TAW which I will update. According to the brand given description, it is a Morepork and the geographic references coincided to the Southern boobook. Though, I Diermodel is selling it as an Australian boobook. Also, the TAW page is describing one and linking to the other but that's because Wikipedia pages, from where this one is based on, were meanwhile updated. Maybe we have to ask Jason or just try to see which identification is better to match the model.

I just sent an email to Jason; let's see if he knows or remembers. I found the older chats on STS forum and nothing indicated S&N gave a species name. Morphologically, I think it's a bit too stylized to put a name on, so let's hope Jason answers.

I've found it on Wikipedia which may explain those apparent inconsistencies on TAW.
Page and figure are prior to 2019.

Wikipedia Australian Boobok page reads:
"Australian boobook has been designated the official name by the International Ornithological Committee, changed from "southern boobook" in 2019 with the separation of some Indonesian subspecies."

Roger wrote:

I've found it on Wikipedia which may explain those apparent inconsistencies on TAW.
Page and figure are prior to 2019.

Wikipedia Australian Boobok page reads:
"Australian boobook has been designated the official name by the International Ornithological Committee, changed from "southern boobook" in 2019 with the separation of some Indonesian subspecies."

Jason wrote back and indicated it was probably modeled after the Australian boobook (meaning N. boobook, regardless of what its common name is now).

bmathison1972 wrote:

Roger wrote:

I've found it on Wikipedia which may explain those apparent inconsistencies on TAW.
Page and figure are prior to 2019.

Wikipedia Australian Boobok page reads:
"Australian boobook has been designated the official name by the International Ornithological Committee, changed from "southern boobook" in 2019 with the separation of some Indonesian subspecies."

Jason wrote back and indicated it was probably modeled after the Australian boobook (meaning N. boobook, regardless of what its common name is now).

Thanks for asking Jason and everything makes sense now since it was called Southern boobook and changed to Australian boobook. To keep it in harmony to Wikipedia and updated according to the recent split and renaming, I will rename the page to Australian boobook.

I am sure this has been discussed, but the K&M Gaboon vipers (https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/K%26M_Viper) have nasal horns, suggesting they are rhinoceros vipers. The rhinoceros viper was considered a subspecies of the Gaboon viper until about 1999, maybe the figure was produced prior to this nomenclatural change.

Bandai did not make Vespula vulgaris: https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Common_wasp
The Bandai figure shown in that link is Vespula austriaca

bmathison1972 wrote:

Bandai did not make Vespula vulgaris: https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Common_wasp
The Bandai figure shown in that link is Vespula austriaca

Thanks, I moved the wasp to another host page. Unfortunately the common name is conflicting to the cuckoo wasp family page and I opened a page with the scientific name. About the viper, I don't know really what to do, maybe another editor can find a good solution.

There is a black rhino calf where a blue spotted ray should be... 

Bluespotted stingray - Toy Animal Wiki (mywikis.wiki)

Saarlooswolfhound wrote:

There is a black rhino calf where a blue spotted ray should be... 

Bluespotted stingray - Toy Animal Wiki (mywikis.wiki)

Thanks for pointing it, such a funny mistake and it's been like this for 10 years. I don't think we have a picture of the blue spotted ray.