Which animals should belong to Toy Animal Wiki

Hello,
I think we need one or more sides in Toy Animal Wiki on which we are declare:

• what is the determination of TAW, (perhaps TAW is only a great catalog?)
  

• what you can find on TAW, (I think, TAW needs examples that shows what to find and what not)
  

• how to use TAW, (I think the software for a Wiki is an other software like for a database and therefor you can not search in a WIKI like you can search in a database, for example: search all rubber animals in green color from 1970-2001)
  

Here are some examples of animals which belong or should not belong to Toy Animal Wiki:

Hello,
I will not declare all numbers!
I think we should discusse about this numbers.

Number 1 + 2 means:
should TAW show this situation?
I think yes! And TAW should give information why there are different painted or not painted animals of the same shape. I think this example is extrem and shows an illegal issue and an normal (offical) sold animal? But often you can find animals painted more or less detailed and the reason is that this was planned by the producer of the animal!

Number 3, 4,5 and 6 means:
should TAW show people?
I think, yes!, if the people belong to the animal or the people is part of the product line.
Because the collector of a product line should be informed which people belong to his animal. I know this argument will lead TAW to be a Collector side. Therefor we should discusse this development.

Number 7-13 means:
should TAW show this animals?
I think, no! TAW should only remark that this animals exist and give a link to the internet. Because this animals have an own area of collectors an big websites in the internet. If we want to show this animals we need great knowledge and this knowledge is on that other websites.

Number 14, 15 and 16 means:
should TAW show animals which are part or star of a film or comic?
I think, yes and no! TAW should show realistic animals! TAW should only remark that this animals exist and give a link to the internet.

Number 17-44
Please discusse what the problem could be and which animals TAW should show.
Benno.

Benno, I am not sure I got it but I will try to answer.
Surely most of the figures you are showing do not belong to TAW, however, models like 7, 8, 9, ... should be part of it.
TAW does not work as a database. We cannot performe a search based on color + release year, etc. It would surely be interesting but I am not sure it can be done using the wiki tools we use.
However, as a source for collector of toy animal replicas, we have some categories or the possibility of searching by animal or company.
It is not easy to explain which animal figures should be listed but it is more or less obvious to most of us.
We list figures that intend to represent the real animals, as long as they are not cartoons or deliberately stylized.
Obviously the level of realism varies greatly from brand to brand and cheap looking animal figures tend to be less realistic, tough, these are also part of this hobby as always as they intend to replicate the real animal and even if the result is disastrous for lack of talent of those who conceived it.
AAA is a good brand to understand it because you can find there figures that look really cartoonish as well as others that are exxtremely realistic and look like cast from the real animal. They are all part of this hobby, just the final results are different.
About the variations in color, we try to illustrate it as always as we can and when we find it relevant.
If you check the Mojo Fun clouded leopard page  you will find that we present the two variations once the brand updated the painting. We may show some relevant variations in painting but obviously not all, mostly when they are important updates. The same for monochromatic models, if we have pictures of the same model in different colors, we will list them.

@ Roger
Thank you for your informations and arguments.
This are the informations and arguments what I need to think about my questions. Sometimes my question is only a question for me.
I will think over my questions.
Benno.

Oh, I see. I often debat to myself about these questions.
About people we use to list them when they are part of an animal themed series.
Schleich is a good example, mostly their farm series is composed of several animals and people almost work as a complement to them.
When it is the other way round, we don't use to list people.
Let's suppose a Western set, with loads of cowboys and indians and among them a few wildlife models and horses. I mean for instance a coyote, a condor, a rattlesnake, etc., and these work as a complement to the cowboys and indians series. In this case we just list the animals and make a reference to which kind of series it belongs and we provide links to websites dedicated to it when available.

In your collection are many old things :)

This would be my take on them.

YES could be included in TAW: 1, 2, 5, 7-13, 19, 21, 27, 28, 32, 36, 39

MAYBE?: 3 (zoo accessory), 29 and 30 (could be in fantasy figure section), 41 (looks like it may be an attempt at a more realistic style)

NO: 4 and 6 (humans), 14-18 (from a cartoon or cartoony style), 20 (handmade decorative item not a toy), 22-26 (cartoony), 31(done in an anthropomorphic style), 33-35 (Disney/cartoony), 37-38 (cartoony), 40 (cartoony), 42-43 (cartoony), 44 (anthropomorphic)

pipsxlch wrote:

This would be my take on them.

YES could be included in TAW: 1, 2, 5, 7-13, 19, 21, 27, 28, 32, 36, 39

MAYBE?: 3 (zoo accessory), 29 and 30 (could be in fantasy figure section), 41 (looks like it may be an attempt at a more realistic style)

NO: 4 and 6 (humans), 14-18 (from a cartoon or cartoony style), 20 (handmade decorative item not a toy), 22-26 (cartoony), 31(done in an anthropomorphic style), 33-35 (Disney/cartoony), 37-38 (cartoony), 40 (cartoony), 42-43 (cartoony), 44 (anthropomorphic)

.

Thank you very much for your detailed answer.
I see you are looking on the "animals" like a TAW-editor.
Benno