What to do about mislabeled animals on TAI?

I have been trying to straighten out, simplify and streamline the pages for browsing species of reptiles and prehistorics.

I notice there are two different ways outdated classifications have been handled. Either the toy is featured on the page of its original label, or it has been put on the page of the "correct" animal in spite of its label.

For example, Trachodon, Anatosaurus, and Anatotitan are all outdated names that refer to the species Edmontosaurus annectens. Should these remain on separate pages so people can find the toy they have in mind, or should they be put on the Edmontosaurus annectens page so people can find all representations of the species they are looking for?

How is this handled with modern animals? If a company puts out a figure of a tiger but on the bottom of the figure it says "Lion", I think it should still go on the tiger page, with text noting the discrepancy, right?

I will comment based on your example. If a figure of a tiger is marked lion, it is mislabeled. If the identification is not dubious, what can happen if we are talking about monochromatic figures of cubs, we list that figure as a tiger and we mention it is mislabeled as "Lion".
Trachodon Anatotitan and Anatosaurus are not mislabeled names. They're just outdated.
As a personal opinion, they should be listed with the names they are known among collectors but linked to the correct and updated species or genus page. As I am not updated about prehistoric animals, I tend to follow Wikipedia for editing convenience. I know it is not an accurate source but they have a huge team of editors discussing these subjects.
From what I see, only trachodon still has its own page at the Wikipedia and it is presented as a dubious taxa. All others are redirecting to Edmontosaurus annectens. If it was made by me, I'd follow it but I believe the editor who decided it had its own reasoning.
Just taking it as an example, I think the Safari 131261 Anatotitan should keep listed like that once it was the name the brand used. When listing the animal name in the table, Anatotitan can be used once it is not a mislabeled name. However, the figure should be listed in the Edmontosaurus annectens page through the creation of a redirect page from Anatotitan to it.
So, if a collector writes Anatotitan in the search box, it will redirect to the Edmontosaurus annectens page and will easily understand why. If a collector searches through a series page, the collector will find the name used in catalogues or marked on it. If anyone wants to know all Edmontosaurus annectens figures listed on TAW, the collector will find all of them through the species page gallery.
I don't know if other editors agree on it, I know @Kikimalou built the core of the prehistoric section and he may have a different opinion about it.

Roger wrote:

I will comment based on your example. If a figure of a tiger is marked lion, it is mislabeled. If the identification is not dubious, what can happen if we are talking about monochromatic figures of cubs, we list that figure as a tiger and we mention it is mislabeled as "Lion".
Trachodon Anatotitan and Anatosaurus are not mislabeled names. They're just outdated.
As a personal opinion, they should be listed with the names they are known among collectors but linked to the correct and updated species or genus page. As I am not updated about prehistoric animals, I tend to follow Wikipedia for editing convenience. I know it is not an accurate source but they have a huge team of editors discussing these subjects.
From what I see, only trachodon still has its own page at the Wikipedia and it is presented as a dubious taxa. All others are redirecting to Edmontosaurus annectens. If it was made by me, I'd follow it but I believe the editor who decided it had its own reasoning.
Just taking it as an example, I think the Safari 131261 Anatotitan should keep listed like that once it was the name the brand used. When listing the animal name in the table, Anatotitan can be used once it is not a mislabeled name. However, the figure should be listed in the Edmontosaurus annectens page through the creation of a redirect page from Anatotitan to it.
So, if a collector writes Anatotitan in the search box, it will redirect to the Edmontosaurus annectens page and will easily understand why. If a collector searches through a series page, the collector will find the name used in catalogues or marked on it. If anyone wants to know all Edmontosaurus annectens figures listed on TAW, the collector will find all of them through the species page gallery.
I don't know if other editors agree on it, I know @Kikimalou built the core of the prehistoric section and he may have a different opinion about it.

That makes sense, thank you! I had come up with a sort of compromise version of this, where say the Anatotitan figures are shown on the Edmontosaurus page AND on a different page for Anatotitan, with text explaining the situation.

A similar situation slightly closer to being "mislabeled" is figures clearly based on a famous specimen, which have since been transferred or renamed. For example, some Oviraptor figures are clearly based on Citipati, but were made before Citipati was named as a unique genus. As of now I have put these under their own heading on the Oviraptor page, and also posted them on the Citipati page. I don't see any harm in having them posted on two pages if it helps people find them, as long as the differences are clear via use of subheadings. You can see what I did here and let me know what you think... https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Oviraptor

I hope I haven't messed anything up or stepped on too many toes with my edits, but some of the taxonomy was pretty out of date even compared to what's on Wikipedia, I think (hope) I have been able to streamline it and make it a little more browsable and accessible for the layperson who just wants to find figures by common category.

Linking to both pages is not a problem and it may result as a good solution for some of these examples. I think the way you're doing works for now.
Let me just give you a different example where the ambiguousness shouldn't be taken in consideration.
It is popularly known that many velociraptor figures, due to JP influence, are actually Deinonychus inspired. These figures should always be listed as velociraptors because it is what they intend to be even if there is a wrong interpretation or an inspiration based upon inaccurate sources. Thus, the prehistoric section will often pose several different questions and more than a scientific source, TAW is a collectors guide.