Tags/Categories on Dinosaur Toy Blog

[Lynx]

Thanks everyone.

Go ahead. I usually only use the links that connect to other reviews of that species or company.

Well, my intent is to make those category links more prominent, above the title to replace the "previous"/"next" links. So that change might go down well!

I'm also experimenting with more categories. At the moment there are two: genus, and category. I'm thinking of breaking this up into three: genus, brand(s), and classification(s). I'm also thinking of eventually adding a fourth: Period (i.e. Jurassic), which might be useful for diorama makers! A fifth, Scale would also be useful, but that would be a larger undertaking and would be asking a lot of reviewers/editors going forward, so I think I'll bench that for now. Can anybody think of other categories we could apply to reviews?

These will be different to the fact box we experimented with a few years ago in that they will be linked categories rather than just text.

Perhaps a Formation category? If the figure comes with the exact species name, it should be accomplishable, and also very helpful for those who do formation sorting. However, this would be very difficult to do.

'Company line' sorting would also be VERY helpful. DinoToyCollector has it, and that filter saves a lot of time.
Ex. If you wanted to only look at the museum models from PNSO, you could use a filter to exclude all reviews except the Museum Models on the PNSO company page.

This also helps for stuff like Safari LTD, which has many, many lines. (Carnegie, Sue at the Museum, Toobs, Great Dinos, etc.)

[DinoToyForum]

I'll explore those suggestions in the future, thanks.

In the meantime, I've set three simple categories on the blog now: Genus, Brand, Classification.

'Genus' is obvious
'Brand' is for company, lines, etc.
'Classification' is the the higher biological taxonomy. This is currently quite limited so I think there's scope to expand this, for example,  I think there are only two specific theropod clades so far, "bird" and "dromaeosaur". We could easily add more.

I've moved these categories/navigation links to a more prominent position above the title on individual review pages.

This is a work in progress so check it out and let me know if you have any feedback or have any problems.

[DinoToyForum]

'Company line' sorting would also be VERY helpful. DinoToyCollector has it, and that filter saves a lot of time.
Ex. If you wanted to only look at the museum models from PNSO, you could use a filter to exclude all reviews except the Museum Models on the PNSO company page.

This also helps for stuff like Safari LTD, which has many, many lines. (Carnegie, Sue at the Museum, Toobs, Great Dinos, etc.)

Just on this, individual lines are listed in the 'brand' category already, so it is possible to filter them out, but they aren't nested under the parent manufacturer/company. I avoided a nested hierarchy because it would require prior knowledge when selecting from a list (e.g. I want Carnegie Collection to be listed under "C" in the overall brand list) but I do see how there would be times it could be useful to have it nested under under Safari Ltd.

[DinoToyForum]

There are some miscellaneous categories left over in 'brand' category. These include "oldie", "retro", "baby dinos", "announcements", "desktop model", diorama contest", "plush", "recently extinct", "skeletal", "tubes".

Hmm. What to do with these?

[Fembrogon]

There are some miscellaneous categories left over in 'brand' category. These include "oldie", "retro", "baby dinos", "announcements", "desktop model", diorama contest", "plush", "recently extinct", "skeletal", "tubes".

Hmm. What to do with these?

I'm partial to the "oldies" & "retro" tags; those are a nice way to search for a design aesthetic distinct from the more common "Modern" or "JP" figures. I also think "plush" and "desktop model" are unique enough to warrant retaining their tags - although I don't recall how many of the latter have actually been covered on the Blog before.
The others I have less opinion on, although I suppose the same argument could apply. Do we think those categories still warrant distinction?

[DinoToyForum]

There are some miscellaneous categories left over in 'brand' category. These include "oldie", "retro", "baby dinos", "announcements", "desktop model", diorama contest", "plush", "recently extinct", "skeletal", "tubes".

Hmm. What to do with these?

I'm partial to the "oldies" & "retro" tags; those are a nice way to search for a design aesthetic distinct from the more common "Modern" or "JP" figures. I also think "plush" and "desktop model" are unique enough to warrant retaining their tags - although I don't recall how many of the latter have actually been covered on the Blog before.
The others I have less opinion on, although I suppose the same argument could apply. Do we think those categories still warrant distinction?

I don't mind keeping any or all of them as tags, although I have noticed that as a team of reviewers we don't use them consistently, which limits their utility, and also they don't fit under the category "brand", "genus", or classification". So do we just leave them under brand for simplicity, or create another category (e.g. "Other", or just "tag")?

[DinoToyForum]

I've added a new brand tag MPC (Multiple Products Corporation). We have quite a lot of these reviewed now thanks to @Fembrogon.

[Funk]

Could the blog have a category for the Playmates company? It now has two reviews of Playmates toys (links below), but both simply have "Uncategorized" as brand. I plan on reviewing some more Primal Rage figures, so a category could come in handy.

https://dinotoyblog.com/sauron-primal-rage-by-playmates/

https://dinotoyblog.com/dingy-dino-tmnt-by-playmates/

[DinoToyForum]

Done!

[Funk]

Thanks!

[Funk]

I am going to review the character Armadon which is a sort of ceratopsian/ankylosaur hybrid from the game Primal Rage, and was thinking about how it should be categorised on the blog. It would seem logical that there would be a "Hybrids" category for such cases, but looking around, it seems that's not the case, and that one off hybrids have categories that will never conceivably be used for anything else, such as https://dinotoyblog.com/genus/paradeinonychus/ and https://dinotoyblog.com/genus/tyrantegosaurus/

But wouldn't it be cool if there was a "Classification:" category for hybrids, considering how many there are, it's almost its own thing that people might want to collect? Searching "hybrid" and "hybrids" on the blog shows that there are plenty of reviews to fill it up.

[suspsy]

"Fantasy" or "Fictional" might also be a suitable name for such a category. The Vastatosaurus rex from the 2005 King Kong film isn't a hybrid, but it's obviously not a real dinosaur either.

[Funk]

Yeah, good with an inclusive name (fictional fits more for Armadon too). Perhaps also something for the more "comical/cartoony" toys? But that's of course a different issue.

[BlueKrono]

I would vote for Fictional. That way other creatures like the Elasmotherium-like mudhorn of Star Wars or the Plesiosaur-like ilu of Avatar could be reviewed.

[suspsy]

Ehhhh, I would be firmly opposed to including such creatures on the DTB, regardless of how cool they are. Same goes for Godzilla and all other Kaiju. And the future Cyberzoic dragons as well. They just aren't dinosaurs, period.

[DinoToyForum]

Ehhhh, I would be firmly opposed to including such creatures on the DTB, regardless of how cool they are. Same goes for Godzilla and all other Kaiju. And the future Cyberzoic dragons as well. They just aren't dinosaurs, period.

I'm inclined to agree with this, but still like the idea of adding a 'Classification' "Fictional" for fictional or hybrid dinosaurs, such as those in King Kong, Jurassic World, Primal Rage and Transmutazors. So, I'll add a Fictional category now.

The line between fictional dinosaurs and actual monsters is always going to be fuzzy and subjective so we can always discuss any boundary cases.

[Funk]

Sounds cool, not sure how it will be populated, but I can add links to relevant reviews here if needed.

[DinoToyForum]

I split the recent tag discussion from the Dinosaur Toy Blog changes thread to make it easier to follow. And for tag suggestions.

[DinoToyForum]

I'm still mulling over what to do with the categories:

"oldie"
"retro",
"baby dinos"
"announcements"
"desktop model"
"diorama contest"
"plush"
"recently extinct"
"skeletal"
"tubes"

They don't fit under Genus, Brand, or Classification. How about filing them under a new "Type" category?  Are there enough tags to justify it?

[Fembrogon]

That could work. Maybe add "action figure" as another possible type, for things like JP/JW, BotM, etc?