Tags/Categories on Dinosaur Toy Blog

[Funk]

I'm sure there could be more tags to populate "Type". Cartoony, knock offs, miniatures, museum approved, electronic, etc.

[Gwangi]

I think we should avoid too many tags and try to stick to just company and biological classification. There are already other tags like plush, retro, and vintage but it seems like reviewers often forget about them. Myself included. It's easy to forget a tag when there are a bunch of them like that. I like the fictional tag though.

[DinoToyForum]

"Fictional" tag added to "Classification": https://dinotoyblog.com/?classification=fictional
"Spinosaur" tag added to "Classification": https://dinotoyblog.com/?classification=spinosaur

@Gwangi Yeah, I appreciate that point of view. i'm in two minds about it. I do see value in being able to filter out, say, diorama contest posts, and announcements, but then I'm the only one who posts them so I can be consistent. When it comes to other tags not all reviewers may remember to use them. And it might start to get messy if there are too many tags above the reviews.

For now I'll just flesh out the Classification section.

[BlueKrono]

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.

The fictional hybrids/monsters/aliens that are strongly prehistoric animal-based are what I would prefer.

Godzilla and other kaiju are a special case: I don't think they should even be reviewed on the DTF. Two reasons: 1. They are usually pretty distinct from real dinosaur species. 2. There are plenty of websites and groups for kaiju collectors. We do have a thread on DTF members' kaiju collections like we do for other collection types, and I'm satisfied with that arrangement. I'm with you all the way on dragons - just no.

[DinoToyForum]

"Allosaur"(oid) tag added to "Classification": https://dinotoyblog.com/?classification=allosaur

[Lynx]

Would "Carnosaur" as a category be too broad?
Edit: Most of the Allosaur and Spinosaur category afaik would overlap with it

[DinoToyForum]

Would "Carnosaur" as a category be too broad?
Edit: Most of the Allosaur and Spinosaur category afaik would overlap with it

Yeah, probably too broad to be of much use. The Classification tags are not going to be exhaustive, just a way for users to browse content more easily. I've added more clades as new categories and will be populating them soon.

[DinoToyForum]

"Chasmosaur" populated: https://dinotoyblog.com/?classification=chasmosaur
"Centrosaur" populated : https://dinotoyblog.com/?classification=centrosaur
"Ceratopsian (basal)" populated for Protoceratops and friends: https://dinotoyblog.com/?classification=ceratopsian-basal

As always, let me know if I missed any.

[DinoToyForum]

"Tyrannnosaur": https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/tyrannosaur/

[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?

For now, I've moved these from 'Brand' to 'Classification'. They don't fit either category perfectly but fit better in Classification, in the broadest (not-just biological) sense.

[DinoToyForum]

I've gone through all the reviews where the brand was "Uncategorized" and created brands for them. It was quite an undertaking, but there are several notable new 'brand' categories that already have several reviews under them. For example:

https://dinotoyblog.com/category/gr-toys/
https://dinotoyblog.com/category/happinet/
https://dinotoyblog.com/category/itoy/
https://dinotoyblog.com/category/primeval/
https://dinotoyblog.com/category/tamiya/
https://dinotoyblog.com/category/x-plus/
https://dinotoyblog.com/category/z-cardz/

Many other categories have just two or one reviews under them. You can explore from the dropdown.

[DinoToyForum]

Some more classification categories populated:

Hominid: https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/hominid/
Whale: https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/whale/
Elephant: https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/elephant/ (I've included all proboscideans for good measure)

[DinoToyForum]

still more:

Macronaria (basal): https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/macronaria-basal/ In other words, non-Titanosaur Macronarians including Brachiosaurus, Camarasaurus, and Giraffatitan.
Titanosaur: https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/titanosaur/ (=Titanosauria)

Let me know if you spot any reviews, obscure species perhaps, that I've missed.

[DinoToyForum]

Reptiles (other): https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/reptile-other Basically, any reptiles that aren't covered by a more specific category. I think turtles could become its own category at some point. I may have made some mistakes in this category when it comes to crocodile-like reptiles, let me know!

[Gwangi]

Offhand it looks like the Safari Prestosuchus and CollectA Smok are missing from the reptile category. Although the Smok classification is unresolved the CollectA one still looks like a pseudosuchian.

EDIT: In the X-Plus category the Albertosaurus and Styracosaurus are missing. 

[DinoToyForum]

Offhand it looks like the Safari Prestosuchus and CollectA Smok are missing from the reptile category. Although the Smok classification is unresolved the CollectA one still looks like a pseudosuchian.

EDIT: In the X-Plus category the Albertosaurus and Styracosaurus are missing. 

Thanks. I've fixed the X-Plus reviews.

The non-crocodylomorph pseudosuchians are a headache. I'm tempted to lump them into a 'crocodile' category like Safari did for their tube. I know it's not right but there are reasons to do it.

I'm going to add a page to the blog eventually to explain/define the different classification categories.

[Gwangi]

Offhand it looks like the Safari Prestosuchus and CollectA Smok are missing from the reptile category. Although the Smok classification is unresolved the CollectA one still looks like a pseudosuchian.

EDIT: In the X-Plus category the Albertosaurus and Styracosaurus are missing. 

Thanks. I've fixed the X-Plus reviews.

The non-crocodylomorph pseudosuchians are a headache. I'm tempted to lump them into a 'crocodile' category like Safari did for their tube. I know it's not right but there are reasons to do it.

I'm going to add a page to the blog eventually to explain/define the different classification categories.

Crocodile-line archosaurs maybe? It's a bit of a mouthful but non-technical and still correct.

[DinoToyForum]

Offhand it looks like the Safari Prestosuchus and CollectA Smok are missing from the reptile category. Although the Smok classification is unresolved the CollectA one still looks like a pseudosuchian.

EDIT: In the X-Plus category the Albertosaurus and Styracosaurus are missing. 

Thanks. I've fixed the X-Plus reviews.

The non-crocodylomorph pseudosuchians are a headache. I'm tempted to lump them into a 'crocodile' category like Safari did for their tube. I know it's not right but there are reasons to do it.

I'm going to add a page to the blog eventually to explain/define the different classification categories.

Crocodile-line archosaurs maybe? It's a bit of a mouthful but non-technical and still correct.

Maybe, but I want this group to exclude crocodiles proper, which have their own category, so visitors can just browse the basal forms. So, the category would then have to be "non-crocodile crocodile-line archosaurs" or "crocodile-line archosaurs (basal)". Even wordier, and most people won't find this useful at all. I'm more interested in making the classification useful than making it phylogenetically accurate, so simplifications and paraphyletic (and even polyphyletic) groups are potentially fine.

[Gwangi]

Offhand it looks like the Safari Prestosuchus and CollectA Smok are missing from the reptile category. Although the Smok classification is unresolved the CollectA one still looks like a pseudosuchian.

EDIT: In the X-Plus category the Albertosaurus and Styracosaurus are missing. 

Thanks. I've fixed the X-Plus reviews.

The non-crocodylomorph pseudosuchians are a headache. I'm tempted to lump them into a 'crocodile' category like Safari did for their tube. I know it's not right but there are reasons to do it.

I'm going to add a page to the blog eventually to explain/define the different classification categories.

Crocodile-line archosaurs maybe? It's a bit of a mouthful but non-technical and still correct.

Maybe, but I want this group to exclude crocodiles proper, which have their own category, so visitors can just browse the basal forms. So, the category would then have to be "non-crocodile crocodile-line archosaurs" or "crocodile-line archosaurs (basal)". Even wordier, and most people won't find this useful at all. I'm more interested in making the classification useful than making it phylogenetically accurate, so simplifications and paraphyletic (and even polyphyletic) groups are potentially fine.

Any particular reason you don't wanna just lump crocodiles in there? There can't be that many crocodile reviews, can there?

On a semi-related note, is there a chance we can separate bony fishes from cartilaginous in the ATB?

[DinoToyForum]

Offhand it looks like the Safari Prestosuchus and CollectA Smok are missing from the reptile category. Although the Smok classification is unresolved the CollectA one still looks like a pseudosuchian.

EDIT: In the X-Plus category the Albertosaurus and Styracosaurus are missing. 

Thanks. I've fixed the X-Plus reviews.

The non-crocodylomorph pseudosuchians are a headache. I'm tempted to lump them into a 'crocodile' category like Safari did for their tube. I know it's not right but there are reasons to do it.

I'm going to add a page to the blog eventually to explain/define the different classification categories.

Crocodile-line archosaurs maybe? It's a bit of a mouthful but non-technical and still correct.

Maybe, but I want this group to exclude crocodiles proper, which have their own category, so visitors can just browse the basal forms. So, the category would then have to be "non-crocodile crocodile-line archosaurs" or "crocodile-line archosaurs (basal)". Even wordier, and most people won't find this useful at all. I'm more interested in making the classification useful than making it phylogenetically accurate, so simplifications and paraphyletic (and even polyphyletic) groups are potentially fine.

Any particular reason you don't wanna just lump crocodiles in there? There can't be that many crocodile reviews, can there?

On a semi-related note, is there a chance we can separate bony fishes from cartilaginous in the ATB?

There are 20 or so true crocs, I think that's enough to justify separating them out.

Yep, I'll turn my attention to the ATB soon. I plan to also divide the categories there into brands and classifications as I have on the DTB. But the genus/animal name tag system will never be used as a drop down list as it is on DTB, there are too many!