Tags/Categories on Dinosaur Toy Blog

[Gwangi]

Yeah, 20 is a lot more than I thought there would be. Certainly enough for their own category.

[DinoToyForum]

Yeah, 20 is a lot more than I thought there would be. Certainly enough for their own category.

Yeah, I've been surprised by the quantity of reviews for certain groups as I've been going through them. Also, fair few reviews had not been categorised at all so I've been fixing those as I go, and that has bumped up the tallies slightly.

[DinoToyForum]

Ceratosaur: https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/ceratosaur/ (=Ceratosauria).

[suspsy]

Very impressed at all your diligent toil lately. Also impressed by just how many ceratosaurs are on the blog. We now have a much better appreciation for the sheer variety of genera.

[DinoToyForum]

Very impressed at all your diligent toil lately. Also impressed by just how ceratosaurs are on the blog. We now have a much better appreciation for the sheer variety of genera.

Thanks and yeah, it really helps to emphasise just how much content there is on the blog. Hopefully, it encourages visitors to explore a little more.

[DinoToyForum]

Iguanodont (basal): https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/iguanodont-basal/
Oviraptorosaur: https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/oviraptorosaur/
Theropod (basal): https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/theropod-basal/ (for non-ceratosaurian and non-tetanuran theropods).

I also updated 'Hadrosaur', which already existed, but was missing many reviews.

As always, if you spot any reviews that have been missed let me know. Obscure species sometimes fall through the cracks.

[DinoToyForum]

Diplodocoid: https://dinotoyblog.com/classification/diplodocoid/

[DinoToyForum]

I'm looking at the categories "retro" and "oldies". Sometimes these are used interchangeably, sometimes in conjunction. They need properly defining if we are to retain them and use them consistently going forward.

"oldies" is the simplest to define, it's an old toy. But how old? It's typically used for Marx/MPC/Starlux/Kleinwelka figures, but not always, and it has sometimes been applied to figures as recent as the 1980s. It hasn't been applied to Invicta toys though, which date to the 1970s. Should it? My feeling is that 1960s and pre-1960s is a good definition. What do you think?

"retro" is more tricky. Sometimes it is used as a synonym for "oldies", in those cases it is redundant and can be deleted (or those reviews changed to "oldies" if they aren't already so categorised). Agreed? But "retro" can also be applied to modern figures that have a "retro" appearance, like this: https://dinotoyblog.com/iguanodon-oldies-desktop-model-by-kintofavorite-co-ltd/ and this https://dinotoyblog.com/tyrannosaurus-retrosaurus-rebor/ There are only a handful of such reviews, but this is the definition I think we should use.

Any thoughts, especially from those reviewers that have used these categories in the past.

[Gwangi]

Yeah, both those tags are ones I occasionally forget to use. I think retro should definitely be reserved for figures that are modern with a retro design. Like those you posted. In which case maybe the tag should be renamed "modern retro" to avoid confusion, and since we're playing with the definition of what retro actually means. I think the definition for oldies should be broader. Maybe even up to and including the 90's, as much as it pains me to say it. I think it's safe to say that figures by Tyco, Battat, and early Carnegie are oldies at this point.

[Fembrogon]

I think 1960s and pre-1960s is a good breakoff point for "oldies"; the Invicta line marked a significant change in style and standard that sets a good precendent for everything that follows.
The turn of the 60s also marked a major shift in paleontology itself, so I think it's reasonable to consider what the market was producing from that lens as well.

I try to use "retro" for figures that are deliberately aiming for a more old-fashioned aesthetic despite being produced more recently, like those examples you mentioned, @DinoToyForum. Rebor's Mesozoic Valley is retro, whereas a Marx T. rex would have been contemporary.

[DinoToyForum]

Thanks both. We're all agreed on retro then.

For oldies, hmm, I think including 80s and 90s would be a mistake and might make the tag less useful (if too many figures share the same tag then people are less likely yo find what they're looking for), so I think I'll stick with 1960s and before. There's a case to be made to have a category for date, or at least decade, but I'll sort out existing categories and revised classification categories before I consider creating any more!

[suspsy]

Found a review in need of a crocodile classification:

https://dinotoyblog.com/deinosuchus-vs-parasaurolophus-diorama-dinosauria-by-sideshow/

[DinoToyForum]

Found a review in need of a crocodile classification:

https://dinotoyblog.com/deinosuchus-vs-parasaurolophus-diorama-dinosauria-by-sideshow/

Thanks, fixed. There will probably be a few categories that have a few omissions so keep your eyes peeled and let me know.

Also, I have now updated the "oldies" and "retro" tags to reflect the new definitions discussed above.

[suspsy]

I've also added more tags to my Playmobil reviews.

[DinoToyForum]

Thanks.

I just now populated a few more categories:

"Ankylosaurid" (to differentiate from the broader "ankylosaur" category)
"Cat"
"Compsognathid"
"Megalosaur"(id)
"Nodosaur"
"Ornithomimosaur"(id)
"Thyreophoran" (basal, i.e. non ankylosaur or stegosaur)
"Troodont"

And with that, I don't have any other classification categories planned. I'm open to suggestions.

There are a few theropod genera that haven't been allocated to a specific category and I'm not sure whether to create categories for them or not. They either belong to a very small clade, fit between named clades, or are incertae sedis. Critters like Australovenator, Cryolophosaurus, Kakuru, Kitadaniyru, Lourinhanasaurus, Monolophosaurus, Mononychus, Siamotyrannus, Siats, Yi and Epidexipteryx. There are probably others. It would be nice if we had something more specific than "Theropod" for these but...what would actually be useful?

[suspsy]

At some point, we just have to shrug and stick with just "Theropod," I reckon.

On that note, how do we feel about megaraptorans? I'm in favour of classifying then as tyrannosaurs myself.

[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.

I think it makes sense to restrict the "Classification" category for just the biological classification. So, I think I'm going to create a "Type" category for above tags. On balance I think that will be more useful than losing them completely.

@Funk suggested some other "Type" tags:

"Cartoon"
"Knock off"
"Miniatures"
"Museum approved"
"Electronic"

I'm happy to add all of these.

"Playset" is also an existing tag.

I think we could also consider adding:

"Set" (for reviews that cover a set of figures as opposed to a single figure, but that wouldn't be classified as a playset. @Fembrogon published many reviews in this category.)
"Upcoming releases"
"Gashapon"
"Papercraft"
"book/magazine" (for figure or figure sets associated with books or freebies with magazines)
"Monochrome"
"Action figure"
"Robot"

Lastly, we need a default, otherwise we'll have a lot of blanks for the "Type" category.

I'm thinking something like "single model", or "single figure".

Any major objections to any of this? Any suggestions?

Authors can do their best to allocate posts when they publish but I'll do a more thorough job of double checking and updating tags so we are consistent across the site.

[Gwangi]

I notice that under "top companies" there are Jurassic Park and Jurassic World groups. Those aren't companies though. I think replacing these with the actual companies like Kenner, Hasbro, Mattel, and any other company that makes JP Merch (Funko, Dakin, Nanmu, etc.) would be preferable. But I do think that the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World tags could still exist in your Type category.

[DinoToyForum]

I notice that under "top companies" there are Jurassic Park and Jurassic World groups. Those aren't companies though. I think replacing these with the actual companies like Kenner, Hasbro, Mattel, and any other company that makes JP Merch (Funko, Dakin, Nanmu, etc.) would be preferable. But I do think that the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World tags could still exist in your Type category.

Ah, the top companies page is out of date, I created it manually but I should be able to overhaul and automate that now. The new category that includes company names is "brands", and that covers all brand names including the company name, brand name, series/line name, and others. For example, the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World tags fit under the Brand category.

[Fembrogon]

This all makes sense to me, so I think it's a good idea. I can definitely see the "set" tag being useful for things like the Kaiyodo figurines.