dinotoycollector.com

[DinoToyCollector]

@Gothmog the Baryonyx
Hm ... in my opinion Ornithischia would be the equivalent to Saurischia. But the problem lies not only in the assignment of individual species, but also in the clarity of the page
I totally agree with you about the Tianyulong. It is clearly a basal Ornithischian. As @Halichoeres put it most succinctly, another group "Dinosauria - basal Ornithischia" would be probably the simplest and least disturbing solution for the current grouping, as well as for future assignments.
Thank you for making these thoughts and sharing them.

[Halichoeres]

Until there are more basal Ornithischia figures I'd personally prefer grouping them all together. I personally consider Ornithiscia to be the functional equivalent of Therapoda and, given how many Therapods get figures made of them, I think if they can all be grouped together, so can the Ornithischians. I think I'm in the minority with that opinion though.

I have some sympathy for this view. There are really three major branches of dinosaurs that emerged very close to one another, Ornithischia, Theropoda, and Sauropodomorpha. But there are lots of compromises on the classification used on the site ( @DinoToyCollector and I have discussed it quite a lot by pm) that reflect what most collectors are likely to look for when they land on the site. They're mostly pretty similar to the categories used on the DTB. If people are going in search of Hypsilophodon figures, most of them will look under "Ornithopoda," not under "non-cerapod neornithischians," for example. And obviously the category "fish" has no systematic meaning. These are just shorthand categories and would be much too cumbersome to make monophyletic or completely taxonomically accurate. So my goal, at least (I can't speak for Stefan) has been to have a manageable number of categories that will mostly be recognizable to a casual collector without calling things by names that are too egregiously wrong.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

@DinoToyCollector @Halichoeres
Thank you for moving the Tianyulong. As lonely as it now is, it's much better. (I do hope that one day it will be joined by a Kulindadromeus)
Thank you also for the explanations. I still thank that, at the very least, Therapods could be split onto three, but I wouldn't know where to begin with which groupings. If I wanted to search for a Maniraptoform I wouldn't want to be swamped with Allosauroids on my way, to give an example.
In fact, (and I'm mostly joking here) you could probably split Therapods into two categories. One called "Tyrannosauroids & Allosauroids" and another called "Other Therapods" and the first would have more toys than the second.
And it would kind of be funny if pretty much all vertebrates were listed as fish, but, as you say, it would be completely unhelpful.
Don't mind my rambling please.

[DinoToyCollector]

@Gothmog the Baryonyx
I just wanted to give it a try how the sorting of Tianyulong looks under other parameters. But I want to be honest: I'm not completely happy with it yet. The Therapods will last longer as they are at the moment. I think by displaying the different families it is very easy to find the corresponding animals.

@DinoToyCollector @Halichoeres
[...] And it would kind of be funny if pretty much all vertebrates were listed as fish [...]

Yes that's funny though... but also reasonable 

[DinoToyCollector]

I made two minor changes to the browse page:
Thanks to a drop-down menu, the browse page has become a little clearer.
On the manufacturer side there is now also a link to the official website and in the future there will be further information about the companies themselves. That was a spontaneous idea, but I think it could usefully expand the page.



Over the next week, I'll be looking at a better filter for the browse page. Then comes a next big step that will hopefully work as well as I imagine.
Hope you like it.

[DinoToyCollector]

I have the filters ready so far. The system is not perfect, but a big improvement to before.

The filters are dynamic among each other. If you find problems, please let me know

[Sauropelta]

Can some of you guys add the exact scale sizes on most the popular figures? Especially the new 2019 ones.

[Shonisaurus]

I would like to know how much Pago gorgosaurus and pentaceratops measure. We still do not know its measures if the Management of virtual collections finds out its size would be grateful for its part to update it as soon as possible. I'm interested in both figures.

[DinoToyCollector]

@Sauropelta
I have now added the scale of most 2019 figures. As far as these are known. The work on the older toys will take a little more time because I am currently working on the website more than on the database (apart from my normal job).

@Shonisaurus
Unfortunately, I can not say anything about these two figures, because I do not know the data. Communication with the larger companies is also a bit tougher, as they have more requests to process and answers need more time to respond.

So we all have to be patient
If you make inquiries like these, I will always try to take care of your wishes.

[DinoToyCollector]

There is another major update to the database:
Imperial, Inpro, Recur, Starlux, Tim Mee, UKRD & Vivid dinosaurs have been added to the database. Overall, you can find about 300 new entries
If you can contribute pictures, you are very welcome to do so via PM, E-Mail or contact form of dinotoycollector.com

[Minmiminime]

I don't know how I've missed this site up til now! This is a great idea. Duly signed up! Excellent work, @DinoToyCollector 😊

[DinoToyCollector]

Thanks @Minmiminime, I'm glad that you like the site

[Halichoeres]

Would it make the "Browse" page too cluttered and busy to be able to browse by time period? As it is, you have to click through a few pages to get all the Cambrian animals, for example.

[DinoToyCollector]

First, thanks for adding the new figurines from Eikoh and Yowie, @Halichoeres

Would it make the "Browse" page too cluttered and busy to be able to browse by time period? As it is, you have to click through a few pages to get all the Cambrian animals, for example.

I have just read the message here in the forum, so sorry for the late reply:
I can add browsing by time period. You're right: to do that, though, I'll really need to revise the page a bit to keep it clear. I have a spontaneous idea, but I'm grateful for all suggestions.
It is hard to put my idea into words, but I can post a sketch during the day and we and others can talk about it here.

I have a question about the periods, which also explains a little why I have avoided the function so far: Would it make sense to divide the larger time periods? How about the Upper Cretaceous and Lower Cretaceous as part of the Cretaceous? (No Masstrichitum, Campanium etc ...) Just as it already works with the subgroups of the animals. The group Cretaceous would be incredibly big with the growth of the database. With the initial absence of the pagination, I was afraid of massive load times and unbelievable traffic. I may have to change some of the database before doing so, so it not gets to messy.

UPDATE:
Maybe something like this:



The manufacturers could be reached via the pictures. The different series of companies in this example would be reached only on the second click on the filter. The rest would stay in this example as it is and is extended by the periods.

What do you think?

[Halichoeres]

First, thanks for adding the new figurines from Eikoh and Yowie, @Halichoeres

My pleasure! I'll try to get more Yowie photos up soon.

I like your layout idea, since it seems likely to me that company and taxonomic group are the two categories that will probably be browsed most often.

As for splitting up the Cretaceous, I can see why you would want to! The Cretaceous accounts for more than half of all entries in the database. I think you would find that the Upper Cretaceous will still be gigantic, because it is home to a lot of the most frequently made genera (Tyrannosaurus and other tyrannosaurs, Triceratops and most other ceratopsians, Velociraptor, every hadrosaur), whereas the Lower Cretaceous would probably be a bit smaller than the Jurassic. There would also be a few species that would be a little difficult to assign to one or the other (things from the Albian-Cenomanian boundary), but perhaps it would make it more manageable. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Hurrah, the Tianyulong isn't lonely anymore.

[DinoToyCollector]

Well, after I looked at the design in modified form and tried it, I put it online immediately. It looks clearer and more appealing to me. The subgroups behave a little strangely, but remain so for the time being, since it serves the clarity.



Because of the different periods: I will wait with a subdivision of the geological ages, because there are already many to browse (wasn't aware of that). If it is a much desired feature, then I can still catch up and add.

Hurrah, the Tianyulong isn't lonely anymore.

[Halichoeres]

I like it! Strictly speaking, none of the things that end in "-cene" are periods, but epochs, so if you wanted to streamline it you could combine them:

Paleocene + Eocene + Oligocene = Paleogene
Miocene + Pliocene = Neogene
Pleistocene + Holocene = Quaternary (a few things are already tagged Quaternary)

Then if you wanted, the epochs could be subheadings under the periods, although I don't think even that is strictly necessary.

On another note, I also notice that the lepospondyls are under "Tetrapodomorpha," whereas I think they more properly belong to "Amphibia."

[DinoToyCollector]

[...] Strictly speaking, none of the things that end in "-cene" are periods, but epochs, [...]

In the matter of epochs and ages and periods, I come to my language barriers. So please, please correct me as much as you want. It is necessary.
That many of the periods (yes, I'm using it in this sentence) are not consistent, is only now noticeable through the listing. It was already like that with the groups. Many of the entries had just copied since the beginning and I probably did not proceed as systematic as now. And with the rapid growth of the database, the errors multiplied 

My main subdivision would really be based on the period: Quaternary, Neogene, Paleogene, Cretaceous ... Cambrian. Thank you in any case for the hint and the digression in geological times in English 

[...] On another note, I also notice that the lepospondyls are under "Tetrapodomorpha," whereas I think they more properly belong to "Amphibia." [...]

You're right. I agree with that.

[Halichoeres]

That was quick work! It looks much tidier now