Talk:Taxidermy

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Death High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Animals Mid‑importance Taxidermy is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve : Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae ), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration Museums High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

I have heard that some people put together dioramas by putting a stuffed animal in a realistic depiction of it's natural habitat. Is this true? I think that the article should have some pictures of one. By the way, how does someone put one together? I would like to try one.

yes dioramas are probably the most common display of taxidermy, at least in England. visit http://www.scottish-taxidermy.co.uk/ or http://www.taxidermy.co.uk/ for some examples. they make the rocks out of papier mache normally (as you can't drill through rocks easily to insert the wires) and use real twigs and moss.

What is ataxidermy collector called? A taxidermist also? What?

If one does not exist, a word must be introduced to define a collector of taxidermy - I propose `taxidermor'. Confirmation will come from inclusion in the Oxford Dictionary. Meanwhile, taxidermatologists who contribute to the Wikipedia may respond to this proposition.

Reverted poorly formatted additions by this account. Please feel free to add the text back if any of it is notable. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A collector would probably be called a "taxidermaphile."--Dwane E Anderson (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would this photo qualify as crypto-taxidermy? The article said that it could be an extinct creature and it could be artificially created (as it was). - 12:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great photo and could certainly be added. It would be great to see a whole new article on crypto-taxidermy actually, with its own gallery. Loxlie 01:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added it to the article. - 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt it is stuffed, only parts of real animals used seem to be the feathers, so it doesn't qualify as taxidermy.
  Funkynusayri (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There seems to be no mention of the sort of displays where small animals are represented in scenes mimicking human activities. Mice having tea parties, or squirrels in a court room and the like. I know that a lot of very important taxidermists specialised in this style in the Victorian period and there is growing interest in their art today and they can attract high prices for the best work. Should there not be a section on this and the taxidermists who practised this form? Agrestis 11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

something should be added pertaining "steampunk" taxidermy... its quite interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.183.132 (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more like an publicity article for an organization, see the large ad/photo on the page. Merge it into this page? --71.118.65.2 14:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done. 63.110.61.130 20:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is there any description of what rouge taxidermy is, only what it "is not. Article implies that it is simply poor taxidermy ("botched"), but photo examples imply that a rogue taxidermist is not bad at their craft but taking fanciful artistic license with their works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.7.71 (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Over the last year I have been making an effort to get the Taxidermy page upgraded from a C-class rated article (its current rating) to a B-class rated article and get the "more footnotes" template removed. I have actively been adding citations to pre-existing text and adding new content. About a year ago I created several new sections by dividing topics on the page into the "Freeze dried", "Reproduction", "Study skins", and "Re-creation" sections, then added content to all of them. Over the weekend, the addition of information by a new editor to the Rogue taxidermy section resulted in another editor removing most of that section, some of which was material I had researched and added a while ago. The reason given for the content removal was "undue weight". All of the removed material (both old and new) was well-sourced, however the latest content was heavy on the fine art aspects of the genre without including the other aspects. Balance then became an issue because that aspect was already touched upon in the section. The use of too many block quotes in the section was also a problem because it made the section appear more important than other sections, visually overpowering them. All were valid points that needed to be addressed, however the removal of content left the Rogue taxidermy section extremely vague and lacking material that would be of help to anyone researching the topic. There are no longer specific examples of Rogue Taxidermy pieces given and no history behind the genre provided. The Wikipedia policy pages I found said not to remove sourced information solely on the grounds that it seems biased, instead try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone and, if necessary, add additional cited material to offset any bias. The policy pages also said any information that would belong in a finished article should be retained. Too get this section back on track, I'm in the process of merging all of the content that just got removed. I'm not omitting any points that were made, but I'm honing everything down. I will also be adding new facts to round out the section and provide a balanced presentation of the genre. I'm keeping each paragraph focused and making a point to avoid too much detail. After I submit the reworked material if the content still seems problematic, rather than deleting the information, please flag the section so the wording issues can be resolved collaboratively as a community. The reworked section will be divided into three very short paragraphs of pertinent information, each providing a brief overview of the listed aspects.

1st Paragraph: What type of work constitutes rogue taxidermy and examples that illustrate the spectrum of work the genre includes.

2nd Paragraph: Origins of the genre and origins of the term rogue taxidermy.

3rd Paragraph: The relevance of the genre and its importance in relation to contemporary culture

I will be submitting the reworked content to the page shortly. Thanks much Down time (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reintroduced the basics for right now and will continue to rebuild the section [as time allows] so that the section can serve as a quality resource for those researching the topic. The origins of a genre and examples of the work that it encompasses are expected encyclopedic content, not superfluous material. The last edit to this section removed these two vital aspects. Please discuss major changes to sections on the Talk page before deciding to remove content added by other editors when the material is sourced, relevant, and non-contentious. There are links to Wikipedia policy regarding this in my previous post. Thanks much Down time (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can there be more information on human taxidermy? For instance, is it legal? Are there certain cituation in which it is allowed? Does it exist at all? These are just some thing I am interested in. Crakker (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin was taxidermied when he died. There's also a famous British college administrative figure who was taxidermied, as per his own will. I forget his name, though. He is also on display, in a glass case. --

I think you are thinking of Jeremy Benthan, see this page

208.65.188.23 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin was embalmed and is continually preserved chemically. That is not the same as taxidermy, wherein only the skin is preserved. This kind of chemical preservation of human bodies can be found in every funeral home. The closest thing you are likely to find to human taxidermy is in a scientific or educational context, like Body Worlds or Bodies: The Exhibition—or in stories about Ed Gein…. Gerweck (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful of surviving very old examples of taxidermied dodo birds, right? It would be good to feature a photo of one in this article. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are only skeletons. There was 1 but it was destroyed in a fire i think in the 1800's or so. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a head and a leg, but that's all. There's a photo of a cast of them in the dodo article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

they are recreated out of goose feathers and such and are only "puppets" if i remember — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmanizer (talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about

I'm doubtful that its true to say that stuffed animals only developed in the eaerly 20th. century, as Victorian museums were full of them. 84.13.53.211 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes the use of skins and glass eyes, but it doesn't explain about the teeth. If they use the real teeth, do they use the entire real jaw to support them? What about the other parts of the mouth; the tongue, palate, gum, etc? Maybe someone familiar with this can add some explanation. --Dwane E Anderson (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is so cool that my uploaded image was helpful here. I actually thought it would not be for more than Tanner article. But I guess that is why we have Commons. It sounds trivial, but I am stoked that this method of open collaboration worked.TCO (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, I am disappoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.87.164 (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a viral video that doesn't detail taxidermy itself; just a fictitious taxidermist making a hilariously lame commercial. A popular culture section listing the video could be added, though. Dr. Whooves (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Testa "FICTITIOUS"? Nope -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-KMQqvHl4 (and tbh I went to this Wikipedia article BECAUSE I just watched a handful of Chuck Testa's tip videos @ http://www.youtube.com/user/ojaivalleytaxidermy ; very noteable imo. 75.158.104.172 (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an "In Popular Culture" section to the article, containing an entry about the Chuck Testa video. Dr. Whooves (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section about the meme based on Chuck testa,but it was reverted... --Sam 15:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Notable taxidermists section needs to be reserved for individuals that invented or popularized important new taxidermy techniques, those who introduced new ways to present taxidermy, and those who introduced new applications for taxidermy, etc. If the section is not handled this way, superfluous entries will ultimately make the section convoluted and exceedingly difficult to use as an information resource on the topic of taxidermy. Chuck Tesla is not notable in the field of taxidermy, he is merely an internet personality. Consider proposing a new section tilted “Taxidermy in popular culture”, then adding him to it. Please discuss the addition of a new section on the talk page first with other editors – There was a section a number of years ago about taxidermy in popular culture and the section got removed.Down time (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something seriously needs to be done about the ridiculous amount of article blanking and replacing the content with "You probably thought this was an article on taxidermy. Nope. Chuck Testa." It's getting like, out of control man. D; Glacialfox (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably why. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 00:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://wingrovetaxidermy.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.55.165 (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

combine material under proper name DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created

Should there be a chapter or a link to whatever it is called when you conserve skeletons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.162.174 (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the purpose of taxidermy is to preserve and display a skin despite the various little critters that would like to make it their meal, shouldn't the article have a subsection mentioning the most common pests (microbial, 6-legged, 4-legged, etc.) to be discouraged from doing so? There is some coverage of this, but is is buried in the "freeze-dry" subsection, where it will be missed by all but the most careful readers. Should this material be split out into its own subsection and perhaps expanded? Reify-tech (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. Doesn't anyone here have even an elementary understanding of physics? 31.48.240.84 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the removal of two names from the notable taxidermist section:

(1) Norman Bates: This isn’t a real person. Even if he was a real individual, his character wasn't a notable taxidermist – he merely practiced taxidermy as a hobby. This opens the door for other characters from movies, books, and television to be added. (Resurrecting the "Taxidermy in Popular Culture" section that was deleted from the Taxidermy page a few years ago would provide a place for this type of entry, if it's actually needed)

(2) Alfredo Salafia: He did impressive work embalming humans but embalming is not a form taxidermy. From the information I have read, he only practiced taxidermy as a hobby when he was younger. None of his revolutionary embalming techniques have ever been utilized in the world of taxidermy. Having him listed as a notable taxidermist opens the door for other individuals noted for things other than taxidermy to be listed in this section merely because it was their hobby.

The Notable taxidermists section needs to be reserved for individuals that invented or popularized important new taxidermy techniques, those who introduced new ways to present taxidermy, and those who introduced new applications for taxidermy, etc. If the section is not handled this way, superfluous entries will ultimately make the section convoluted and exceedingly difficult to use as an information resource on the topic of taxidermy. – Down time (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed some research on Theodore Roosevelt's relationship with taxidermy. I found he was an enthusiastic and prolific hobbyist (with an affinity for birds) who produced hundreds of specimens before he got into politics in college. However, he did not contribute anything to the field of taxidermy. I propose he also be deleted for the reasons mentioned in my previous post above. If there are no objections I will be making adjustments to this section at the end of the month. – Down time (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed Chuck Testa (again) Please reserve the Notable section for those individuals that have advanced the craft of taxidermy. Please do not add people who are known simply because they are internet personalities, memes, etc. – Down time (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a photo of the cover of a book by Roland Ward. It is an interesting historical image, but not necessary to understand any of the text in the article. It didn't illustrate a concept, a technique, or an example of taxidermy. Roland Ward has his own Wikipedia page. Perhaps the image could be utilized there instead(?) I also removed the photo from the rogue taxidermy section. Unlike other sections on the page, rogue taxidermy cannot be accurately depicted with a singular photo. The term "rogue taxidermy" is used to describe a vast range of things; i.e., chimeric traditional mounts, anthropomorphic mounts, and it's also the name of a genre of fine art that encompasses sculptures made from entirely synthetic materials as well as sculptures made from organic animal remains. All of those things cannot be conveyed in a single image. Because Wikipedia discourages cluttering pages with photos I cannot add additional images to the rogue taxidermy section to accurately represent that section. Another editor recently deleted a large number of extraneous images from the taxidermy page for this reason (and deleted the entire gallery section) Therefore I removed the existing photo from the rogue section because using that image alone is an unbalanced depiction. If general consensus determines a gallery section can be re-established for the taxidermy page (and someone initiates the new section), I will add the photo I just removed from rogue taxidermy to the new gallery along with several new photos that illustrate the other meanings of "rogue taxidermy" so the term can be presented in an unslanted fashion. – Down time (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_content

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links,_images,_or_media_files

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Preserved skin of Lolong at Philippine National Museum.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable taxidermy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for discussion. Please see discussion here. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some redundant images in this article. Additionally, some recently added photos are in seemingly random spots that awkwardly break up sections when reading from a phone vs. desktop. In addition to removing those photos, I'm also going to remove irrelevant photos that don’t illustrate information from their respective sections. Changes are per

Can I remove the template? I think the encyclopedic tone is good. Cleter (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Remove it. I'm not sure why it was placed. That editor never met here to discuss perceived issues, nor did they mention their reasoning in their edit summary when they placed the template. Article seems just fine. Down time (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, it's time to be bold. Cleter (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]