Talk:Teddy bear

message: Winnie the Pooh is not a "fictional" teddy bear.  He was a real bear, a real American Black Bear, so named by a Canadian regiment during the World War I who found him in northern Ontario (and named him after the Canadian city of Winnipeg).  They left him at the London Zoo prior to being deployed to France.  He's the subject of a the CBC television film.
Actually, according to Wikipedia Winnie _is_ a fictional bear: "Winnie-the-Pooh, commonly shortened to Pooh Bear and once referred to as Edward Bear, is a fictional bear created by A. A. Milne. " MRA  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matildaraikallen (talk • contribs) 10:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Winnie the Pooh

message: I posted a picture of the "original" teddy bear.  Hope noone objects.
DO we still need two pictures at the top?  Mhym 02:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I've added in the text regarding the term arctophile as part of a merge from Arctophile, which now redirects here. Just noting per GFDL. Hiding  talk 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arctophile 

message: *Bridget has a talking teddy bear named Roger.  Has this been put/removed from the article before?  Is it notable enough?  I'm just curious. Danny Lilithborne 01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bridget (Guilty Gear)]] 

message: could anybody identify this teddy for me? link Thanks! Peter S. 14:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found it myself. It's from here. Peter S. 22:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which famous teddy?

message: Would it be more appropriate for the reference to the alcoholic drink to be on the teddy bear (disambiguation) page? If so, I'd be happy to move it there. MKoltnow 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got it. // 3R1C 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcoholic drink (send to disambiguation?) 

message: This is my second request, for the same thing, since my last request was deleted. As per Wikipedia's TOS, I now add this before I restate my request:
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
That being said, I again ask why my content has been removed, both from the article and now from this Talk page? My request is both legitimate and honest. 
The fictional Teddy Bears section is most helpful to viewers interested in learning about other Teddy Bears. It includes bears that I've never known before, which added to my desire to include, even more Teddy Bears that others might enjoy, too. Once the holiday season is over, and I have time, I'd like to add even more fictional bears that I've learned about through lots of research online. (These Teddy Bears include some from books, early-era TV shows, and Internet related bears.) I'm not negating your effort, just want to contribute to it, so with everyone working together, we can create a thorough and helpful entry for this subject matter.
I do realize that one of the references on the bottom of the article, includes every other kind of bear, but Teddy Bears are unlike any other kind of bear, so adding the lists to that article simply isn't as thorough as adding it to this one. Obviously, you object to my inclusions, but, respectfully, I'd like to know why. Atwhatcost 17:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed an entry in this section of the article. It was as follows: Louis, who claimed to be a panther. This didn't seem to be anything from fiction or otherwise, so I removed it. If someone sources or explains who "Louis is, then feel free to put it back in. Phil 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusions into ''Fictional Teddy Bears'' list 

message: Instead of reffering to the outlook of the villains in the above-mentioned videogame as WWII GermanMilitary-like, I think it should be better to reffer to them as identical to the WWII Nazi forces. After all, organisations like the Gestapo are symbols of nazi violence during WWII & should not be mixed with the German nation. Please look into this. TathD 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conker's Bad Fur Day: German Uniformed Villains

message: I've placed a semi block on this article for one week due to pervasive vandalism, especially recently.  --Sean 21:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-blocking with expire due to pervasive vandalism 

message: The last sentence of the introductory paragraph appears to be a fragment (concerning the closure of the museum).  I'm not sure what the original author had intended to say.  Comments?
Bdmccray 02:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I attempted to restore the lines lost during this vandalism.  The extra phrase was put in by someone else who     removed the nonsense, but didn't catch the blanking as well.  Thanks for pointing this out. --Sean 03:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to first paragraph 

message: This article needs a wording rewrite at the start. The introductory paragraph implies that it was actually a bear cub he refused to shoot in reality, and then the next section goes on to explain that it was in fact an old she-bear in reality, but was changed to a bear cub in the cartoon drawing of the situation.
Would somebody more familiar with the subject matter like to reword this, or should I tackle it myself? Please let me know. - Vaelor 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworked the story based on information on file at the Theodore Roosevelt Association and shared with me by Linda Milano, former assistant director until 2005.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonATL (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the effort Simon but you need to read up on WP:OR. Most of what you put in was unsourced and unfortunately, as per Wikipedia policy, Linda Milano's account of the story doesn't count as verifiable or reliable source. -- ALLSTARecho 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is hogwash, and sounds like revisionism on the part of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, which appears to be responsible for the "mercy killing" version of the story.  The correct synopsis is that Roosevelt was bear hunting and refused to shoot a tethered bear because it was unsportsmanlike.  He would have shot it if it had not been on a rope. Check the article on Holt Collier, Roosevelt's guide.  It has a more or less accurate account of the incident. Collier's biography has a detailed account. DrHenley (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification Rewrite 

message: Got nothing against the state of Mississippi, got some fine cousins there, and I also understand that the Teddy Roosevelt incident happened in the state, but the Teddy Bear wasn't made in that state. It's not a strictly American thing either. Just curious why this is part of Mississippi?! 
– — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Lynn, AtWhatCost Atwhatcost 09:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because its name is a result of the hunting trip to Mississippi and because it is the official toy of the State of Mississippi as made so by the state legislature. --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this in Missisippi?! 

message: My son has one teddy bear that makes music when pulled on its string and one teddy bear that contains a warmth pillow (the warmth pillow can be extracted from the bear, heated up in the microwave and introduced back into the bear).
Do these two types of teddy bear also correspond to the "teddy bear" definition?  If so, we should put them under the section "Kinds of teddy bears".  I can post a picture of both the music bear and the warmth bear.
Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music and warmth pad teddy bears 

message: If the Colorado legend is definitely not true then why is it in the article?  Is it really so well known as to be a notable fiction?  Or was it just made up by some PR person at the Hotel Colorado?  -- Zsero (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the only source is the hotel itself makes it look very much like thinly veiled advertising. I'm removing it. If someone finds reliable secondary sources it might be worth re-adding. Siawase (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Colorado legend

message: Marshmallow has informed me that he wants his picture in this article. What do you think? Isn't he adorable? Plenty of Wikimedia wikis think so. Mike R (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marshmallow 

message: It seems a shame not to include the cartoons which inspired the toymaker... 82.80.85.38 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did none of the political cartoons survive? 

message: Just a heads up. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teddy bear images on Commons may be purged 

message: This detailed BBC item gives the history of the Steiff teddy, possibly the first ever, along with a notable mystery, and needs to be included here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.182.96 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for bringing that here. Some of it is already included in the article, sourced ot an earlier BBC report. But it could probably do with some expansion and more detail. The article is not protected so feel free to edit it. Siawase (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important source 

message: An image used in this article, File:Winnie the pooh.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Winnie the pooh.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: As to my knowledge countries England and Germany also claim for origin for name teddy. This is not mentioned in the article.59.162.170.113 (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll need some reliable sources that discuss those claims; if they exist, then they probably should be added. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  name teddy 

message: I tried to add to this article that lovers of teddy bears are known as "arctophiles", but some one removed it on the grounds it was not sourced. Well, here is a source: 
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/arctophile
Is this a suitable source for this information? Incidentally, if you type "arctophile" into the box on the left, you get re-directed here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be a valid source, though we should probably change "lovers of" to something more neutral. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lovers of teddy bears are called arctophiles

message: John Kirby Farnell00.jpg|J. K. Farnell teddy bear
File:Miś pluszowy 02.jpg
File:Chiltern bears Chesham Museum.jpg
File:Merrythought Henry bear 2011.jpg|A limited edition "Henry" teddy bear, made in 2011 with brindle-grey hair
File:Ironbridge Gold.JPG|An "Ironbridge Gold" teddy bear, one of the company's regular designs, made c. 2010
File:Ours en peluche ca1960.JPG
File:Ours en peluche - 01.jpg
Ours en peluche - 02.jpg
File:Handmade teddy bear.jpg
File:Merrythought Henry bear 2011.jpg
File:Ours en peluche - 24.jpg
Ours en peluche - 03.jpg
Ours en peluche - 05.jpg
Ours en peluche - 04.jpg
Ours en peluche - 07.jpg
File:Ours en peluche - 21.jpg
File:Ours en peluche - 13.jpg
File:Ours en peluche - 1960.jpg
File:Ours en peluche - 28.jpg
File:Ours en peluche - 09.jpg
File:Ours en peluche - 22.jpg
I do not quite agree about We don't need a big bunch of pictures there, per MOS:IMAGE. There is a little more to that than just: don't use images. See-> Wikipedia's image use policy. (the following is citation from Wikipedia:Image use policy).
However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–75 in Western fashion for an example of a good use of galleries.
This article is very poorly imaged. There is indeed some rather hard to see gallery about the topic :how to make a teddybear, but teddybears are more than that. There are so many styles, textures, facial expressions, color, and so on. And yes, I think a better gallery (with proper captions maybe) add to the reader's understanding of the subject. I have a book called The Ultimate Teddy Bear Book by Pauline Cockrill . Very nice and very instructive with lots and lots of images about all kinds of teddy bears. This article is just nothing compeared to this book. there are sometimes things one can't explain by words only. A collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images, and in my oppinion this is exactly one of those articles. Hafspajen (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not supposed to be a replacement for a dedicated book on the subject; that's the difference between a dedicated reference book on a single topic and a general encyclopedia. Please explain how those images help the reader understand what a teddy bear is and its encyclopedic history better than plain text. Furthermore, please explain how have an image gallery is better than just a few selected sidebar pictures. I would say that less than one out of ten thousand articles on Wikipedia can even come close to justifying a gallery. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, I don't agree, and I did explain this above, but it is your article. Hafspajen (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my article any more than it is yours; I'm willing to discuss the matter further. Would you like to get outside help; maybe, a Third Opinion? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text: * I can't help that some of the images above ( not all) could make this article more interesting. Especially the old type of baers, the ones one can not find in the shops today. But Third Opinion, who will do that? Hafspajen (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text: * Indeed it is not much information about those images. Kind of irritating. I would say that nr 1 and nr 2 are bears that are of a special type, that are recognizable from the book mentioned above. Teddy bears were not always made the way they are today. It is a history behind the. First they were with long legs and arms, like nr 3 . There are special types characteristical for certain eras, 1920, 1940, -50, 60. there is differences in materials, colors,  noses, ears, heads... You say that it seem to be of little encyclopedic/academic value in pictures of teddy bears. I do not agree.  How come that this book is such a  very popular book? The Ultimate Teddy Bear Book by Pauline Cockrill pictures  This book has about 300  pictures, all of them about teddy bears. It all depends on how you want to write the article.  There are only close up 2 pictures of teddybears in this article.  It is very little.  Anyway it is not me who will add them. I don't feel like getting reverted again. Hafspajen (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing the book explains the significance of the bears depicted though? Another thing to keep in mind is the restrictions around Wikipedia:Non-free content. The copyright issues surrounding toys are notoriously murky, but in general, toys are regarded as art under copyright law, and images of them can only be used on Wikipedia if they fulfill the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (which among other things means no galleries.) Many (most?) of the images found on commons of modern toys shouldn't really be there either. Siawase (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text: *Hm.  My idea was to use the book to do the explaination. Reference. But about We don't need a big bunch of pictures there, per MOS:IMAGE., there was a CONSENSUS here, and also a CHANGE OF POLICY, after that. ->Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 12#Why Galleries are useful. Hafspajen (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use the book as a source to explain the significance of each image (ie, what makes that particular bear unique/its noteworthy features/origins and so on) that would be quite a different type of content from the addition you originally made, which was just images with no explanation at all. Like I said above though, even if you find consensus to add a gallery here, it's quite possible that any images of modern/contemporary bears will be deleted down the line for copyright reasons. This is one reason why so many toy articles are illustrated by just a few representative images rather than a whole gallery. Siawase (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

text: *   Well, everybody has their own ways of editing. Yes using the book as a source to explain the significance of each image (ie, what makes that particular bear unique/its noteworthy features/origins and so on) was the original idea, of course. Me or somebody else, anybody actually. It is called let's be constructive and just work together to make this a better article on a better Wikipedia. But than that hardly can be done now, since it was reverted. And it is also a matter of tastes. The French thanked me for adding it to Ours en peluche. Tastes are different too. And now I think I wasted enough time here. Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of teddy bears

message: The passage regarding "The Teddy Bears Picnic" is incorrect. The piece, composed and copyrighted by John W. Bratton in 1907, had its copyright assigned to and was published by M. Witmark & Sons, New York, later that year as "The Teddy Bears Picnic. Charcteristic Two Step." That is how the first page of the published piano score reads, as well as the orchestration Witmark published that was arranged by Frank Saddler. The illustrated sheet music cover gives the title as THE TEDDY BEARS' PICNIC, with apostrophe on "BEARS" and no genre descriptor. _Vide_ 1st edition copy of piano version at Lilly Library, Indiana University http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/metsnav/inharmony/navigate.do?oid=http://fedora.dlib.indiana.edu/fedora/get/iudl:338273/METADATA&pn=1&size=screen  
The piece was already established under that title when lyricist Jimmy Kennedy wrote the now familiar lyrics for it in 1932.
So I request the passage in Teddy Bear article "History" to be re-edited to:
[...]while composer John W. Bratton wrote a characteristic instrumental two-step "The Teddy Bears' Picnic" in 1907, which later had words written to it by lyricist Jimmy Kennedy in 1932.[...]
69.207.94.22 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2014 "Teddy Bear"  

message: Not independently notable, but still worthy of inclusion as part of the larger topic. Also, large teddy bears are available other places besides Costco, so the name isn't precise. Bradv🍁 15:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, I'm proposing that useful content from Costco bear be added to the Teddy bear article in a subsection, and Costco bear turned into a redirect. Bradv🍁 15:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this, and I think the whole teddy bear article could use some large improvements, but I'm not sure where to start. Natureium (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am against the merger. Too cute to be merged! --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! As the creator of the Costco Bear article, it's worth noting that the article itself has been covered in media outlets like Business Insider: --Prisencolin (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Costco bear]] 

message: Queen Victoria was notoriously fond of lap dogs, and owned several during her lifetime. Never, according to any reliable source, a chow - which is hardly a lap dog, except for a very short period of its puppyhood. We in fact have an article listing all of Queen Victoria's pets, and there is no chow among them. After her famous King Charles spaniel Dash she owned several small terriers before settling down with a succession of Pomeranians - the last of which kept her company on her deathbed. Her larger dogs included greyhounds and deerhounds but there is no evidence they were ever intimate companion animals, even when they were very small puppies.
So how did we get a cited tale that the teddy bear originated as a "substitute chow" for the queen to fill her arms when a dog would have been inappropriate? Assuming good faith on the part of the editor who added the story - anyone familiar with the genre of "handbooks for owners of particular breeds of dog" will be familiar with their tendency to wax sentimental, and recount anecdotes of greater or lesser relevance - some much more likely than others. I have deleted this one anyway - "cited" as it is. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Victoria's Chow? 

message: I have heard that the teddy bear was named after King Edward VII, and although it's not the most likely story, I feel it should at least be briefly mentioned in the article. Just look up "Edward VII Teddy Bear named after" (or words to that effect) and various sites come up that site this alternative version of events.
"And for their part, many in Britain believe the teddy bear name derives from King Edward VII, whose nickname was "Teddy," though British claims to the origin of the toy are not as widely accepted as those in America and Germany, according to teddy bear authorities." - https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2002-09-01-0209010279-story.html
"The English story is that teddy bears were named after King Edward VII and others say that he was German, but the most popular version of how the teddy bear came into being maintains that his true father was another famous Teddy - Theodore Roosevelt, former President of the USA". - http://www.bearplanet.org/teddy-bear.php#:~:targetText=First%20appearance%20of%20Teddy%20Bear&targetText=The%20English%20story%20is%20that,former%20President%20of%20the%20USA.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative etymology? 

message: There is a podcast with RS in its notes and related newspaper article about the early history of the acceptance of the teddy bear. Anything usable for the article? Full disclosure: I included the newspaper article in the WP article earlier but it was reverted and I'm putting it up for discussion (WP:BRD). Mapsax (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This follows a discussion on my talk page. Broadly, my own view is that if this has any relevance at all, it is in the context of gender stereotyping, or even as an article in its own right, but not here. Certainly would have a link to this article from its proper place. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teddy bear scare: Worth including? 

message: , care to explain why all or most of your preferred wording is for the best? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Let them stand for the moment - but let's have a line by line justification for each of your tweaks on the talk page for the article - the existing article was not "my preferred wording" but the existing form of a much-edited article. Not that it can't be brushed up of course, but we usually try to make it clear what we're doing and why. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I thought I was clear. But if you insist, we can do this the hard way. First off, the subject of this article is teddy bears, so MOS:NOBACKREF advises against needlessly repeating "teddy bear" in headings. The Wikipedia-recognized title of the song is "Teddy Bears' Picnic", no "the". Since it's a popular song, it belongs in the Pop subsection of "Cultural impact", with parenthetical years OR without, not both clashing. If your child has an emergency and needs a bear, the 911 dispatcher is damn well going to ask if you want police, fire or medics; then the appropriate responder responds, not a mysterious "emergency official". The short paragraph opens with how stuffed toys might help shocked kids, it's silly to repeat it as a closer. The day "April Fool's Day" is far more recognizable and comprehensible than the common noun "April fool", especially when meaning the act instead of the person. Love is the underlying cause of (genuine) expressions like affection, congratulations and sympathy, not fear. Isn't that obvious enough without needing to violate the Rule of Three? I don't like serial commas, but concede I may have gone against local precedent here. So? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Little or no improvement in any of this" 

message: In the Commercial section it reads: "They must have securely fastened eyes that do not pose a choking hazard for small children. These "plush" bears must meet a rigid standard of construction in order to be marketed to children in the United States and in the European Union." I am personally very interested in these standards, I can provide a source if needed but I would like to know if the original editor knows the source used. SewBunny (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @SewBunny, that content was added in 2006 by someone who has not edited again since then. If you can add a source, that would be excellent! Schazjmd (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the source for this?