Talk:Taxidermy

message: 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)
replies: text: A collector would probably be called a "taxidermaphile."--Dwane E Anderson (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dioramas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Crypto-taxidermy photo 

message: The only process I've heard of that even comes close to taxidermy in plants is Silk Plants & dried flowers. Is there a way to actually preserve a plant?. Freeze-drying perhaps?. Maybe that might even work for fruit, preserving the entire fruit, color, texture, shape & all!. Maybe there might be another process as well. If such a thing were possible it would deserve mention in the article, and maybe the Silk/Plastic Plants too. - 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plants 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anthropomorphic Dioramas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Human taxidermy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dodos?

message: What about Vladimir Lenin, Saartjie Baartman, and other stuffed humans? Is it permissible to include them in the article?Lestrade (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Homo sapiens

message: 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)
thread_title:  Victorian museums 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Teeth? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  cool!  My image was helpful to another article! (tiger) 

message: Wikipedia, I am disappoint.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.87.164 (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I added a section about the meme based on Chuck testa,but it was reverted... --Sam 15:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why the hell isn't Chuck Testa mentioned? 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is probably why.  Mikaey, Devil's advocate 00:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chuck Testa vandalism 

message: combine material under proper name  DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Taxidermy: Art and Science]] 

message: Someone created Draft:History of Taxidermy but I don't know its quality compared to the history sections here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Draft:History of Taxidermy]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Skeletons

message: 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)
thread_title: Common pests?

message: Utter nonsense. Doesn't anyone here have even an elementary understanding of physics? 31.48.240.84 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The negative air pressure in the chamber pulls moisture out of the animal's body" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: About the notable taxidermists section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Utilizing appropriate images and the appropriate number of images 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: has been nominated for discussion. Please see discussion here. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD: [[:Category:Notable taxidermy]] 

message: 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 MOS:IMAGES I will note my reasoning with each edit in its summary. Please meet here to discuss if my changes are problematic. Happy to work with other editors. Down time (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous images cluttering page 

message: Can I remove the template? I think the encyclopedic tone is good. Cleter (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for your feedback, it's time to be bold. Cleter (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article seems fine to me