Talk:Stuffed toy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Steiftiere vs. Steifftiere[edit]

I have removed the part about the alleged link between Steifftiere and steif - this was completely bollocks, as they're always referenced with the double F in the German language. --Doco 01:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaaawwwwwww...... --Coldplayer 18:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"In colloquial German, stuffed animals are often referred as Steifftiere, which derives from the name of that company." Do you have any proof for this? I'm a German native speaker, and I've never heard anybody say Steifftier...

Article May Overplay the Psychological Interpretation[edit]

The weird thing about stuffed toys is that the minute you give them a name, people start acting as if they were alive and asking silly questions like 'So how is No_bob?' Like, hello people, he's a stuffed toy. Therefore he is not real. Get over it! File:No-bob-ashley.jpg

I think the writer overplays the psychological interpretation (anthropomorphism) about why people fancy stuffed toys. The "innate need to protect small animals" sounds like an explanation that may apply to some cases, but not all. We also have a long history of collecting animals (private zoos have been around since at least Roman times), and this probably appeals to our fascination for novelty.

My point is: you can't attribute "anthropomorphism" so broadly. Children also fancy and collect non-animal stuffed toys (like blankets or plastic dinosaurs). "Anthropomorphism" is an explanation for some cases, but not all, and the explanation itself seems a little radical.WikiPicky 01:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Ahem[edit]

I would like to report some vandalism on this page:

u r g@y u like pen15

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuffed_animal"

The whole artical was delted for this ^ please fix it.

Never mind it "magically" changed

Thanks for reporting it. In the future, you might wish to use the "History" tab to undo the vandalism yourself, as this will save from the trouble of reporting the vandalism and will grant you instant access to older, unvandalized versions. Shinobu (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Plushie[edit]

Look what I found on Boing Boing: http://www.den.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp/%7Eyuki/plushie/index-e.html Shinobu (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Teddy[edit]

The teddy that is the third image in the gallery is cute where can I get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.131.63 (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stuffed Toy[edit]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have the article under the heading, "Stuffed Toy", with a redirect from "Stuffed Animal". Not all stuffed toys of this kind are representations of animals. And it would help distinguish the toys from the work of taxidermists.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. 91.107.184.131 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Siawase (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I removed the entire external links section since all the links looked like advertising per Wikipedia:External links. If someone finds any links that are compliant with the external links policy, please just recreate the section. Siawase (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vortigaunt (plush toy).jpg[edit]

The image Image:Vortigaunt (plush toy).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gallery[edit]

Do there really need to be ten images in the gallery? I think the in-article images are a good enough representation of what a plushie is.69.143.240.243 (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"Stuffed animal" = Taxidermy[edit]

Note that a stuffed animal refers to taxidermy in British english. 84.13.53.211 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Materials that stuffed animals are made out of.[edit]

Stuffed animals are soft toys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyope (talkcontribs) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Company References[edit]

It is really necessary to specifically name companies in the last section that include digital interfaces for their stuffed toys? It seems like advertising at the moment when the concept can be easily explained in general terms. Naming companies that could be out of business in the future removes the timelessness of the article, and the specific features that each of the companies offer do not seem terribly relevant to the article. 65.183.128.154 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of problematic sentences? I'm not seeing any undue advertising and the feature descriptions are very brief. I can't really see how to make them briefer. Re: the timelessness, see WP:TIMELESS and WP:DATED (in a nutshell, don't remove information because it might become outdated, but reword it in such a way that it will still make sense in the future.) Siawase (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stuffed toy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Article improvement[edit]

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I will be working on this article for the next couple of weeks as part of an undergraduate technical and professional editing class. Here are the areas I will be focusing on:

  • Organization: In similar toy articles (for instance, Teddy bear), the history section comes first, so I will switch the description and history sections. In addition, the types section needs some restructuring. For instance, the brand information might fit better under the impact section (which might be more accurately titled “Cultural impact”) to exemplify different fads (see my “Content” point below).
  • Content: I believe this article needs more content to be more effective. For instance, many people might visit the page looking for more information on history or previous fads and cultural phenomena associated with stuffed toys. Thus, I will try to expand the history and impact section, perhaps by transferring some of the content from “Types” to “Impact,” especially because it seems that many of the specific brands mentioned (like Tickle Me Elmo or Zhu Zhu Pets) were originally added to provide examples of toys that incorporate technology and later changed to a discussion of fads. Also, should the article have a section overviewing manufacturing methods/production? I looked at a couple of similar articles (Teddy bear, but also the most similar articles that the Toys WikiProject lists as good articles: Play-Doh and Reborn doll), and all three contain some sort of description of how the toys are made. If so, the information about handmade toys and the information about different materials in the lead section could be moved there.
  • Lead: Per WP:MOSLEAD, the lead should overview the main points of the article and not discuss significant information that is not covered elsewhere in the article. Thus, I will be working on the lead to move some of the information to the body of the article and adding some summaries of the different sections to provide a better overview of the article.
  • Neutral Tone: I will be editing the language throughout to comply with WP:NPOV, although I mainly only noticed issues in the impact section.
  • Citations: Many facts lack citations. I will try to find some additional sources that support these facts, as well as some sources that I can use to expand the content mentioned above; however, I do not anticipate having much time to spend on research. If anyone wants to help out, feel free!
  • Copyediting: I will copyedit the article for grammar and punctuation. I will also be looking at the amount of wikilinks.

I will be making edits as I go, but I’ll be working out larger edits in a sandbox before I implement them. I will add the link to the sandbox once I get going with that. If you have any advice or insight, I’d love to hear it since I’m new to Wikipedia. I’m looking forward to participating in this community! --Lhill21 (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and very well planned Lhill21. Welcome to Wikipedia! I don't have time now to do research specific to this article, but it sounds as if you are going to improve the article so I look forward to seeing the end result. (I see that you already have link to the Teahouse on your talk page, so use that any time you have a question, or feel free to ask me.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I've finished working out the major edits in this sandbox if anyone wants to look them over: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lhill21/st_sandbox. I still need to do some copyediting to those sections, but the major restructuring and content additions are done. I'll be moving the updated sections to the article (one section at a time) tomorrow evening or the day after, then I'll work on the lead, edit for a neutral tone, add a few more sources I found to support some of the information in the description section, and copyedit. I'll post an update here when I've done those things. Also, thanks for the welcome, Laterthanyouthink! --Lhill21 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Lhill21 It looks as if you've made a good start and I see that you have added citations. I probably won't get a chance to look more closely for a few more days, but if you start copying over your changes into the article (be bold!) then other editors who have the page on their watchlists will have a look too and help fix anything that needs fixing. Just one very minor copyediting point I happened to notice on a couple of your sentences - just close up the space between the full stop and the citation (citations follow punctuation immediately, with no space in between. I'm not sure about the Description section - it might be worth including some general blurb about the range of sizes and characters (animals/whatever) and types of stuffings, but feel free to use your own discretion, if you feel as if these topics are covered in other sections (other than the lead, where WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the note about citations, Laterthanyouthink! I think I corrected them all, but I'll check again when I go through and copyedit. I have moved the major edits from my sandbox to the article, and I took a stab at re-writing the lead to reflect the changes. Please let me know if any of my edits/reasoning are unclear or seem off; I'm happy to discuss further. I'll be going through the article in the next couple of days to make sure all the text has a neutral tone (mainly I'll be looking at the description section since I haven't looked at that section as closely yet), and I'll add an additional source or two that I found to support some of the information in the description section. I'll also go through and copyedit everything. --Lhill21 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I've just had a quick look at it and it looks pretty good to me. Firstly, I am sorry, I made an addition and saved it before remembering that I was supposed to be just looking! (I thought that the market value cited by the WSJ was not clear what it applied to - presumably US - so went looking for a global figure.) Then I saw the incorrect change made by Zimmygirl7 and changed that back. The only minor thing I'd mention, as you seem keen to learn more: try to always link the first occurrence of the word (e.g. teddy bear), and I think that you could add a few more links to some of those terms such as plush, felt, velvet, pincushion, horsehair, etc. While over-linking is not good, especially for common terms, countries, etc., one can imagine that some readers might not have come across these terms. (I try to imagine school children or 2nd-language-English speakers.) You could possibly play with the placement of the images to find what looks best when the screen is narrow or wide on the web version, and have a look at the mobile version too if you can. Best wishes with your assignment and future editing! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Laterthanyouthink, no need to apologize about the edit! I don't want to commandeer the article for my assignment, so you’re welcome to make edits anytime on anything I've done. I agree that the market value statistic is better as a global value. Thanks for the tips about linking and the images. I’ll look at links more as I start copyediting, and I might adjust the photo placement so that the sock monkey photo is on the right, since MOS:IMAGELOCATION says that placing photos on the right is the general rule. Unless that would make the right side too crowded with photos, since it’s a pretty short article? Either way, I’ll do something so that the history text isn't sandwiched between the two photos. I'll post an update once I'm finished with everything. --Lhill21 (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Update on edits and thoughts for future editors[edit]

Hi Wikipedians,

I’ve finished working out all my proposed edits/copyedits to the article. I think there’s still room to expand the article overall, particularly in the “history”, “production” and “cultural impact, marketing, and collectors” sections. I also marked a few sentences that definitely need additional citations, and some of the other facts in the description section might need citations as well. I’m also not sure how relevant that image captioned “A plush toy” is; it seems a little random to me, but I kept it in. I’m looking forward to seeing where Wikipedians take the article in the future! --Lhill21 (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The image has now been removed. File: File:Igrushka001.jpg UserTwoSix (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Slang[edit]

Some slang for stuffed toys that may be included in the article, depending on sources/reliability:

  • Stuffies (US)
  • Bearnies (Diff) (UK)
  • Teddies (generic name?) (used outside English-speaking countries?)

UserTwoSix (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Terminology and article title "Stuffed animal"[edit]

From where I am in the US, these toys are mostly known as "stuffed animals". From that point of view, this article would be better called "stuffed animal". I'm wondering if it is very different in other countries and "stuffed animal" is not a common name, or not used for all "stuffed toys"... UserTwoSix (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)