Talk:Leeds City Museum

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Institution or building
This page mingles the history of the museum as an institution and that of the building itself. Perhaps these should be split onto separate pages.? Leutha (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Perhaps a split could be justified in the future, if the collection were to be rehoused elsewhere and the information about the building could then be made into a separate stub article. Meanwhile there is not enough wordage about the building to constitute another article. It is also worth considering that visitors to museum collections housed in historic buildings tend to view the combination of building and collection as the museum. Storye book (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's very little about the building, so no need for a separate article at present. There's probably scope for an entire article about the Leeds Mechanic's Institute, tracing its history (did it predate the building?) but it's not here yet. Pam  D  08:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Tiger urban myth?
The tale about the tiger being rescued from a skip may be an urban myth, but is widespread ... if someone could search the YP archive and fail to find it, this would be worth a mention and probably not be "Original Research". Pam D  08:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The way I heard the story from a curator and from the label in the display at that time, was that the museum had threatened to get rid of this exhibit (no mention of a skip) because it was not considered a worthy specimen in respect of natural history, taxidermy, or the history of Leeds. The local newspaper was said to have headed a public objection to the plan to remove it from display, so it stayed. But a more serious matter (in my opinion) was the misleading labelling of the exhibit as a man-eater, and that labelling was there when I arrived in Leeds in 1982. The labelling was later corrected to relate the man-eating myth, and saying that it was not a man-eater. That myth of a man-eating tiger is part of the history of Leeds, and it's one of the reasons why people continued to bring their children to see it, at that time - a safe scary story to show-and-tell to your kids. It is important, I believe, to relate the myth and debunk it, because that sort of out-of-date attitude to wildlife should be clarified. I shall have a look in the newspapers of the time of the tiger skin's presentation, to see whether there is any more information. Storye book (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I have added information to the article to show what was the attitude to the exhibit in Leeds in the early 1860s. However no comment about the history of the tiger's behaviour or the reason for it being shot was found in that period. Storye book (talk)@
 * Hello, Hello - both me and  work for Leeds Museums & Galleries (and so Leeds City Museum). We've been trying to find evidence about the museum ever wanted to get rid of the Tiger, and we can't find any evidence that was the case in our paperwork. We wondered if it was an urban myth that the YEP has accidentally perpetuated because it was on the Wikipedia page? We have a new blog post about the Tiger, which might be useful. https://museumsandgalleries.leeds.gov.uk/featured/leeds-tiger/ I'm mindful that we're employees, so am cautious in directly editing the article. Like you  there's no evidence the tiger was a maneater either. Hope this helps. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, . When I arrived in Leeds in 1982, the museum (with tiger) was in Leeds Central Library, complete with man-eater label (mentioning killing at least 12 people if I remember rightly), and I remember the fascination that that label gave to visitors' children and to my own children at that time. There was no WP article then, of course. When I turned up to photograph the museum exhibits when preparing to expand the article in 2009, I asked those in charge my usual two questions when photographing museums: what exhibit are you most fond/proud of, and which exhibit is your bete noir (because there always is one). The bete noir was the tiger, because curators thought it was inappropriate in academic terms, but there had been a problem with the public wanting to keep it. So in 2009 they told me they were tolerating it. I can't remember which exhibit was the object of pride at that time, but it will be among my uploaded photos (I've got a feeling it was the Hellenistic tomb door). My own love was the replica head of Aphrodite, partly because I have known representations of it all my life. Anyway, I digress. The curator who accompanied me while I took some of the photos gave me the story about the tiger, and in 2009 there was already a label for the tiger, containing most of that information. I believe that the myth per se is part of our local history and culture, because it tells us about ourselves and our historical attitude to wildlife. It's not purely a tiger any more. I hope that helps.
 * While I'm here I have two more questions. In 1941 when the bomb hit, there was a large stone (too heavy to be lifted without mechanical aid) with cup and ring carvings, taken in the 19th century from near Brimham Rocks, for its own protection. It was bigger than the one which is still close to Brimham Rocks. Does the archive still have it? Could the bomb really have destroyed such a large piece of rock? Secondly, The 19th century sculptors, the Mawer Group, had in their yard a big pile of pieces of Celtic crosses, taken to their yard in a cart during the building of St Peter's Parish Church (now Minster). Later in the 19th century those pieces were claimed by the Philosophical Society for their museum. Recently your display at Leeds Museum had two or three of those. Where are the rest? I need to photograph them all in full detail, to see whether any of them directly influenced the work of Charles Mawer who was a great imitator of Romanesque art. Storye book (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the reply. A few points:
 * 1a) I wonder whether the thing to do then is add an extra sub-section about 'The Myths around the Tiger' - we get a lot of people who get confused (because they've read this article) - we're really really keen clarify what is and isn't substantiated evidence for in terms of the Tiger's history
 * b) Or an alternative, to make a page for the Tiger itself, looking at other specimen pages, I think this Tiger would pass notability.
 * 2) I'll ask about the cup-and-ring stone - we have one in storage at Leeds Discovery Centre but I don't know if its the same as the one you're referencing
 * 3) Yes, we do, again they are at the Discovery Centre, but you can also access them via the Anglo-Saxon Corpus of Stone Sculpture https://chacklepie.com/ascorpus/catvol8.php
 * Hope this helps Lajmmoore (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you, that is really helpful about the cup and ring stone and the Saxon cross pieces. I'll follow it up. About the tiger-and-skip connection - I searched and never found a news story about anyone saying that the museum had actually put the tiger in a skip and that it had been rescued - I suspect that what happened was that when there was controversy about keeping the tiger, a newspaper used language that suggested that the museum might want to dump it in a skip. There is a citation link for a piece by Paul Chrystal (2016) in the article but the link is now broken (citation 21), and I cannot retrieve it - but I seem to remember that Chrystal just said it was hearsay. Yes I'll take another look and see how the information can be clarified. However I'm a bit puzzled at how the public are being confused. It seems quite clear to me. Storye book (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Update. I checked your link for the Saxon cross pieces, but the link is about St Ricarius Church, and not the St Peter's Parish Church site. It happens that I have photographed all over St Ricarius, and my photos of the three St Ricarius stones are here. Those are not from a Saxon cross - they are carvings taken out of the original nave. So they are a completely different animal. The Saxon Cross remains of several standing crosses were found by the architect Chantrell around 1839 when knocking down the church which stood on the present site of the Minster. Chantrell put together some of the pieces to make a whole cross, then set it up in his own garden (sigh). The rest were taken to a lecture in Leeds by Chantrell. After the lecture, the newspaper reported that the public were taking pieces away in cartloads - having been allowed to do so. When Chantrell died, the Philosophical Society knew that the Mawer Group had them in their yard in Great George Street, and went and claimed them. They also claimed Chantrell's cross from his garden, being obliged to purchase it from the butcher who had bought his house (that's the one which now stands inside Leeds Minster). I have no further record of the Mawer cross pieces, apart from seeing a few of them in Leeds Museum a couple of years ago. Some of the citation links for that story survive here. The citation for the rest of the story are broken links now, as you'll see. I hope that helps. Storye book (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Just following up on the link - there's a drop-down box left-ish in the middle when this link opens and if you select the drop down selection, you get a number of Leeds options: https://chacklepie.com/ascorpus/catvol8.php - for example https://chacklepie.com/ascorpus/catvol8.php?pageNum_urls=150 - but you need to use the drop down selection. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I had found that, and used it for citatiions 26-28 in the last two sentences of the St Peter's section, here. So thank you for giving the link in the first place. Storye book (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the "saved from the ... skip" perhaps meant "saved from a proposal to get rid of" rather than "lifted out of an actual skip" ... but I don't have access to the book from which I seem to have cited it, which presumably I found on Google at the time. It's in stock in the local history library if you want to check it. Can't offer any more info, sorry. Pam  D  22:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But I'd agree that the tiger might well be worth an article by itself - plenty of sources in the thesis by Andrews. Many much less discussed museum objects have individual articles (yes, I know, beware WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and there seems plenty to go at here. Pam  D  22:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The "when the curators wanted to throw it away, the Yorkshire Post newspaper held a campaign to retain it" was added in this 2009 edit by User:Storye book, cited to "Information received 10 March 2009 verbally from museum curator." It's chronologically plausible that the 2016 Chrystal book sourced its info from Wikipedia. Does the YEP have a searchable archive? If so, a search on "tiger" would show, or fail to show, any such campaign.  Pam  D  23:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone. For what it's worth, I was the curator responsible for the tiger in 2009 (I still am and so am very wary about getting too involved with this article). In my time here (I started in 2004) we have always valued that tiger and spend a fair amount of money and energy on keeping it on display. We look after our objects for lots of reasons, not just academic usefulness and I personally don't feel that I tolerate it. As far as I know there has never been any controversy about keeping it - is there a source for this idea (not just the word 'skip' but an actual move by the museum to get rid of it)? I'm always keen to find out more about the objects at Leeds so please put me right if there is. CuratorClare (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow - there is clearly a lot of interest here, which has to be good. Firstly, I guess I was using the word, "curator" loosely - the very knowledgeable museum employee who accompanied me when I took photos in 2009 was male, so I'm guessing not Clare. I can't remember now, exactly what info was on the museum label and what info the museum employee gave me, but I wrote it up quickly, so that story that I added in 2009 was certainly something that I had learned on that day. There has been other stuff added by others later. I don't remember writing the word "skip" myself - are you sure that I used that word? I have always thought that the word was probably originally just a figure of speech used by the Media, as you suggest. I have had no access to the Chrystal book, myself.
 * One of the problems here is the lack of access to Yorkshire Post archives and indexes. You used to be able to access that via the front desk of the Yorkshire Post Building, but since it closed down, those same bound copies of the YP and YEP have been in a cellar on pallets - or so I was told by the chap put in charge of them. He told me he could not get at them and was distressed about dampness damage. The British Newspaper Archive only has the YP and YEP microfilmed up to 1954/55 - perhaps limited by copyright or funding. Thus I cannot track down any late C20 newspaper controversy about the Leeds Tiger. If it happened, it would have to be before 1982 when I first saw the tiger, I'm guessing - so maybe in the 70s. Is there a YP editor/reporter still alive who would remember 1970s campaigns?
 * I would like to know exactly what it is that the public is confused about - (a) whether there was a newspaper campaign to save the tiger? (b) whether the tiger had been a maneater? (c) something else? Knowing that would help me re-write the section or produce a separate article.
 * I should add that although I would be happy to create a separate article about the tiger, it would not be immediate. I am currently committed to several articles, which involves several enquiries and visits on my part, which involve other people who are kindly supporting the work (giving lifts, opening archives and so on), so I have to complete those jobs first. I think we are looking at July, at least. I work full-time at this and it's entirely voluntary and self-funded. I hope that's OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storye book (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I've upgraded the link to Chrystal's book: the page of interest can now be seen online here. Pam  D  14:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Tiger timeline

 * This is interesting: let's see a time line:
 * 10 May 2009by Storye book: first mention of the tiger, with "so beloved of the Leeds populace that when the curators wanted to throw it away, the Yorkshire Post newspaper held a campaign to retain it" and "Museum staff have considered re-mounting it properly to improve its appearance, but it was felt that that would destroy its character and historical identity as a Victorian artefact and as the soul of the museum in the eyes of the populace", sourced to personal communication: "Information received 10 March 2009 verbally from museum curator."
 * 4 June 2020 3 edits by CuratorClare, removing previous text and refs and supplying new
 * 8 June 2020, Storye book adds text with with edit summary (Replaced content removed by previous editor, who gave no justified reason for the removal.), including addition of (a) ref to YP 31 Dec 2016 story "Leeds nostalgia: The story of the Leeds Tiger", with rather nice photos, and (b) ref to Chrystal book published 2016 which includes the words "It waas saved from the curators' skip by the YorkshirePost when it mounted a successful campagn to retain it as a popular centrepiece of the museum's collection" (this google book link works OK, showing the full page - I couldn't get the other link to work). It's not the kind of book to have footnotes, and might well have been based on our Wikipedia article, with "wanted to throw it away" elaborated into "saved from the curators' skip".
 * 9 June 2020 08:27 CuratorClare rewrites section with edit summary (Re-write of "The Leeds Tiger" section to remove conjecture not supported by cite-able evidence i.e. no evidence that the curators wanted to throw it away - or that the Yorkshire Post mounted a campaign to keep it, no evidence that it was stuffed with straw, no evidence that it is made of more than one tiger skin. Very happy to discuss this with other editors - please get in touch - I'm new to editing so apologies if this isn't appropriate.)
 * 9 June 2020 09:44 I, PamD, reinstated the tale as "It has been said that" and quotes from Chrystal and from Andrews thesis (The Leeds Tiger: add the urban myth (sourced to what might be a self-published book), and add contrary quote)
 * 9 Jun 2020, evening a group of edits by Storye book, expanding on the tiger with sources but not affecting the "skip" story. ("myth" referred to in one of the edit summaries is re man-eating, not this one)
 * 18 May 2021 Storye book changes "it has been said" to "it has been suggested"
 * 19 May 2021 09:18 CuratorClare ( Updated the opening paragraph of the Leeds Tiger section for accuracy.)
 * 19 May 2021 I replaced the link to YP story about freezing: trivial, but illustrates the interest taken in the tiger by local people and media, and has a couple of nice photos.
 * there may have been a few other slight tweaks I've missed.

So this may be a splendid example of why Wikipedia needs Reliable independent published sources rather than word of mouth, because it looks possible that an unreliably-sourced statement in our article has been picked up and exaggerated in a published book which is now out in the world. If the YP had mounted a campaign to save the tiger, I rather feel that they'd be blowing their own trumpet about it whenever the tiger gets a mention. Their silence seems telling.

A retired newspaper man I've just had lunch with (in a sunny pub garden) said that the British Newspaper Archive is gradually including more and more years of regional papers, so one day the full YP/YEP archive may be available so we can search on the word "tiger". If that finds no campaign by 2009, I think it would be legitimate to say so, as a statement of fact and not "Original Research". Pam D  14:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the timeline. I'm beginning to wonder, now, though, whether the recent resurrection of this discussion is not fundamentally political, and not just about OR. I'm talking about the way this discussion keeps coming back to whether or not someone at the Museum (in the seventies, I'm guessing) temporarily wanted to archive the tiger due to it no longer being a viable exhibit on academic terms. Whether that is true or not, it's certainly clear that by the time I first saw the tiger in '82, it was known to be too popular and therefore too beneficial for the Museum to be retired from display. So the only attitude which could be seen as being to the detriment of the Museum occurred before most (or any?) of us were anywhere near the Museum. One of the reasons why I would now like to revisit this story and have agreed to produce a stand-alone article about the Leeds Tiger is that I have noticed a difference between contemporary news stories about the tiger arriving at the museum, and stories taken from memoirs and later historians. I agree that all the different stories should be put side by side, with their citations. This takes time, as you know. Hanging around here shouting the odds about WP rules regarding edits which have long been removed won't hack it for me. I need to go away and research it properly - from scratch. More information may be available now. In 2009 we used what was available. Storye book (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks so much both for all the detail and the replies. Just to address the "political" point - the whole recent discussion came about because we (our museum service) was trying to find evidence to support the claim that in disposal of the object was proposed at all. We can't find any evidence that was the case. As a museum service we are committed to being truthful, I can guarantee that if proposed disposal was part of the Tiger's history we would want to be open about it. Bearing in mind people's time commitments, what I'd propose it that  and I create a draft for the Tiger, but perhaps you'd both be kind enough to review it for us? Lajmmoore (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Um - you have written above that you both work for the Museum. So I'm not sure how you're going to produce a neutral article, bearing in mind the time you have spent here talking about one particular aspect of the tiger's history, and showing an underlying disquiet about it. I have already said that I want to create the Leeds Tiger article, and that I shall do it in July, if not before. So don't worry, that wasn't a procrastination ploy. I am especially concerned that some material added from certain memoirs is different from what material from contemporary sources says. That is why I want to put all those sources and stories into it, to make sure that the overall view is neutral as to what actually happened. I'm also a bit puzzled as to how you think you can create a situation in which - if you can't find a source for the Museum-not-wanting-tiger tale - you can write an article saying that it didn't happen. Absence of evidence isn't etc. etc. I don't believe that there was ever any intention to actually dispose of the tiger, because that wouldn't make sense. If they were embarrassed about it as a serious exhibit, they would probably have archived it, bearing in mind the history of its origin. Therefore I don't see any argument about that. I don't believe that we are going to be able to search the relevant newspaper archives during the next few years due to the British Library suffering from funding issues just like other institutions, so I think the best way is to say that the newspaper campaign story was an allegation, cite the allegation by Chrystal, and leave it at that - until better information is found. We all want to be truthful here, believe it or not, and the best way to be truthful is not to leave anything out. Storye book (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if the whole issue of the "museum wanted to get rid of the tiger" story seems to stem from your addition of unreliably sourced content to the encyclopedia, which may then have been picked up by the author of a self-published, unreferenced, book. I see no reason why two museum employees cannot produce a thorough, neutral, and properly-referenced article on the tiger. There needs to be some mention of the disposal suggestion, sourced to Chrystal's book, and it might be more honest if we also admitteed to poorly sourced content in an earlier Wikipedia article as a possible source for that idea. The fact that no subsequent YP article has ever mentioned "as saved by our campaign" makes me feel pretty certain that the campaign never happened, but that's not reliable: it's difficult to prove a negative. Pam  D  22:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is a core principle of WP, and this article has already been tagged in the past because it was edited by museum employees. Now we have a talk page in which museum employees appear to be distracted by a particular issue regarding an alleged attitude taken by one or more museum employees in what is now a distant past. And those employees are wanting to write their own article about the tiger. How can you expect me to want to be a part of that? Should you attempt to put remarks in your proposed new article criticising previous WP edits which no longer exist, those remarks are likely to be reverted. You have no evidence that Chrystal sourced his material from WP. All you have is lack of evidence for the allegation which so exercises you. Supposing the save-the-tiger campaign ever happened, I have no recollection that that story actually originated with the Yorkshire Post/Evening Post. For all I know, it could have been a local radio campaign (of which there were many in the 70s). Any local newspapers could have reported that, and those papers would in that case not be blowing their own trumpet about it later, though they might have capitalised on it at the time.
 * So much of the above discussion has been built on speculation. All I remember now is that the museum employee told me that the tiger was the bete noir of the museum on the grounds of being an embarrassingly poor specimen for exhibition, that there had been a media campaign, and that the museum had kept the tiger. The employee could have got "YP" campaign wrong, when who knows whether it was initiated by another branch of the media. I could have misunderstood him and got "throw it away" wrong, when the museum just wanted to re-mount it or archive it. Either way, that edit no longer exists, and if you really want to create a new article about the Leeds Tiger based on that kind of agenda - well it all sounds a bit unhealthy to me.
 * When I write the new article, I intend to start - as I always do, these days - with a big pile of citations and sources. I shall then write up material directly based on the sources. Once you've got the big picture in your head, that tends to lead on to more searches for more sources, because at that point relevant material is more likely to jump out at you from the general dross. I do not start with a thesis or question then start to prove/disprove it - that would be counter-productive here, and that is one of the reasons why members of an institution or company who are personally invested in the subject and who have an agenda are not normally encouraged to create articles about that institution or company to their own design. Storye book (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not have an agenda, the current discussion is made in good faith. We want to be fair and neutral, as said connection with an organisation does not preclude neutrality. I suggested  and myself starting a draft, to then be reviewed by yourselves or others, to ensure that neutrality remains. All of this is suggested with good faith, both with past edits and with future readers in mind. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Go for it. There are plenty of sources, with the help of the Andrews thesis. The urban myth probably needs a mention, as it's in a published book, to avoid future confusion, but the lack of any information to support this assertion or the supposed YP campaign can also be mentioned. Stick with reliable published sources and all should be well.  Pam  D  10:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC) (re-signing after mending the "ping":  Pam  D  10:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC))


 * Yes, that would work, Pam. Storye book (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks both. We'll come back here when we've got a draft together. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft page for review
Hello, Hello - hope you're both well. Me & have worked on this draft which was re-worked from the text on this page already. We're really interested to know what you think and what suggestions you might have. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well done, looks a good thorough article. A few quick points:
 * Needs a picture, or several - I'm sure you're well placed to find it/them (1 picture done, can take more if req'd) Sb
 * Wikipedia doesn't use "you", so I've third-person-ised a couple of sentences.
 * The Chrystal book and Andrews thesis refs: was there any particular reason you decided to link to catalogue records rather than to the available full text sources? I've changed both to point to the full text: it seems to me that we should offer the reader the chance to see the source for themself if it's available online. I wonder whether the thesis deserves a bit of a higher profile, perhaps as "Further reading", as the tiger features in it so prominently, with lots of sources, so anyone seriously interested in the tiger would find it really useful.
 * The article title should be just "Leeds Tiger", as I think the "the" is usually written lower case in text about it (certainly in the thesis). With cross-reference from "The Leeds Tiger" of course. (done) Sb
 * Perhaps the "it was stretched as a rug" deserves to be in the "Myths" section rather than as a footnote?
 * the video about freezing needs dates (done) Sb
 * date format in refs needs to be consistent (preferably 16 June 2021 rather than 2021-06-16, to my taste!) (done) Sb

Now must get lunch sorted out before book club meeting... it's all go, being a retired layabout. Pam D  11:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have copyedited and Wikified the draft. It was a long and detailed job, so it was easier to just do it, rather than write you a list. Everything I have done has been done for a reason of function, not preference, so please let me know if you don't understand or agree with any of my edits.
 * I have made the phraseology as close to formal/standard English as possible, as this is an international platform. Also, since the article deals with a 19th-century item I usually find it helpful to be consistent and adopt the 19th-century standard-English mindset. By the way, there is a problem with the British combo of quotation marks being inside punctuation at the end of the sentence (.") on WP, because the American usage is different (".). Although rules officially allow us Brits to do our linguistic thing in British articles, there is always so much hassle with this particular punctuation usage, that it's simpler to cave in and punctuate quotations American-style. (On WP we don't use quote marks inside a blockquote, by the way).
 * I have also looked at the use of the word, "tiger", and tried to make it clear when we are talking about the original living Bengal tiger, the tiger skin, the mounted skin, and the legend that we now know and love as the Leeds Tiger.
 * The following is my own opinion: I think that two elements are missing. One is that these days the reader will want to know why the tiger was killed. Did Reid (or other sources) ever say why he killed tigers - e.g. sport, protecting villages and livestock, bigging himself up? Also, why is the bit about 19th-century arsenical preservation of mounted skins been left out? If it is a 100% general feature, then perhaps we should mention it?
 * Let me know if you want me to go down to Leeds on the 36 bus and take some more tiger pictures. I would love that. Storye book (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On the two "missing" elements: If we don't have a source saying why Reid killed the tiger, then that's that. (Wasn't it just "what one did" while soldiering out in India, if so inclined and rich enough?) There's no source mentioning arsenic in connection with the Leeds tiger, so I don't think it should be mentioned; it's more appropriate in the general article on taxidermy. Curiously, it gets a mention in Taxidermy but not in History of taxidermy! Pam  D  22:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks so much for all your edits, it's really appreciated! I'll send you an email about pictures Lajmmoore (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * A question: it's mounted, not stuffed, ie it's on an armature: made of what? Presumably those who have conserved it know whether the structure is wood, metal, plaster, some combination thereof? It would be interesting to know, if it's stated in any published source. Pam  D  22:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And we don't know whether it's a tiger or tigress? Surprising. If so, as per infobox, it might be worth explicitly stating in the article - "the sex of the tiger is unknown". Pam  D  22:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC) (Done, but changed to "probably male", due to citation) Sb
 * Hmm, I'm beginning to think that Colonel Reid should have an article anyway! Found a biog, and a mangled portrait (copyright image but could be linked as an External Link), and I expect there's a Times obit. Pam  D  23:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And he devised the Queen's Truncheon which the Gurkha regiment uses as a colour rather than a flag, and his memoirs have been published. Quite a character.  Pam  D  23:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , This is all really interesting! I'll let answer the biological questions, but you're right about Reid - tiger aside, pretty notable! I'd be happy to help out with an article. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pam, I've added part of your picture. It is out of copyright, and Alamy cannot copyright something which is not their own work. They watermark everything, but sometimes you can crop out an un-watermarked section. So in this case a small part of the picture is permissible. I'm busy today, but can attend to other matters later. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks so much for all your hard work - I'm keen for  to give it a read - if you're generally happy I'll move it to mainspace after that's done! I'll nominate it for a DYK too! Again, many many thanks! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And thank you, Lajmmoore, Pam and Clare for all your contributions to this effort. I think that the draft should pass DYK as it stands right now. Storye book (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, so much work has been done on this - thank you everyone. If you look at the Andrews MA manuscript there are some details about what its armature is made from (straw mainly I think!). CuratorClare (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you,, for your support and comment. I can find no reference to a straw armature in Andrews (2013), so I'm guessing that you must be referring to Andrews (2009) which is unpublished. Meanwhile, it would be very helpful to move the article to mainspace soon, since it is red-linked in the current Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Reid (Indian Army officer) DYK nomination hooks. - are you happy to move the Leeds Tiger article to mainspace now? If you do not have the file-mover facility, I can move it for you, if you like. Any future info about the nature of the armature can be added later. Storye book (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , all moved now! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thank you! Storye book (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Now that Leeds Tiger is published, you are welcome to add Leeds Tiger to the Charles Reid DYK nomination here, if you wish, to make a double nom. You could add more alternative hooks, too. Up to you, of course. Storye book (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Charles Reid article

 * Thanks. Have made some progress with Charles Reid (general), and added him to List of Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath with the same image. Pam  D  18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expanding the Charles Reid page. Meanwhile I have re-photographed the tiger and updated the tiger photo in the draft article. You can see the rest of the new tiger photos here. The glass reflections and strong interior spotlighting were obstructive from every pov, but I made it all work to bring out the drama. Enjoy. Storye book (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update. I have added a slightly better image to the Charles Reid (army officer) commons category. Also I've added a useful link to the C.R. article's External links section. Storye book (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you update an image in an article, please remember to check for any "alt text" which might need to be updated! (The old version said "...showing damage where it was removed from an album..."). Fixed now. Thanks, anyway. Pam  D  22:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I had originally politely moved your chosen image and all details to the infobox, then changed my mind and swapped it for the better one, and must have forgotten to remove the alt. It was an oversight - I wouldn't normally do that. Storye book (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The new image is unquestionably much better, of course. Well found, thanks. (The alt didn't need to be removed, just updated). Pam  D  11:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All is well. Good. Storye book (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Henry Crowther article
Since somebody has red-linked Henry Crowther in the Leeds Tiger article - how about it? I have added a photo of him, and if you look at the image page you'll see his death date (for finding his obit). He was a really interesting chap and (in spite of the forty-bullocks shenanigans) he maybe did a lot less damage to the planet than Reid. I've got articles of my own cooking, but if anyone wants to start this one off, I'd be happy to give support. Good luck! Storye book (talk)
 * That was me - I redlinked to remind me! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, good. I've got my eye on another picture of him (there may be more out there), and I have found a couple of newspaper biographies. When you start your draft, I'll add the links at the bottom of the page for you. Storye book (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update. Here is Henry Crowther's commons category so far. I'll add more items if anything else turns up. Storye book (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)