Talk:Tooth fairy/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"In film and television" (In popular culture)
Trivial, minor and unrelated references in popular culture do not a section make. Unless we have reliable sources discussing the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, the section should go. Again. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
A minor edit to correct an extra word inserted into the sentence about the movie Tooth Fairy featuring Dwayne Johnson. User: HeatherMGerl — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeatherMGerl (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Added the movie Rise of the Guardians to the pop culture page. I think that a pop culture page featuring books, literature, and movies does contribute to the myth and legend of the tooth fairy and how the story has evolved, changes, or stayed constant over time. I think the section adds to the continuation of the story and should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeatherMGerl (talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- This section is an "indiscriminate collection of information". Clearly this is not an exhaustive list of the fairy's appearances in film and television. How were these particular examples selected? Well, they're the ones random editors have added. That is indiscriminate. Further, why "film and television" but not song, radio, theater, literature, illustrations and oral tradition? Again, because the included items are the ones remembered by various editors.
- Next, the inclusion here is "|Summary-only descriptions of works". In (movie or TV show X), (such and such) happens. There is no hint of significance.
- "Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not. When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft." Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content
- This section is an indiscriminate collection of cruft. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- To add to what Summer is saying: if you can find academic studies where someone has analysed how this movie or that tv show contribute to the overall view/history/mythos, then it is worthy of inclusion. A randomly selected list does not accomplish the same thing. LadyofShalott 16:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Off topic chat
|
|---|
Tooth Fairy the tooth fairy is real to many children and when you loose a tooth you can put it under your pillow and the tooth fairy will come and get it and leave you money in return for the tooth you left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.7.96 (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC) |
"Gold tooth fairy coin"
The image of the gold plated charm is not appropriate for this article. As far as the sources go, the tradition involves children receiving a "small payment" in exchange for the lost tooth, not a commercially produced product. The "Zahnfee.me design" medallion is not the "best classical gift for a kid". Yes, someone makes and sells it. However, this article is an encyclopedia article on significant aspect of this centuries old practice. Rather, this is someone selling a new spin on it, nothing more. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Re this: The medallion is not a widely recognized part of the tooth fairy tradition. Adding the image to the article implies that it is somehow commonly seen as part of the tradition. It is not. If it were, there would be independent reliable sources discussing it, rather than just the site selling it. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Tooth Mouse
It's also the Tooth Mouse in South Africa. Invmog (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Tooth Ferry Science Must Go!
Why is "Tooth Ferry Science" encyclopedic? It should be removed.2601:141:302:1AE8:8DDA:BFE4:2F69:DBF8 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Done.El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
who cares anyway?