Talk:Tooth fairy/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Can we get a better image ?

The image in the article currently is an image of two teeth. The article is about a Fairy. Not teeth. Can we have a picture of the Tooth fairy. Just asking if this is a good idea or a bad idea before going to the trouble of finding one. Penyulap talk 15:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems. First, we need a free image. Since we cannot take a photo of the tooth fairy, we would need either artwork released into the public domain (good luck finding one that doesn't suck) or is of sufficient age. As the tooth fairy is a relatively recent creation, there probably isn't much out there. Santa Claus, by comparison, is old enough that we have old images that are still fairly close to the modern image. Additionally, it's easy enough to snap a photo of someone in a Santa costume at your local mall or shopping district in any given December. I suppose most parents aren't dressing up when they sneak into Junior's room to trade the tooth for cash.
Compounding this problem is that, so far as I know, there isn't much of a consensus on what the tooth fairy looks like. Without 150 years of corporations using the image, we don't have an equivalent of the Coca-cola Santa Clause for the tooth fairy. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I think Summer has correctly identified the problems we're likely to encounter. That being said, what I'd suggest is that if anyone finds a free image that seems a likely candidate, go ahead and put it here. LadyofShalott 17:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not finding much at flickr. Along with photos of kids missing teeth and guys trying to be funny for Halloween, I find 6 images with very little in common: field, curvy, pumpkin, cosplay and anime. I don't see any of these as particularly representative. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I am torn with the idea we should go with the pumpkin, or maybe not go with the pumpkin, I was thinking of something a little more constructive than that. However, I would first like some sober suggestions as to how the Tooth Fairy would best appear, based upon the information available. For example, would she walk, or fly ? would she carry a pouch with which to sprinkle fairy-dust or confetti from (as suggested in some references i think) ? would she hold a magical staff or not. I would like to determine these things before proposing that a celebrity pose for such a picture. (The celebrity I have in mind is quite popular and would gain support amongst the editors here, and would be happy to oblige). Penyulap talk 14:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The second part of the problem remains: We have no basis for determining generally accepted characteristics of the tooth fairy. White, black, API or indigenous? Male, female or neither? Clothing? Accessories (wands, etc.)? Wings and other non-human body parts? Average human size? Etc. While we can answer most of these with some basis for Santa Claus ("Santa Claus is generally depicted as a plump, jolly, white-bearded man wearing a red coat with white collar and cuffs, white-cuffed red trousers, and black leather belt and boots (images of him rarely have a beard with no moustache).") and have numerous images representative of that personification, no such cultural consensus seems to exist for the tooth fairy. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipe-tan has agreed to assist, and says 'Hi' to LadyofShalott. As she is quite busy right now, and we haven't ironed out any proposal as yet, it's suggested starting with one of her existing portraits.

Wikipe-tan with magical staff and nightdress
Artists drawing of Wikipe-tan

I'd suggest a lighter coloring for the dress, as fairies do not dress in colors as dark as wizards do. The book has to go, as tooth fairy magic is more specialized than a wizards Répétiteur, possibly the bag of fairy dust that some kids find sprinkled when she has been could replace the book. Her puzzle pieces are not needed either, but the staff is ok as far as I can see. Penyulap talk 16:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the few (and generally unacceptable) images I found, I don't see so much as a single staff. I guess that's got to go as well. That leaves us with a female humanoid. Your venture into WP:OR/WP:SYN doesn't seem to be starting out well... - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's not a fairy. I think that's a pretty compelling reason not to use it, but I've got about another dozen on top if not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So the TF is humanoid
But also a female
BINGO! I found her.

I'm not suggesting that the image is of a fairy, the image is of Wikipe-tan, I'm suggesting changing the image. Is anyone following me at all ? So we are back to the picture of a hand with two teeth in it. I won't suggest that a hand is not a fairy, no I won't. I won't do that. How about that pumpkin, it's lookin' good right about now.Penyulap talk 17:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Penyulap talk 17:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So far, we have exactly zero reliable sources indicating what the tooth fairy looks like. We might as well use File:Conan9.png or File:EscherichiaColi_NIAID.jpg. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
We ? who is we ? You have no sources. The internet and library and youtube is FULL of sources. A gazillion of them. Penyulap talk 17:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I thought this was Wikipedia and we were looking for an image to use here. If you have reliable sources on the generally accepted appearance of the tooth fairy, please do share. I and the other people commenting here would like to find something to use in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, those of us working on the Wikipedia article are stuck with guidelines that suggest we shouldn't cobble together bits and pieces of various youtube clips to make up new ideas. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
So where pray tell is the reference that the tooth fairy looks like someone's hand with two teeth in it ? hello ? There is precisely no way you can win any argument on any platform that the current picture is better than an image yet to be created. Penyulap talk 17:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
When I said the hand with teeth in it was a great image for this article, I was clearly not myself. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Haha I'm not sure there is a 'certified' picture of the tooth fairy, multiple pictures will probably be needed. A different picture is certainly warranted though, the hand with teeth pic doesn't quite do it. Hope no little kids come on this page and have their dreams ruined.Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

At least the hand with the teeth is pertinent - if you read the description (we may need to improve the caption) of the file, it's a child's offering to the tooth fairy. The proposed image does not look like a fairy, much less have any obvious relationship to the tooth fairy in particular. LadyofShalott 20:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture proposal

An artists impression of the tooth fairy
latest image with smaller staff-top, lighter colors

So here we have a picture that looks more like a fairy, sure I am no great artist, the last thing I did was the Russian Orbital Segment of the ISS but hey, I think it looks more like a fairy than a hand with teeth in it does, even with my modest skills. Personally I think the color is a bit too dark, as the tooth fairy is a bright generous little thing, but I'll have to wrestle some more with the painting program later to work that out. I also think that her hair might change to something lighter to match a white / yellowish / golden outfit. Anyhow, that'd be later if at all. Anyhow, here is a start.Penyulap talk 20:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So my take on improvements are:

  • Lighter colors
  • Hair color to match the lighter outfit
  • Make the bag look more bag-like. what does she hold in there, teeth ? coins ? fairy sparkles ? who knows.
  • Add some sparkles to the picture, surrounding her and the top of the staff.

But please note, the proposal is for this image, as it is now.

Negative comments first please.

Do you have any evidence that the tooth fairy looks anything like this or carries a staff and such? only (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I would object to using this image. It does not look like a "fairy" to me; it looks like a kid dressed up like a witch for Hallowe'en. It's a cute picture, but I don't think it conveys anything useful for this page. LadyofShalott 20:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you just ask for evidence about a mythical being carries?? By googleing the image of the tooth fairy they all seemed to have some sort of wand, the rock uses a hocky stick. The picture is fine, make it lighter shades and maybe a smaller wand staff thing. I think it would look good.Beefcake6412 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did ask for evidence. Why? Because evidence is needed. We need to represent the image as told in common folklore, not as in the way one user wants to draw it. I assume "want" means "wand"? Yes, they have wands, but wands are very different from staffs such as the one shown here. only (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I found some folklore that refers to a palm and four fingers and a thumb, it's called Missus palmer and her four daughters, maybe SummerPhd can link to it for us ? I think this current image of a hand may be better for that article. Penyulap talk 21:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No one suggested the hand and tooth picture was the tooth fairy and I have not defended that image. Please stop beating the straw man. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict x 2)Evidence ? Sorry I was flat out looking for evidence that the tooth fairy looks like a hand with 5 fingers and two teeth, to support retaining the current picture instead. It's my top priority at the moment, otherwise people will come along and suggest that this image, as it is, would be better. That's my greatest fear. I'm with you LadyofShalott, lets all vote against it. Pesky wikipedia process. Curses !, where is SummerPhd when we need solidarity and another OPPOSE vote ? What happens if 4 people come along and support it ? OMG, disaster. OH NO! edit conflict, what if Beefcake6412 writes support instead of oppose this will be a disaster and the picture will get into the article, where is SummerPhd ?? PANIC!! Penyulap talk 21:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
haha no I do not want to get into any edit war or anything, id be fine with any pic besides the creepy teeth in hand.Beefcake6412 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but there is no edit warring going to go on as far as I can see. Certainly not by me. It's just a matter of asking people what they prefer, this one or the other one. Thats all consensus building is. asking and saying. I do appreciate your artistic comments and will work on those. Penyulap talk 21:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When looking on flickr for a free image to use, NONE of them had the tooth fairy carrying anything. Most were skinny women. About half were API. Clothing varied greatly. Right now we're gluing together little snippets of personal opinions and synthesizing it into something that verifiably represents the tooth fairy. So, as I understand it, those who want to go forward with this art project wish to ignore WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content and so on. Please explain. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Penyulap, if you're attempting to inject humour into the discussion with your repeated flippant replies then Id advise you to stop. You are not helping matters at all. In any case, there is absolutely nothing in the new proposal which addresses the concerns presented: namely, that this is an independently-created image which has no obvious ties to reliable sources on the supposed appearance of the tooth fairy. Quite frankly I very much doubt that such a thing exists anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The image does not need to be the normal 'one artist's' interpretation, in fact, it no longer is, as it has had suggestions incorporated into it, Beefcake6412 researched on google and made suggestions which have been incorporated. You of course, by the nature of the public domain license, are free to collaborate and change the image as you wish. (however I would ask you post it within your own comments, rather than overwrite my own). I fail to understand your POV that no reliable sources exist, other editors disagree, would you kindly expand your comments ? Penyulap talk 00:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is the lack of reliable sources for the appearance. Until such sources are provided, this art project is a huge pile of conjecture, personal opinion and original research. For example: Is the tooth fairy generally thought to carry a staff with an alchemy symbol on top? The flickr images show either nothing or a small wand (one has a pair of pliers). Do most traditions have the tooth fairy wearing a witches hat? I note there are no wings, yet the majority of Google images show wings. Ze (she?) is depicted here in a robe. Google and flickr do not. I see no images (other than yours) with blue hair. Basically, until/unless you present reliable sources here which clearly state common elements of the tooth fairy's appearance, your image is unlikely to last long. "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." This image project is not headed in the direction of something which will "increase readers' understanding of the subject matter". It does not "depict concepts described in the article." It is original research which seem to be aimed at decorating the page. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We now have a reliable source for the tooth fairy's appearance (in the article). We don't have a blue haired aname character in a yellow witch's hat and robes with an alchemy staff. We have "a child with wings, a pixie, a dragon, a blue mother-figure, a flying ballerina, two little old men, a dental hygenist, a potbellied flying man smoking a cigar, a bat, a bear and others". This proposal is not encyclopedic. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Origins, etc

I find this section somewhat lacking. Can anybody find approximately how old the tradition is and where it originates? Early Europe is quite vague.

Most folklore figures have some form of Origin. Santa Claus was a real man once (St Nicholas the Wonderworker, 3rd century AD) ). The Easter bunny is vaguely associated with the goddess Eoster. So there's at least a vague connection to religion. --05:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Barbie as the Tooth Fairy

I think we have a problem. In my opinion, this image in this context does not meet our non-free content criteria. The explanation on the file page states, "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." I see nothing in this image that cannot be conveyed in an image created by whomever wishes to create such an image, except for the appearance of Barbie which is not why the image is here. If this image were placed in an article about the movie in question, we certainly cannot create an image of Barbie, due to copyright issues. However, in the present context, this is not the case. Cover Barbie's face with your thumb or pretend it shows an anonymous face. What is lost as far as this article is concerned? Nothing. Further, the image does not convey information from the article (which states that the Tooth Fairy is "a child with wings, a pixie, a dragon, a blue mother-figure, a flying ballerina, two little old men, a dental hygenist, a potbellied flying man smoking a cigar, a bat, a bear and others"). Instead, it focuses on one copyrighted imagining of the Tooth Fairy. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

{Reply was redacted 22 November 2011. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

Literary/Poetry scholars

I found something interesting a few days ago while locating sources explaining what a "fairy" is. Several "greeting card" type shops are selling this Tooth fairy certificate. Each of the sources selling the certificate state basically the same thing - that this is a "reproduction" of an original certificate from 1890 and credit the original poet as "Betty Jane Gerber". I'm nothing close to an expert regarding the history of women's literature/poetry, but I did a few quick news/book searches and could not confirm any information about Betty Jane Gerber or the history of the poem itself. I can't say that it came as a big surprise that there wasn't much documentation about a 19th century female poet on the internet, but if this really is a "reproduction" from 1890 (I can't imagine why these shops would all lie), the poem, as well as the certificate itself, may very well be in the public domain. As this is the earliest (claimed) depiction/writing I was able to find referencing the modern-day "Tooth fairy" as we know her (which most sources I've found trace back to 19th century North America), I think the poem and/or certificate would be great to have in the article here. If anyone here knows of reliable sources about the history of the poet, poem and/or artwork used in the certificate, please enlighten us. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the journals I have access to (and that's a bunch) have anything to say about a "Betty Jane Gerber" from that period (there is a much more BJG working on the history of Washington DC and such or no obvious connection). I found a few other items connected to this Gerber, some linkable, some not. They all seem, like this, to be greeting cards and related ephemera. The Wells source, which I haven't found a free link to, reproduces several published images of the tooth fairy. Some reflect the current "fairy" image (ala Tinkerbell, or with butterfly wings), many do not. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Strange. I've just come up with a collection of poetry by a Betty Jane Gerber in a collection. It's described as "sheets" (cards maybe?). However, it doesn't fit with an 1890 date. The biographical data gives us "Betty Jane Gerber, 1922-". After that, it all dead ends. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's basically all I could find too. I couldn't find anything about a Betty Jane Gerber dating back to 1890, so I thought I'd post here in case someone with more expertise than I have might know something about a 19th century poet by that name. I'm inclined to believe the attribution of the poem, mainly because I can't think of any reason why they'd credit someone who never existed, but greeting-card companies aren't exactly what I'd consider "realible sources" either, so we definitely need someone who knows more about 19th century poetry than I do. It does seem likely that she was at least semi-"notable" in her time, since most greeting cards aren't usually attributed to a specific writer, but things may have been different 100+ years ago. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

the canadian mint

for the last couple of years,the royal canadian mint has been issuing special quarters with the tooth fairy on the reverse and selling them for nine bucks a pop. Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Now the question is why the above, which is entirely factual, was removed. It should have stayed up. Ericl (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. I removed the above comment because it was aimed at the anonymous editor discussing their opinion ("Disgusting."), not improving the article. A comment aimed at improving the article would be more along the lines of, "The Canadian Mint blah, blah, blah. Should we add this to the article." Heck, rather than "discussing" it here, the factual portion of that opinion could have been added by the anonymous editor. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)