Talk:Tom Bombadil

Dutch doll
Does that dutch doll picture look like the one that inspired Tolkien? Because those dolls can look very different. I had one as a child also, and it looks very different from this picture. The only thing these dolls have in common are joint pegs that allow the limbs to swing. Other than that, sky is the limit for size, design and aesthetics. I think it gives a misleading impression to show a particular doll. Unless they are common of the type for early 20th century England. ("Dutch doll" doesn't mean it was from a particular country, they are made all over.) --  Green  C  04:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The type, which is all the caption says, is a wooden peg construction giving a stiff doll with hinged joints. Tom B had a hat with a feather, so of course it'd be nice to have an image exactly like that. Meanwhile the type image is plainly helpful to readers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've explained the type and the instance in the caption, with ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the current could be improved. Current:
 * A Dutch doll, a wooden peg construction giving a stiff doll with hinged joints, illustrates the type of toy that inspired the name Tom Bombadil.
 * Alternative:
 * This picture illustrates an archetypal Dutch doll, of a type that inspired Tolkien etc.
 * It doesn't need to go into detail about stiff dolls with hinged joints, it's self-evident from the picture, repeating information. The main idea is to say this is an archetypal picture rather than what his doll actually looked like. That is the main concern. -- Green  C  02:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your thoughts. However, it's a very carefully-constructed caption, not of excessive length, and all of it is necessary. Talk of "self-evidence" is generally a mistake, as Wikipedia readers are from many backgrounds, and may (for instance) be using a non-visual text reader. Talk of "archetypes" introduces wholly unneeded complexity; even native English speakers will have varied ideas of what that might mean (and the Jungian archetypes are not relevant here), while non-native speakers may well be bemused by the mention, so we're clearly better off without that sort of thing.
 * The main reason for the way the caption is worded, however, is twofold: the actual doll shown in the image seems female, so we need to explain it's just one of a type or class; and that class needs to be described (hence the stiff doll with hinged joints), so that we can say simply that the original Tom Bombadil doll looked slightly different. We've actually compressed a lot into the brief caption, which I'm confident is helpful to the reader. The detail about the hat with a feather is certainly relevant, both to the account of the nature of the Tolkien family's actual Dutch doll, and by the way to the character of Tom Bombadil in The Lord of the Rings. The compact text achieves all of this in a a small space with few words, none of which are redundant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what "archetypal" means. It's succinct and makes the point with a single word, see MOS:CAPSUCCINCT. Repeating what is already shown in the picture violates MOS:CAPOBVIOUS. For anyone who needs there are already picture description mechanisms; we don't use captions for that purpose see WP:MOSALT. I'm fine with the last sentence about the feather in the hat.   --  Green  C  04:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * GreenC, there is a kind of solution to many problems that is called "simple, easy, and wrong", and I'm sorry to say that "archetypal" is exactly one of those. I've already explained why above, so I won't repeat myself: it's the wrong word to use. Please read again what I said about that word and note how readily it might mislead non-native speakers. Further, the use of both "archetypal" and "type" in your phrasing, for what is basically the same concept, is unnecessary and, in a word, not an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just get rid of "type". Your worries that non-english speakers can't understand archetypal is not our problem, this is not Simple Wiki, we don't compose for non-english readers, anyone can guess what they know or don't know. The article England contains the word "archetypal" in an image caption ("is an archetypal English painting").
 * The word archetype is exactly the right word here, just as it is the right word at England, and 3,000 other articles. And while it is sometimes used in Jungian analysis, it has nothing to do with that in this context, that's a strawman argument. It's a general term that almost any person will understand and your frankly bizarre refusal to use this common word is causing problems with concision and CAPOBVIOUS. -- Green  C  15:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not at all impressed by dubious statistics, and even less by your WP:SHOUTing at me and telling me it's CAPOBVIOUS that I'm UTTERLY STUPID with bits of policy or guidelines that may or may not be pertinent – my experience of checking such things at AfD is that at least half the time they aren't actually mandatory, and quite a lot of the time they don't even say what the SHOUTER hopes they may. And you haven't given the slightest indication that you've actually read and understood my refutation of your arguments. No, I've had more than enough of the rhetoric. Further, I'm out of town for a few days, so let's wait to hear what others may think of what is, frankly, a tiny matter not remotely worth this amount of effort. So, why not WP:DROPTHESTICK (and "and back slowly away from the horse carcass", as that essay so helpfully says – yes indeed, it's not a policy, but all the better thought out for all that – and we'll see whether others are happy with the perfectly good existing caption, or want it (probably) very slightly tweaked. One last thing: it's in British English (should that be BRITISH ENGLISH), so it's more than probable that your quibbles with it reflect some minor difference in syntax and diction with your native speech. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)