Talk:Tooth fairy/Archive 1

NOPE AGREED
Why is it being discussed as principally a US tradition? Wretched Sepps. Tooth fairies are ubiquitous in the UK.

Postkiwi (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article should refer to the tradition as an Anglophonic tradition, practiced in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, among others. The current wording smacks of American arrogance. Postkiwi (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Postkiwi (talk • contribs) 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I object to the quote "An eight-year old's gift to the Tooth Fairy.' Its isn't really a 'gift', its more of an exchange, i don't gift the power company when I pay my bill. Also, why is this kid losing so many teeth? Three at once is questionable and it makes one think that one should save up teeth to exchange, when in truth, a single tooth is exchangeable.

There is an answer missing from this page, the answer to a very important question contained in a letter my 8 year old has just written to the tooth fairy: Why do you collect teeth?

I didn't see the earlier removal of the spoiler stub. I reluctantly removed the stub myself.Schmiteye 02:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the spoiler warning, it needs a god damn spoiler warning, you bastards. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.14.7 (talk &bull; contribs) 02:03, 21 January 2006.


 * Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Let's be serious here. We're not adding spoiler warnings to every myth. Melchoir 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Two important points to consider, first the spoiler warning is necessary to protect everyone, not just kids. Second, if it were censorship, I'd have deleted the phrase "fictional character." I insist upon placing a warning on this as it spoils the entire myth. Spoils get spoiler warnings.

I took out the phrase 'deciduous dentition' because its stupid. No one knows what that means, and it should be readable for the layman.


 * (the above was added by Tyler565)


 * Spoilers are used for revelation of plot endings, not general knowledge. Besides, what do you accomplish by putting the warning before the entire text? The innocent reader who believes in the tooth fairy won't understand what's going to be revealed before it's all too late.


 * I agree wholeheartedly on replacing 'deciduous dentition' with 'when it falls out of the child's mouth', though. -- Ranveig 10:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The term 'fictional character' spoils the myth, take a look at the Santa Claus article, it doesn't say that Santa is fake, it does however say he is a 'folk hero.' I will compromise and remove the spoiler warning if the term "fictional character" is replaced with "folk hero." Otherwise I am fully willing to replace the spoiler warning after your edits, and maybe even write a bot to do it automatically, and any efforts to capture my ISP will be thwarted. Muahahaha

Mythology is fine, given the contemporary academic usage of the word, but fictional is seriously POV. ;) WilyD 19:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I agree. Keep the spoiler warning.- Snowonster
 * I don't see a need for a spoiler warning - there's no spoilers as far as I can tell, and Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are meant to give people information they don't know - it's almost as bad as putting a spoiler warning on every other article in case the person reading it might not know about the subject, which in effect kinda defeats the purpose.  I think it should be removed.  talk to JD wants e-mail 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a late response, but I've changed my mind- you're right. This is an encyclopedia article...Snowonster 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

ToothGuy
I've never heard of 'ToothGuy' from the line: 'Other prominent examples are Santa Claus, ToothGuy, and the Easter Bunny.' Maybe we could replace 'ToothGuy' with at least one non-Pagan turned Christian example of a mythological character? How about the Chinese Monkey King or at least Mother Nature? Basho 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should keep the spoiler warning because when I read that the tooth fairy wasn't real, I was devestated. I don't want that to happen to someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.71.46 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're old enough to use the word "devestated" [sic], you're old enough to deal with the fact that there's no tooth fairy. By the time kids are old enough to read Wikipedia, frankly, they should be grown out of the stage where they believe in fictional characters like the tooth fairy, IMHO. There's plenty more here to open kids' eyes than just the revelation of the truth about the tooth fairy. Pac if ic Bo y  20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Not moved. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

tooth fairy to Tooth Fairy. Tooth Fairy is the name of the fictional being and thus it should be capitalized. Similarly to how Easter Bunny is capitalized, Tooth Fairy should be capitalized also in its title. Voortle 23:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support per my proposal. Voortle 23:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: conventionally lower case. Krugs 01:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is more akin to a job title than a proper name. Meriam Webster uses lower case, as does the article linked. -- Beardo 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protection request
I Have reverted vandalism on this page 2 times in the past day and a half and it has been reverted by others as well. -- Wils Bad Karma ( Talk / Contribs ) 05:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No less than 3 times myself. vaceituno 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Puley the Pule Duck??~!
The Great Pumpkin, the Sandman, Bogeyman, Puley the Pule Duck

Fer chrissakes! These are not "prominent examples of folklore" Puley is a minor cartoon reference on Nickelodeon. Ohnoitsjamie, is reverting everything I do without even reading it. Doin&#39; it for the shorties 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid reason for page protection. See Protection_policy. Many (not all) of your edits have been reverted because they violate Wikipedia's policy on censorship. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no page protection. The next sentence is "The Tooth Fairy calls upon the European folklore" which makes it clear that the character is fictional. There is no censorship request. "Traditional" is a better word in the intro for a character with a history going back hundreds of years. The "Tradition" section also starts out "The Tooth Fairy is an example of folklore mythology" which links to mythology. Obviously fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doin' it for the shorties (talk • contribs)
 * That's not a strong reason for changing the opening from "mythological" to "traditional." You intentions are obviously to "protect" children. Once again, Wikipedia is not censored. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to think that mythological figures are much more important personages than the TF. I will make the change to traditional.  I will also take out the fictional Great Pumpkin and replace with something else. Steve Dufour 06:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I couldn't think of another peer to Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the TF. Steve Dufour 06:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

parents
should this article really mention that your parents are the tooth fairy (see information about putting the tooth in a glass of water? Noahwoo (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely. The myth wouldn't be sustained without parent's active encouragement. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedits
There were a number of places where the language was tightened without affecting meaning.

The claim that Peanuts was pivotal to the modern image of a tooth fairy, or that it was the first major use in a comic is original research. And it doesn't "ring true" (didn't Little Nemo include a tooth fairy, for example?) Also, the comment wasn't appropriate in an article that includes other international versions that were probably untouched by Peanuts.

Since many editors have come up with references, it would be useful if someone used them to quote to round out an important aspect of the whole thing: the tooth fairy's purpose. I can come up with a couple directions: Distract children from a scary situation? Conform to peer pressure? Support a child's view of the relationship of trial and reward??

Also, when I went back to the article to consider the Discussion comment above by Noahwoo, I removed a considerable amount of language claiming some book, comic strip, or academic theory is "first", "most commonly accepted", "responsible for the modern image" etc. This language is original research, strongly contrary to Wiki policy, as a quick glance at WP:OR will confirm for those who are interested. Moreover, it's apparent that the tooth fairy myth is practiced in many cultures, and possibly for hundreds of years, so statements about origins and influences need to take an international viewpoint.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"...special part of her all-white tooth castle in the sky."
What the HELL? Henryrothschild (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember hearing some variation on this, occasionally. But a) It's not cited, b) it's not an central part of the myth, and therefore c) doesn't belong in the introduction, and d) isn't written in an encyclopedic style. I removed it. The editor might want to find a source, and re-add encyclopedic material later in the article. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what this means
This combination of ancient international traditions has evolved into one that is distinct Anglo-Saxon and Latin American cultures among others.

I thought I understood this sentence until "distinct". I don't think it parses after that. I would boldly correct this if I had any clue what it meant.

-- 97.116.121.86 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what this means either because it doesn't mean anything. Therefore, I will be bold and remove the entire sentence until someone is able to make sense of it. MikeEagling (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what the hell?
"The Tooth Fairy is a real person, even though many children say that she is fake." Seems kinda... out of place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.185.1 (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Compared to most of the out-takes from this article (BJAODN entry) that almost looks reasonable; some children believe she is fake while others believe she is indeed real. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Tooth Fairy Museum
Article states the Tooth Fairy Museum was opened in 1993, was open for "approximately 17 years", and closed in 2000. The math doesn't add up, and the cited article does not mention the date of closure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.84.87 (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
A duplicate of this Tooth fairy article called Traditions and customs regarding deciduous teeth was misguidedly created by User:Marcosm13 on 12 January 2011 with the stated purpose, "Transistioning the Tooth Fairy article to a more suitible, global namespace". This has merely resulted in two articles with near-identical content — apparently a copy-paste job with some minor, divergent edits occuring to both articles in the few months since. They both address the same topic and should be merged, and proper citations applied as well: the article is in poor shape. — O'Dea (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: new article title
Since this article is much more broad than the "Tooth Fairy," I suggest it be renamed to something like "Traditions and customs regarding deciduous teeth" with a redirect from "Tooth Fairy." --- W5WMW (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I most definately agree. This isn't about a tooth fairy, but rather "Traditions and customs regarding deciduous teeth." However to change it, some reformattign must happen. Marcosm13 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you. The article would be better if it were re-written as an article about the tooth fairy with a sub-article about the traditions. It will need to wait for bulking up however, that's how articles grow, it all goes in here first, until there is enough to separate off. Penyulap   talk 02:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No Source for Tooth Fairy Amounts
The whole section, "Tooth Fairy Gift Amounts" seems to be made up. The American Dental Association does NOT produce a monthly periodical entitled "Ortho" and the whole section does not even cite a source.

If this is indeed made up, it should be deleted as it only fuels the opinion that Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.183.61 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Support and ✅  Penyulap   talk 02:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the statement from this section that implied the dog followed Jeannie home from school. It is not supported by the reference given. The ref is a good ref however, and I've used it in preference over two others, and the wording was better, so I've incorporated that as well. I've left those refs as comments as a courtesy to anyone who wants to check that it was 'newspapers' (plural), and to tidy up the paragraph. Although it's not required, it's just an idea some editors follow. Penyulap  talk 02:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

around the world
This is a review I found for 'Throw Your Tooth on the Roof Tooth Traditions from Around the World' it may be of use to an editor expanding the around the world section into another article. Penyulap  talk 08:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

From Kortney
Dear Tooth Fairy,  i  lost  my  tooth  last  night. it  took   a   long,long   time   to   get   mine  out. Thank you for all the money you left on my dresser, love on of your very best friends, Korntney, M. T.- Florida/ Virginia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.143.169 (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this talk page is not for communicating with the tooth fairy. It is for people to talk about editing the tooth fairy article on wikipedia. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's always a good idea to open your mind to ways to include every good faith editors contribution. Does the article for example cover children's reactions to the tooth fairy's gifts ? Seriously considering other editors ideas is important, and in this article it is especially important to put effort into it, as some editors may have difficulty editing by themselves.


 * If I may speak to editors in general, discouraging editors from using wikipedia by not assisting them, or encouraging them to turn to vandalism by having a badly written article, doesn't serve the project in a positive way. The article and the project would be best served when the article is a pleasure to read and informative for all editors of all ages. Finding common ground, a style of article that everyone likes, is not impossible. Keeping bad writing and mistakes in the article down to a level where people can't be bothered vandalising is even easier. Adding sufficient material so that people don't feel a great need to add more is even easier still. Penyulap   talk 10:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic or attempts to contact fictional characters. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll let everyone know. Penyulap   talk 11:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This article
is really random, choppy and mostly unsourced. truly a disgrace to the TF.74.8.123.50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

So who do you think edits it? The wiki fairy? Fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on less random choppy formatting would be really welcome. Penyulap   talk 03:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Soother Fairy
When I was a child we never did the tooth fairy tradition. Instead, my family taught me about the soother fairy. It is very similar to the tooth fairy in many aspects. When a child is old enough to give up sucking a soother, the child must try to find every soother in the house and put them in a container. The child is supposed to leave the container of soothers in their bedroom so the soother fairy can take them and give the soothers to babies all over the world (in reality, the parents throw them out). A typical soother fairy gift is a dollar for every soother the child gives up. I don't know if this is a common variant but I plan to teach it to my children when they're old enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.112.135 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A comparison to other similar fairies would be a good idea. To add context. Penyulap   talk 03:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Article fails MOS for MTAA
The article fails wp:mtaa, keeping it in this state is not acceptable. It's quite obviously causing distress and resentment amongst the readership. Does anyone have ideas for the overall layout, focus and style of the article they'd like help with ? Penyulap  talk 02:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a technical article. (WP:MTAA redirects to Make technical articles understandable.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be re-writing this article as if the tooth fairy actually exists ( removing the section detailing parents' determining the amount left; restoring "in universe" claims that the tooth fairy returned a lost dog, removing the fact that the dog followed her home from school; rewriting the lede in an "in universe" style, changing a " legendary fairy" to a fairy who "will visit", etc.) The tooth fairy is a fictional character and an encyclopedic article would make this clear. I am tagging it as such.
 * And yes, the same story from the Associated Press running in several newspapers is one source, not three. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello SummerPhD, and thanks for your comments. If I may clarify some points,


 * "removing the section detailing parents' determining the amount left" was suggested by 98.236.183.61 and I support that editors position. It helps if more editors agree to it's inclusion than want it removed. I'm quite happy to reconsider if it is properly written for the readers of this article and ref'd.
 * "restoring "in universe" claims that the tooth fairy returned a lost dog" I think you are not reading that section correctly. I am stating a newspaper published an article and what that article was titled. The newspaper appears to be real, and the article appears real, and it's title appears real, it's no business of an encyclopedia to work out if they are correct or not, just to report what they said, if they said something notable. I think that it's notable, how about you ? or is the article a forgery ? or the newspaper not real ?
 * "removing the fact that the dog followed her home from school." The dog did not follow Jeannie home according to the article referenced. The dog was reported to have followed home the child of the Juvenile Lieutenant who returned the dog to Jeannie. Is there another reference that says the dog followed home Jeannie, rather than the child of the Lieutenant ?
 * "rewriting the lede in an "in universe" style," and the remainder of your concerns up till "tagging it as such". Indeed, the lede is a temporary lede, as mentioned in the edit summary, and can't yet reflect the content of the article because I would like to collaborate with you, and other editors to improve the article. If I were to use a sandbox or text editor I wouldn't be able to collaborate as easily. Please assist with adding content to the article, the use of tags is fine too, but the UC tag kind of makes tags moot over the duration of the re-work. For the temporary lede I did not bother to qualify the paragraph with 'An encyclopedia states...." or "According to folklore...." because the lede honestly can't be written properly until the article has been bulked up. It's a summary of the rest of the article, I have studied MOS:LEDE very well due to WP:OWN problems on the ISS article, and have overcome those problems comprehensively, getting a good education in the process. So the current Lede is going down, I knew it from the first moment I wrote it, hence the temporary lede edit summary. It may resemble the eventual lede, but it will need qualification. the final look however will be determined by what you and I and others find and add to the article. It's not rocket science (like the ISS, lol) it's just another article. If you'd like assistance in learning how to add good material I would love to help. You could also read and address concerns of other editors mentioned on this page.
 * "This is not a technical article." ..for whom ? If you want to chat about the plasma sheath that the International space station creates as it flies through the thermosphere we will be speaking the same language and I won't consider it too technical, or tesla's polyphase power distribution system, or a thousand other topics. But you and I are not the only editors here. This article is clearly too technical for editors such as Invmog, 24.2.127.144, Korntney and many others. I am not going to mention them all. The talkpage is summary enough to show that readers and editors hate the garbage state of this article as it is. No WP policy allows us to ignore the concerns of these good faith editors, Yes, it needs improvement, and whilst you may wish to tell me of one policy or guideline it doesn't follow, I think it's faster if we both agree it meets no guidelines of any kind in it's current state. As for your mention of Fiction I see no similar article mentioned here possibly we can aim for this article to become an exemplary article.
 * "You seem to be re-writing this article as if the tooth fairy actually exists" Thanks, but what I 'seem' to be doing is moot. what I 'am' doing is improving this article, seriously, it's like hitting the floor, you can't miss in it's current state.
 * "The tooth fairy is a fictional character" do you have any citations for that ? Come on, working together is going to be better than any alternative. Are we here to bash the tooth fairy ? I won't allow it. Wikipedia won't allow it, we need to take into account the valid concerns of all editors on this article. If you want to write it in some single style similar to it's current state, that's just creating dissatisfied readers, editors, and eventually possibly vandals. I can't see this article going GA or FA anytime soon without collaboration. Penyulap   talk 06:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about the section "Tooth fairy gift amounts" so far, is it ok ? (with a closer inspection) ? Penyulap   talk 06:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is article is not "too technical". If you feel the article should speak to 6 year olds, telling them the tooth fairy will visit them, we should rewrite various tax protester articles, telling them that the IRS will leave them alone if the refuse to pay taxes and call themselves "free citizens". Yes, there are editors reading Tooth fairy, Betsy Ross and others who would find anything more complex than "Subject verbed direct object." overwhelming. (See, for example, Santa Claus: "Santa Claus in this contemporary understanding echoes aspects of hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of gift-giver Saint Nicholas, the man from whom the name of Santa Claus derives and in whose honor Santa Claus may be referred to as Saint Nicholas or Saint Nick.")


 * This does not, in any way, demonstrate that the article should perpetuate myths (no matter how cherished those myths may be). Your apparently straight-faced claims that the AP article is stating -- as a fact -- that the tooth fairy is real is beyond discussion. I have no doubt it regularly "rains cats and dogs", though it never rains cats and dogs. I've improved the lede a bit. I clean up the dog-returning cop who is the tooth fairy later. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd invite you to consider writing in a style that will suit all readers. Writing anything other than your own personal journal is a co-operative effort. If your intention is to write something that nobody will read, then by all means don't consider the readership. Writing in a way that is understood by both young and old is the easiest thing in the world to do. However, I see that's not the plan. Personally I would have used 'Folklore figure' for example. A child would read straight past that without any problem, an adult would understand it perfectly, win-win. what do you think of that suggestion.


 * Or we could go the other way, currently editors think that wikipedia is full of, let me quote "moronic, idiotic sacks of whale fat." and that the article is a, let me quote again, "truly a disgrace to the TF". Lovely, lets set ourselves a challenge and see if we can make this article even worse, shall we ? How about the dog that followed home the Lieutenant's daughter rather than Jeannie. How about I re-write it so the dog drove the girl home and ran over the Lieutenant with the car, panicked, and didn't stop till they got to Vegas ? It's just as good as saying the dog followed Jeannie home, so why not ?


 * It is no place for the editors to censor things they don't agree with. If the Queen of England declared tomorrow she had given birth to a transformer, and she taught it to mow the lawn and balance a checkbook, it's no business of ours to determine if such claims are false. It's our place only to determine if such a declaration was a notable event, no more. If it's notable, it's documented. Your claim that "The tooth fairy is a fictional character and an encyclopedic article would make this clear." is against the pillars of wikipedia - No Original Research. To include such a claim, you need to say for example 'A notable source says the tooth fairy is a fictional character' or more than one source, as many as you like, and as many different claims as you like, that it's parents, a hoax, whatever. But no original research. Further, all significant views need to be included, not censored. That's policy. If you want to continue on the same course this article has set, then obviously, there will be more of the same, that is, plenty of editors who hate wikipedia because the articles are poorly written. Vandalism and marginalization of wikipedia will continue. Is that the plan ? Penyulap   talk 11:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The tooth fairy is a fictional character. Choosing to quote a 1950s article telling lies to children to prove otherwise is absurd. This is also true for the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. I have no intention of "writing around" the truth to protect myths. If you feel it is necessary to cite reliable sources for these facts, we can create a section on whether or not the tooth fairy is real. You can cite your newspaper article, I can cite (quite literally) thousands of journal articles that mention that the tooth fairy is a myth, fantasy figure, folklore, "lie told to children", deception, etc. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, I'd love to help. However I'd prefer to get some help making an article that has something to do with the readers, rather than some kind of non-existent dispute between two editors. Trying to use the article to solve WP:OR is also totally against the pillars of wikipedia. I can't see the point of trying to use the article to have an argument just as I can't see the point of using the article to poison the next generation of writers against wikipedia. Penyulap   talk 04:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. I'll be working on a section covering the scholarship dedicated to determining whether this myth is damaging to children, damages trust in their parents for "lying" to them, etc. We can also include info on how much parents give to kids under the guise of the tooth fairy and the typical age children begin to discover there is no tooth fairy. Thoughts? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can hardly wait until the editor that said "moronic, idiotic sacks of whale fat." gives their opinion. Lets hope he or she loves the improvement eh ? I am so looking forward to continued work on this article for so many reasons. Penyulap   talk 07:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, from their comment said editor would likely be glad of any scholarship regarding how the myth is damaging to children etc in this article. And definitely won't be glad with any attempts on our part to hide the fact the tooth fairy isn't real. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

New spirit of co-operation
Now that we have decided to work together, I thought we could both reference the following PDF for our research. This will save clutter and be less work for both of us. I'll cover the first part of mike's research, and you can cover the latter, okily dokily ? Mike's Edoc Penyulap   talk 08:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 404 - File not found. Apropos for a myth. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The pdf is good to go now.

But more importantly, BRAVO on the recent success at addressing Make technical articles understandable. I haven't even heard of that one, and after reading the link I STILL don't know. I'm certain all the readers of the Tooth Fairy article will understand. After all, what 8 year old doesn't have a degree in psychiatry. Brilliant. I support that one 100%. If some other editor wants to take it out, just tell them you have consensus. Like you, I want that gem to last through the ages. Penyulap  talk 16:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that you've taken yourself to AN/I, I'll let that work its way through before addressing your idea that this article should be written for 8 year olds and the PDF that you've apparently uploaded (I now see you've really just edited the link to whatever this is). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea that this is a "technical article" is ludicrous. Lady  of  Shalott  18:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it, as I'm not up to speed on wp:gibberish as yet. I think I may be looking for 'approachable language' or at least an article that does what it is meant to do. That is, answers the questions of readers, informs them. I'm not talking about 8 year olds. I'm talking about ALL editors and readers. Clearly I am NOT the only person who thinks this article is poorly written. I just set up archiving, and Misza went through a moment ago, I might fix that as a courtesy, so people can see a little easier what I mean. Penyulap   talk 18:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still haven't got the archiving right, I'll disable it for a while, I had set it up before properly elsewhere. Penyulap   talk 18:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason you're trying to set up archiving by year? For an article like this I don't see any reason for it, the amount of stuff in a year is tiny. Much better just to have normal time based archiving with an archive size limit (and it seems likely we'll only end up with 1 archive so far with a resonable size limit). Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All articles should be made understandable; no argument there. :) I think you actually sidetracked your case by linking to MTAA. Lady  of  Shalott  18:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne, I had set it up to work well enough on my own talkpage, and the Node module page ( I hope it works there too ), I figured I could fix it up here, however, after the first fail, I just copied the config from my talkpage and adjusted that, didn't see where I'd gone wrong, please do feel free to assist in any way. I was also wanting to know is there any kind of a problem if i make a custom button at the top of this page 'click here to leave a message' that is a little easier for the other editors and would-be editors of this page to use ? I'd like to help them express themselves if possible, as it will help us understand just how this article sucks and how we can improve it for them. Penyulap   talk 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I've set up the archiving although we won't know until it next runs. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sincere thanks, both the TF and I appreciate it :)  Penyulap   talk 18:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Error in newspaper headline
The Miami News is cited for having an article titled "Tooth Fairy acts fast, sends girls dog back." Now for that sentence to be correct, "girl's" should be spelled with an apostrophe. So we either need to correct it by adding the apostrophe if the newspaper used it, or we need to put [sic] behind it if the paper did not use the apostrophe. Which is it? Lady of  Shalott  18:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * found it. I knew it was in the browser history somewhere. Penyulap   talk 18:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * done Penyulap   talk 18:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Lady  of  Shalott  02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Section headings
Is it ok to put in topic titles, as the subject material comes up, that suits the kind of editors and readers that comment on the talkpage. For example, topics such as 'How much does the tooth fairy give' 'Has anyone seen the tooth fairy' 'Is the tooth fairy real' and so forth, any problem with that ? (provided I find appropriate material) Penyulap   talk 18:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a problem per NOT. Wikipedia articles should not list/respond to frequently asked questions about a topic.  only (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this page is to be used to discuss possible improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the tooth fairy. General discussion removal is routine. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead suggestions
I was thinking a better lead would be a good idea, especially removing the word fantasy and using a word such as folklore figure instead. or 'A cherished figure in America's lore of childhood' The source is already in the lead.

Penyulap  talk 18:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What good does replacing the word "fantasy" do? Especially when we already use "folklore" in the second sentence.  Additionally, "cherished" would not be POV.  only (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Folklore' does the job on it's own, 'fantasy' just attracts vandalism, is re-iteration really necessary? Penyulap   talk 03:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't write to avoid vandalism. We write what is significant and verifiable. We handle vandalism by reverting it, blocking vandals and -- when necessary -- protecting articles. We call the tooth fairy a "fantasy figure" because the tooth fairy is fictional. Folklore, OTOH, can evolve around real or fictional figures. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "We don't write to avoid vandalism." -Classic Penyulap   talk 05:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can direct me to a policy/guideline to the contrary? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

the dentist is for adults.
Why doesn't the tooth fairy visit adults ? I'm thinking there is a guideline to be wary of here (1 + 2 = 3). I can find of course, children lose baby teeth, and the tooth fairy collects baby teeth, can I add that adults don't lose baby teeth ? or when they do lose teeth, they goto the dentist ? Penyulap  talk 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're proposing to add would be based upon your own original research. We would need to add in information from reliable sources as to how the folklore/myth explains why the tooth fairy does not visit adults.  only (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also the fact that when most adults lose a tooth, their parents aren't in their house to remove the tooth from under the pillow and replace it with money. Further, barring some developmental disability or brain injury, adults generally know the tooth fairy isn't real. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Such disabilities can be more common than you think. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we somehow gauge the number of children reading this vs. the number of typical adults vs. the number of developmentally disabled/brain injured adults (now called "intellectually disabled (ID)" on this side of the pond)? I'll have to see if there is any research on belief in the tooth fairy in the ID population. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While it would be interesting, I don't think it is feasible for us to get this data. Nor do I think it would be all that useful. Lady  of  Shalott  03:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think we can do that. We can, however, drink a really tasty beer and prepare for class tomorrow. Oh, and improve the article. Even more. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I for one don't drink, who'd have thought eh ? But the result of the ANI discussion SummerPhD so graciously notified me of was that I can topic ban myselves from the article, so I'll look into doing some collaborative research with myself as to the demographic, whilst SummerPhD is researching the population in ID. I'm seeing I could well change category into the brain injury category if I continue collaboration. Should I take up drinking maybe that'll help as I continue work on the article. Penyulap   talk 03:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have to look into this further after tomorrow's lecture that I am woefully unprepared for and will have to find some way of getting through. Actually, I'll probably focus more on the ages of children believing/no longer believing. We need some data on that. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well hey look at that, it's been more than a week, and no surprise to me, nothing new into the article. What happened to the "I'll have to look into this further after tomorrow's lecture" did the lecture last more than 10 days ? The only work I see going on is reverting whatever people are putting in to this monumentally disgraceful article. Do you have new material for this article at all, or is the plan to perpetually keep it in it's whitehouse state ? Penyulap   talk 03:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are unhappy with the amount of work I've done, feel free to dock my pay. As for the reverts, I don't think "the monkey he was best friend i liked to fuck him it felt so good" was helpful. If you think the article needs "kill all humans", I must disagree. I was unable to locate the source cited for "The tooth fairy encountered a large swarm of beach eagles recently. They attacked without warning and the tooth fairy was caught completely off guard and without her guns.  She managed to escape, however, and now makes sure to bring her pistols with her whereever she goes.", perhaps an ISBN would help.
 * Yes, I did remove trivial "In popular culture" mentions of the tooth fairy. I had removed a number of such trivialities earlier (here's the longer list) as trivial in popular culture mentions. If you feel there are problems with the article ("steaming dog turd class"), adding irrelevant, trivial material is not helping. If you add independent reliable sources discussing these, they are good to stay. Otherwise, it is trivia that should go, per our guidelines. If you disagree, I invite you to seek a third opinion or request comments on the issue. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I only reverted one edit, yours. The rest of that stuff your quoting, which other editors removed, I have no problem with. I agree with them. There is a big difference between removing political commentary, and removing junk that makes the article suck less. Now where is this research you have been threatening to do ? it's been 10 days and you're avoiding the question. 3rd opinion ? I don't need a third opinion. The original editors who inserted the material, count as one, and I count as another. Unless you count yourself as 3 people to outvote 2, I can't see it as my job to bother anyone else. I can't see how all but blanking this article on the grounds it's not all FA is going to help. This article is a lovely place for newbies to edit, and I'm here to help. Not totally Vista-fy wikipedia. Now what are you doing, should I wait for this research ? btw, I love the pastel text. Penyulap   talk 06:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you were referring to one edit. Your comment about "it's been more than a week...reverting whatever people are putting in" led me to understand you were referring to edits by more than one person in more than a week. As for the trivial in popular culture material, I have tagged it as such. "Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references." As it currently stands, this section is an indiscriminate collection of trivia and should be removed. (Not that it is any business of yours, but no, one lecture lasts about an hour and 45 minutes. I have several each week. I get paid for them. I am not paid here. In instances where I need to pick one or the other, I choose the one that pays. In cases of conflict between what you want me to do and what I want to do, I don't give you much weight. I am a volunteer. Let it go.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Penyulap, for someone whose concern has been readability of this article and what happens on this talk page page with respect to younger readers, you sure are sprinkling in a lot of rude language lately. Can we please avoid the references to defecation and sexual acts? Lady  of  Shalott  13:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course LadyofShalott, I probably would have left them up a while before removing them myself, but they've been read by the recipient now, and you are right. My point about the poor editing of the article comes down to one editor, SummerPhD. SummerPhD you don't have time to add anything at all to the article, so don't arrive and snarl and bite at the newbies, delete GF edits, blank large amounts and expect to be called a hero for it. ADD something, don't threaten to add something to wikipedia in the far distant future if or when you ever get around to it, whilst the whole time screwing with other editors who are doing a good job of improving wikipedia. So what if it's some trivia some editor put in, it's a hundred times better to welcome the newbies than make a disgraceful article and trample the project into oblivion. Get with the project. Penyulap   talk 14:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (oh, LadyofShalott, I think the phrase you were looking for when copyediting was 'naughty words' :)  Penyulap   talk 14:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleting trivia is a perfectly valid editing technique. As far as I can see, Summer has not bitten any newbies. If she went to their talkpage and said "Don't add trivia!" that would be bitey. Just removing trivia is not, and it is an improvement to the article to do so. Adding good content and removing bad are both ways to improve an article. Lady  of  Shalott  14:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. I put even more emphasis on the AND in this case. Well, how about language that may imply to some, that if they don't agree with SummerPhD's point of view, they have 'some developmental disability or brain injury' or leaving threats on someones talkpage in a way that defines hypocrisy ? Seems a bit more like 'Bite' than 'Welcoming committee' to me. Penyulap   talk 15:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

archiving of the talkpage
Can we let Miszabot handle this please ? I for one, would like to get a better idea of the readership demographic. Penyulap  talk 02:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk pages are not about doing statistical analysis or gauging the demographic of those who post here. They are about making comments for the betterment of the articles. only (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'betterment of the articles' Are we editing for the readers to read the article and learn, or is it like on that scifi serial i saw where programs are living inside the holographic complexes computer system and they are eventually allowed to remain there by the crew after the crew figure they are life-forms, i think it was star trek, where picard was in it. The articles aren't personified like little dolls that Beth cares for in Little Women. If you want to better the article, it's a fundamental prerequistie to consider the readership. It's the last and often most difficult lesson for a genius to learn, that everyone does not think the same way that they do. If you can't consider the readership, you can't use approachable language. Unless you just insult everyone by assuming 'approachable' means 'suitable for idiots' which is not the case at all. Penyulap   talk 02:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." You are not discussing changes to the article. If you feel talk pages should be allowed to run wild to allow us to make pseudo-demographic assumptions about the self-selected population of readers who comment on the talk page as a stand-in for the demographics of the readership of the page as a guide for the reading level the article should be targeted to... or something like that... the place to discuss that is Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that going in the article ? also, what other kind of reader/commentators are there, don't tell me people are being forced to read the article. that was banned by U.N. convention long ago. And I am discussing the article, in regards to approachable language, it's just I've cleverly hidden my comments in a section entitled 'archiving of the talkpage'.  Penyulap   talk 04:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture ("In film and television")
This section is an "indiscriminate (collection) of trivia or cruft" Per "In_popular_culture"_content, this is to be avoided. "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources." Failing reliable secondary sources supportive of this judgment or a consensus to the contrary, I will trim the section again in several days. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Better to leave it in for the time being, until there is more meat in the article. Remove it when the article is moving to GA as part of that process. Penyulap   talk 14:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. Others? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Others ? oh lets ask shall we ? Penyulap   talk 15:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If we know something should be removed as part of moving towards GA, then it should be removed period. It makes no sense to leave it in "until there is more meat in the article". Also, let's please leave off the sarcasm. Lady  of  Shalott  16:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? sarcasm is a useful alternative to less acceptable language. Cut out the pop culture now ? sure, lets. Now I'm back to looking for ways we can possibly make the article suck more. After all, it's the fashion to do ANYTHING ELSE except add new material. I notice someone attacked the Lede "The tooth fairy is a fantasy a person that is not real and will eat you alive. Her mother is Santa Claus and father is Homer Simpson" yep, told you so. To quote myself "Personally I would have used 'Folklore figure' for example. A child would read straight past that without any problem, an adult would understand it perfectly, win-win." 'Folklore hero' wouldn't be correct, as the TF is not exactly a hero, but I've seen that used before for a different figure. 'Folklore helper' is a bit vague, 'Generous folklore figure' would be about spot on I'd think. you could qualify it with 'sometimes' as the TF doesn't visit everyone, but that's outside of the folklore. But hey, what am I doing? I've been distracted, we're meant to be arguing here aren't we, not thinking about good ideas, EWWWW!!!! (I feel so dirty) Penyulap   talk 14:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your "win-win" assumes (with no basis) that Wikipedia's goal is to discuss reality with adults while hiding it from children. I'd invite you to test this assumption against the graphic images and video at Ejaculation and dozens of other articles. The desire to add more material is fine, but it is not an excuse to keep garbage. "Folklore figure" is not as descriptive as you seem to believe. George Washington is a folklore figure as he is the subject of traditional stories and beliefs passed down orally. He is not, however, a "fantasy figure" as he is neither fictional nor magical. The tooth fairy, while a figure in oral tradition, is also fictional and magical. I suppose we could say the tooth fairy "is a fictional, magical folklore figure", but "fantasy figure" covers that. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would ask you to remove your example before I respond. Penyulap   talk 11:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, the responses to your side trip to AN/I have cleared this up for you. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst it was resolved to my satisfaction I can't see how it in any way relates to the point I was making, which is, your use of the word "Fantasy", which I stated, and I must have done it twice, as I quoted the wrong quote, I said

'Folklore' does the job on it's own, 'fantasy' just attracts vandalism, is re-iteration really necessary?
 * So maybe folklore doesn't quite 'do it' for you, but as some vandal pointed out quite well, 'fantasy' attracts vandalism like I said. I don't know if you see my point or just want to try and show me more porn. The idea that an article can be a good article for all readers is my belief and objective. You seem completely stuck with the faith that an article can only cater to one specific section of the readership, and that's somehow wikipedia policy. I am saying it is better to write for all readers, a 100% proper article for all of them. I refuse to pick one faction and write for them and then try and patrol the page for vandalism from dissatisfied readers. This isn't the freedom flotilla article or rocket science it's just the tooth fairy. Penyulap   talk 14:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your "attracts vandalism" argument is spurious. We neither know that what you believe attracts vandalism has anything to do with the vandalism nor do we write to avoid vandalism. "Folklore figure" is only partially correct. "Fictional, magical folklore figure" or "fantasy figure" covers it. If you would prefer "fictional, magical folklore figure",I'm OK with that. If you wish to omit "fictional" and "magical", I'd like you to explain why, preferably with a basis in our policies and guidelines. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We ? It's not we at all, referring to yourself in the third person collective won't impress me. If a cosmic moment demonstrating that the word 'fantasy' attracts vandals after I have told you so twice before it happens, cannot spell it out to you, then your faith that this article has to suck is unshakable, and no amount of reason will prevail. Folklore defines the subject sufficiently. Folklore does not need to be dictionary defined in this article. It needs to be defined in it's own article, same way a handful of teeth belongs in a handful of teeth article. This article is supposed to be about .... Oh god I give up Penyulap   talk 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "We" = those who are working on this article. "Folklore figure" = subject (real or imagined) of oral tradition. "Fantasy figure" = fictional, magical folklore figure. "Tooth fairy" = a fictional, magical figure in oral tradition. There was vandalism before the word "fantasy" was included. There is no indication of a connection. Betsy Ross (folkloric but not fantasy) is regularly vandalized. There is no connection. If there were a connection, there still wouldn't be a reason to change the article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * " "We" = those who are working on this article." I don't recollect anyone electing you to speak for me, or anyone else for that matter. So when you say "We neither know that what you believe attracts vandalism" and so forth, please be polite enough to speak for yourself and not speak for me. Thanks! This would be a lot easier if you were to use a singular personal pronoun, or have yourself elected as speaker for all editors. I for one would vote for you. Penyulap   [[User talk:Penyulap| '''

talk''' ]] 18:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To rephrase, then: "While it is certainly possible that you have some god-given knowledge of what attracts vandalism, the rest of us have no way of verifying that your knowledge is correct." There is no way to tell what "caused" various acts of vandalism nor are there any policies or guidelines on Wikipedia that indicate articles should be written to avoid vandalism. Your theory is moot. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just using commonsense, by not ignoring all other editors on this article and talkpage, I get the idea that the tooth fairy article is a disgrace, if for no other reason than another editor said so. Looking at the article, I can see exactly what he means, and others have similar comments, am I the only one with a what is it ? 'god-given knowledge' or commonsense to see this ? Actually no, I'm not, lots of editors can see it also. It's the 'we' that can't see it, and I don't mean 'we' as in more than one person. I mean just the 'we' you refer to. Of course if you are just talking about what I believe when you refer to ' what you believe ' well, there is no mystery or research needed there. I am the final authoritative arbiter on what I believe. Actually, I add to wiki in like 17 or something languages so far, most of which I don't even speak. Takes only the slightest effort, if any, to understand where all these people are going, what they are all trying to say. If you just block your mind all day and delete it all, just to push your own POV, misses the entire point of the project really. No benefit to anyone. The article is 'start class' for the tooth fairy for crying out loud. That's a disgrace all right. The tooth fairy is a household name across millions of homes, and wait a sec, google is showing 461,000 hits for tooth fairy, and you say "So far, we have exactly zero reliable sources indicating what the tooth fairy looks like." Stuff this for a joke. I think as a pet project I should write it in several languages I can't speak a single word of. Take it to GA status on those foreign wikis and leave you to find "what the tooth fairy looks like" and determine "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?" and so forth all by yourself. Do you want my help or not ? seriously, what on earth is it you want to do here ? What do you want ? what are you trying to do with this article, I would really like to know. Seriously, all jokes aside. Penyulap  talk 18:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One word does not attract vandalism. Adding unsourced garbage, original research and synthesis do not yield GA status. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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. - Sum mer PhD  (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. Lady  of  Shalott  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. - Sum mer PhD  (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. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (conflict)

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.

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... - Sum mer PhD  (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)

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. - Sum mer PhD  (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. - Sum mer PhD  (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. - Sum mer PhD  (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. Lady of  Shalott  20:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture proposal
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. Lady  of  Shalott  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. - Sum mer PhD  (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, Image_use_policy and so on. Please explain. - Sum mer PhD  (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. - Sum mer PhD  (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. - Sum mer PhD  (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 71.20.55.6 (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. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

{Reply was redacted 22 November 2011. - Sum mer PhD  (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. - Sum mer PhD  (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. - Sum mer PhD  (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 207.112.47.244 (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. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)