Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 8 October 2011

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Traditions and customs regarding deciduous teeth was copied or moved into Tooth fairy. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Template:Archive box collapsible

NOPE AGREED

When I found out there was no Santa Claus at age 10, I was devastated. SignmomMJ (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Mis

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.14.7 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 January 2006.

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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" , you're old enough to deal with the fact that there's no tooth fairy. By the time kids are old enough to read Misplaced Pages, 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.PacificBoy 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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.

The result of the debate was Not moved. —Centrx→talk • 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. --WilsBadKarma 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' it for the shorties 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason for page protection. See Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy. Many (not all) of your edits have been reverted because they violate Misplaced Pages's policy on censorship. OhNoitsJamie 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, Misplaced Pages is not censored. OhNoitsJamie 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)

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[REDACTED] 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. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2011 (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 Mouse

dear tooth fariy i have put my tooth under my pillo many times but nothings happening i hope you get it tonight!

It's also the Tooth Mouse in South Africa. [[tyler:abbeville south caroilina|Invmog]] (talk) 6:43 10 september 2010

I hate you! Put my comments back!

See heading, you moronic, idiotic sacks of whale fat. I own your boxers! Thank you. —Melvin Schmitzelkoff—Mad Insulter

Well, that happened. PacificBoy 20:15, 30 July 2010 (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)

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)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Alanl (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages is an unreliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.183.61 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Support and  Done 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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Make technical articles understandable.) - SummerPhD (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. - SummerPhD (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. Misplaced Pages 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. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:41, 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)

Even though this book was written primarily for children, as a folklorist I found it most enjoyable and discovered so many fascinating traditions that are not recorded in any folklore archives. Here every single continent is represented and we learn how children of different nationalities dispose of their lost milk tooth. Of course, it is only to be expected that a few obscure examples have not been included. For instance, there is no reference to the old Cornish custom by which "children's first teeth are burnt to prevent dog's teeth or 'snaggles' - irregular teeth coming in their stead" (M.A. Courtney "Folklore and Legends of Cornwall", 1890, rep. 1989, pp. 156-7). Moreover, there is no mention of the Maltese custom of burying the tooth in a flower pot so that the new tooth (like the plant in the pot) will emerge (Pullicino, J.C. "Studies in Maltese Folklore", Malta Univ. Press, 1976, rep.1992, p.245). Yet there are so many fascinating examples, most of which were unknown to me. I was pleasantly surprised to see the Greek custom of throwing the milk tooth onto the roof ( a custom I was interested to learn is also pracitised in Korea and Taiwan). Infact, in Greece the throwing of the tooth onto the roof is accompanied by the reciting of a little rhyme which can be loosely translated as follows: 'Take sow my tooth and give me an iron one so that I can chew rusks'. In some regions of Greece, it is a mouse not a sow which is invoked. Therefore I was interested to see how the mouse also features in several parallel traditions throughout the world. For instance, we learn that Spanish children believe that the mouse Ratoncito Perez will substitute the tooth under the pillow for money or sweets(candies) as will his French counterpart La Petite Souris. Some peoples wrap their teeth in various materials for different reasons. Children of other nations bury their teeth ( e.g. Filipino children to make a wish). Yet in Turkey it is parents, not children who bury the tooth. Thai and Vietnames children dispose of their teeth in different ways, depending on whether it is an upper or lower tooth. The custom of Tajikistan reminded me of Greek mythology since the 'sown' teeth 'grow up to be warriors'.

— By M. G. SFAELLOU "Platanos" (Greece)