This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
Does that dutch doll picture look like the one that inspired Tolkien? Because those dolls can look very different. I had one as a child also, and it looks very different from this picture. The only thing these dolls have in common are joint pegs that allow the limbs to swing. Other than that, sky is the limit for size, design and aesthetics. I think it gives a misleading impression to show a particular doll. Unless they are common of the type for early 20th century England. ("Dutch doll" doesn't mean it was from a particular country, they are made all over.) -- GreenC 04:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The type, which is all the caption says, is a wooden peg construction giving a stiff doll with hinged joints. Tom B had a hat with a feather, so of course it'd be nice to have an image exactly like that. Meanwhile the type image is plainly helpful to readers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained the type and the instance in the caption, with ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current could be improved. Current:
A Dutch doll, a wooden peg construction giving a stiff doll with hinged joints, illustrates the type of toy that inspired the name Tom Bombadil.
Alternative:
This picture illustrates an archetypal Dutch doll, of a type that inspired Tolkien etc.
It doesn't need to go into detail about stiff dolls with hinged joints, it's self-evident from the picture, repeating information. The main idea is to say this is an archetypal picture rather than what his doll actually looked like. That is the main concern. -- GreenC 02:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your thoughts. However, it's a very carefully-constructed caption, not of excessive length, and all of it is necessary. Talk of "self-evidence" is generally a mistake, as Wikipedia readers are from many backgrounds, and may (for instance) be using a non-visual text reader. Talk of "archetypes" introduces wholly unneeded complexity; even native English speakers will have varied ideas of what that might mean (and the Jungian archetypes are not relevant here), while non-native speakers may well be bemused by the mention, so we're clearly better off without that sort of thing.
The main reason for the way the caption is worded, however, is twofold: the actual doll shown in the image seems female, so we need to explain it's just one of a type or class; and that class needs to be described (hence the stiff doll with hinged joints), so that we can say simply that the original Tom Bombadil doll looked slightly different. We've actually compressed a lot into the brief caption, which I'm confident is helpful to the reader. The detail about the hat with a feather is certainly relevant, both to the account of the nature of the Tolkien family's actual Dutch doll, and by the way to the character of Tom Bombadil in The Lord of the Rings. The compact text achieves all of this in a a small space with few words, none of which are redundant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we need to explain it's just one of a type or class That's what "archetypal" means. It's succinct and makes the point with a single word, see MOS:CAPSUCCINCT. Repeating what is already shown in the picture violates MOS:CAPOBVIOUS. For anyone who needs there are already picture description mechanisms; we don't use captions for that purpose see WP:MOSALT. I'm fine with the last sentence about the feather in the hat. -- GreenC 04:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC, there is a kind of solution to many problems that is called "simple, easy, and wrong", and I'm sorry to say that "archetypal" is exactly one of those. I've already explained why above, so I won't repeat myself: it's the wrong word to use. Please read again what I said about that word and note how readily it might mislead non-native speakers. Further, the use of both "archetypal" and "type" in your phrasing, for what is basically the same concept, is unnecessary and, in a word, not an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
