Talk:Tuffet

Bill Bryson

Note, however, that in his 2010 book At Home, Bill Bryson claims that all usages of the word tuffet to mean a piece of household furnishing are "presumption(s) based entirely on the venerable line 'Little Miss Muffet sat on a tuffet.' In fact, the only place the word appears in historic English is in the nursery rhyme itself. If tuffets ever actually existed, they are not otherwise recorded." This kind of common back-formation, combined with the casual spelling of the times, makes the etymology difficult. If anyone is aware of historic usages of 'tuffet' as a clear furniture referent, they would be helpful. First known English printing of Litle Miss Muffet was 1805, but the rhyme is believed to predate that printing by over 200 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

can it have legs or not?

The article says "tuffet ...is distinguished from a stool by being completely covered in fabric so that no legs are visible", implying it can have legs. Then it says "Wooden feet may be added to the base to give it stability, at which point said item becomes a stool." Is the significant difference here between 'legs', which a tuffet etc can have, and feet, which it can't? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether it can have feet or not, but legs are another thing altogether. I found this entire section confusing and nonsensical. Legs, even if they are covered, make for a very different piece of furniture. A hassock/tuffet gets its shape, structure, support, and utility entirely from its stuffing and upholstery. If you add feet, not much changes. But if you want to add legs, then you have to put something firm at the base of the cushion to provide stability and support, otherwise the legs will tend to wobble or even flop. Now the cushion is providing height and comfort - but the legs and the stiff thing they're attached to are providing the real shape, structure, support, and utility. Right? 65.204.211.10 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman merge?

The ottoman (furniture) article indicates that this piece of furniture is also known as a tuffet. The only difference seems to be that tuffets are round and ottomans are rectangular. Should these be merged? ... discospinster _talk 20:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't take that from the article at all. It clearly denotes a key difference is the ability to use the item for storage. The items are distinctive enough that I think it makes as much sense to merge the articles as it would to merge the article for "stool" into the one for "chair". I also doubt that people in general think of them as being the same thing. When I wanted to learn more about tuffets, it never crossed my mind to search for "ottoman". I doubt anyone looking for "ottoman" would look for "tuffet", either. Agent 86 (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Agent 86 . Lumos3 (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• I was bold and removed the merge template from the article. There was no discussion on the matter for six months after it was tagged. Six weeks have passed since my earlier comment, with only a single brief comment. In short, the suggestion was languishing and there's no reason to expect any further discussion anytime soon. Agent 86 (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Tuffet?

Following a discussion about ottomans at the RefDesk brought me here. I had never heard of "tufffet" being used to mean a hassock or the like before. I checked Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983 edition, and it does not recognize this meaning, giving only the meanings of "a tuft: a tussock: a mound". Neither does it support the use of it for a measure. OED likewise does not recognize use for a measure, and has this to say about "tuffet" for a footstool - "Perh.: hassock or footstool. (Doubtful: perh. due to misunderstanding of the nursery rhyme)". I believe therefor that the article is profoundly wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's likely that "tuffet" arose as a misunderstanding of the nursery rhyme but it seems to have become a fairly common term for a cloth-covered stool. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect

I have decided to redirect this article to Miss Muffet, for the following reasons

• The meaning offered (a low stool) is not supported by sources, and is disputed by sources that are given. I don't claim that nobody has used the word that way, only that they are mistaken and should not be relied on, because...
• I have just noted at the Miss Muffet article that there are sources available that document the meaning of the word without reference to the rhyme, including at least one that predates the rhyme's publication. It's a form of "tuft" that happens to fit the meter.
• Published sources show that people interested in the meaning of the word are almost always interested in connection with the rhyme. Therefore it's appropriate to send them directly to the rhyme article.

73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the big issue I had with the redirect was that the content of the article was removed and there seemed to be a legitimate reason to keep it. Wikipedia is not necessarily just keeping articles based on user interest, but rather on reasonable need for the article in question. —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 13:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Convert to dab

I see that this article has been switched entirely from the 'furniture' meaning to the 'grassy knoll' meaning, it seems largely on the basis of the OED calling the first meaning 'doubtful'. But it can't be denied that some people do use the first meaning, as a google search will quickly reveal. There has been confusion about the nursery rhyme's meaning since at least the early 19th century: some artists have illustrated one meaning, some the other.

I'm proposing to do the following, if no-one objects:

• Create new articles tuffet (furniture) and tuffet (landform)
• Convert this article into a dab

All will obviously have to link back to Little Miss Muffet. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Object we shouldn't be giving equal credence to a mistake. DuncanHill (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC

Not sure what you mean by 'mistake', or why that's relevant to us. It may as the OED suggests have originally been a misinterpretation of the nursery rhyme, but if so that happened back in the early 19th century. We should follow the reliable sources, and if some sources now describe a furniture meaning, we ought to reflect that. How can we even discuss Kate Greenaway's 1900 painting without mentioning the controversy? MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The OED only has "perhaps" for the footstool meaning, so it doesn't even go so far as to say it definitely is used for a footstool! Most words are used incorrectly by someone or other somewhere, we don't treat those misuses as encyclopaedic. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to decide when I've checked for more reliable sources. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have decided not to write two separate pages, but just to expand this existing page to include both meanings. There are lots of craft references online, such as this, but I've not been able to find a reliable source for the "small, soft, short-legged stool" meaning - just personal blogs and some craft books with pictures but no definitions. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content?

I see nothing encyclopedic about this article. It is simply about the word "tuffet". It belongs on Wikitionary, not Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In the discussion above I initially suggested there should be two articles covering tuffet (furniture) and tuffet (landform). That was opposed at the time on the basis that tuffet (furniture) was a mistaken sense, and due to lack of good sources I ultimately decided to keep both senses in the one article. That was not ideal, even then, as the article does, as you say, now read too much like an expanded dictionary entry for the term "tuffet". In mixing two things, it also can't be mapped to a sensible Wikidata entry. There are now more reliable sources available for tuffet (furniture) and if I can find some time over the next few weeks I'm planning to create two separate articles covering the two distinct subjects. Even if tuffet (furniture) did initially arise as a mistake it is now widely understood and has been for over a century. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the two meanings of "tuffet" should be covered separately, under the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary" policy.

Does tuffet (furniture) need its own article? The ottoman (furniture) article already says that tuffet is a name for an ottoman. If tuffets have some specific qualities worth mentioning, that can be done in the ottoman article.

As for "tuffet" meaning a small grassy mound, I'd think that belongs in hillock (which already covers "knoll").

WP is organized by concept, not by words.... --Macrakis (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll see how much there is by way of sources. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I've spent an hour or so looking into sources, and I very much doubt that there is, after all, enough reliable material for a separate article on tuffet (furniture). Although that meaning has been used for a long time, older sources invariably refer to the nursery rhyme, while newer non-dictionary sources are still largely confined to commercial websites, personal blogs, and some craft books with pictures but no clear descriptions. While Ottoman (furniture) states that 'tuffet' is another word for an ottoman footstool, that's not supported by the cited source, TheFreeDictionary. Tuffet (landform) can't easily sustain a separate article either, as early examples of that meaning are obsolete, and later ones again invariably refer to the nursery rhyme. I wouldn't add material to hillock, as that generally means a very much larger type of small hill, as shown in the photos. On balance, I would prefer to merge everything here into Little Miss Muffet. There, we can sensibly discuss the long-standing meaning controversy, with illustrations. I'm happy to do that if there's agreement. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Macrakis (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)