- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 23:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Santa suit
edit
- ... that Coca-Cola did not create the modern Santa suit (pictured)?
- Reviewed: Guiding Eyes for the Blind
- Comment: I've probably done this a little early, but might be worthwhile saving for Christmas.
Created/expanded by Miyagawa (talk). Self nom at 11:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- DYK check doesn't show a 5x expansion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Before: 417 characters, now, 2379 characters = over 5x expansion. No idea why DYKcheck is flagging it as not 5x (it's doing the same for me so I used this to get a direct count, comparing [1] and [2]). - The Bushranger One ping only 10:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- This revision three years ago was 2200 characters. As the article was stable at 417 for almost 3 years, it may be okay to IAR here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this should be eligible -- and it's not necessary to IAR. The longer article that existed several years ago was severely pruned because it was nothing but original research. That makes the 417-character version a valid baseline for measuring its expansion now. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- As consensus seems to be to accept this (although I respectfully disagree that it is unnecessary to IAR, as DYK rules state that the quality of the already existing article is to be disregarded except for copyvios), here is a review:
- Hook: Interesting (especially to an American audience, not sure how common the belief is in Europe). Hook fact is cited and checks out. Short enough.
- Article: Long enough per discussion, new enough. Referencing is up to DYK standards. Images are fine (one OTRS, one PD). Paraphrasing checked against Wise Men or Kings and seems fine.
Good to go for Christmas. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not such a good hook. When I read it, I thought, "of course they didn't, wasn't that Thomas Nast?" I checked the article to confirm that that was the case. I'm American, and I don't think the belief is common here either. I think that hooks of the form "that X didn't do Y" should be avoided unless there's a very good reason, which I don't think there is here. 159.83.4.153 (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Although I myself knew it wasn't Coke, I did not know Nast's name off the top of my head. Personally I have seen that it is fairly widespread, with an entry on Snopes indicating that the belief exists and has had to be dispelled. I personally think the hook is fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I asked around, and most people don't know it was Nast, although one person said it was "that guy who did those political cartoons". A lot of people thought it was Clement Moore, but not a single person thought it was Coke. 159.83.4.153 (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Could this be clarified a little? I've never heard of this myth and the text as-is seems as absurd as saying "Did you know that donkeys are not, in fact, monkeys?" Perhaps something to the effect "...that contrary to a popular urban legend, Coca-Cola did not create the modern Santa suit?" TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- IMO, while most DYK hooks entice by causing the reader to say "No, I didn't know that, tell me more!", it's perfectly OK if some of them entice by making the reader say "Of course I know that, why would anyone think otherwise?" Accordingly, I think this is a fine hook. --Orlady (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was watching morning TV while on holiday visiting the in laws over Thanksgiving in Wisconsin and this did you know show was on. I couldn't believe it when they did a whole segment on how Coca-Cola invented Santa Claus. Seriously. They got the entire history completly wrong, never mentioned Nast at all and credited Coca Cola with the whole thing. This is such a well known rumour that the company have a page on their website to explain that they didn't do it. Miyagawa (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify, I'd be perfectly happy with TechnoSymbiosis' suggested Alt. Miyagawa (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- SO the consensus is ALT2? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- The most interesting fact in the article is that the shade of red used on the Santa suit outfits in Coca-Cola advertisements is patented to the company. A company can patent a color? I think this fact would make a better hook. If you use TechnoSymbiosis's hook could you at least remove "popular"? The true urban legend may be that there is an urban legend about Coke creating the Santa suit. 159.83.4.153 (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Cocal-Cola hook. I agree a new alt is needed; I see no reason why Coca-Cola should be mentioned. That said, I am not seeing an alt 2 above. Please mark it clearly with alt2 parameter. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- The suggested alt is: ALT2:... that contrary to a popular urban legend, Coca-Cola did not create the modern Santa suit (pictured)? Miyagawa (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
