Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 11

About Santa Claus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the introduction to the article be "agnostic" about the existence of the modern Santa Claus, or should it say that Santa Claus is not a real, currently living person? 03:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the introduction to the article be "agnostic" about the existence of the modern Santa Claus?

Yes, the lead should be agnostic.	No, the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist.
The introduction should not make claims (either way) about the literal existence of Santa Claus. Readers who are unfamiliar or uncertain should not be told whether or not he is actually a real, currently living person.	The introduction does not need to remain silent about the literal existence of Santa Claus. Readers who are unfamiliar or uncertain should learn that Santa Claus is not actually a real, currently living person.

The editors at this article are looking for general information about the overall feel for the introduction to the article, rather than help deciding for or against a specific proposal. If it's easier for you to think of it in these terms, then just imagine us all next December, when someone wants to add either "Santa is real" or "Santa is not real" content to the first paragraph, and we're trying to convince them that the community really thinks their changes aren't a good approach, except that we've got no evidence to back up what we claim you think. So, please make our December happier by telling us what you think now. :-)

Note that the outcome of this discussion does not need to result in any drastic or ham-fisted change, like adding "Santa isn't real, he doesn't have flying reindeer, and he's not bringing you any presents!" to the article. Instead, it could result in no change (we've identified the general direction, and we're satisfied with what we've got for now). However, it could also result in some smaller changes. For example, if editors decide that the introduction should provide direct information about Santa Claus' non-existence, then we could (for example) add information about why parents maintain this tradition, or the age at which children stop believing in Santa Claus (which is usually around age 8, for anyone who's curious). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• No - The article should be clear that Santa doesn't exist. The fact that he doesn't is important to the article and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. --MrClog (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes I find the present lead very well worded and respectful of those who long before they are 8 will be surfing the web, and Wikipedia. It mentions that Santa is "legendary", which is a clear enough word, used in other, well-respected encyclopedias, which maintain a neutral and not secularist point of view. I don't think we should play parent and tell children that Santa doesn't really exist. The truth is that legends exist for good reasons, and they have their place in the life of children. Rather than a choice of "agnostic" or "not exist" I would say that by leaving it at "legendary" we preserve the values in the legend; we are being precise and respectful of the whole truth in the matter. Jzsj (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Jzsj, Given that the word 'legendary' is already included, which immediately makes it clear he is not a real person, I wonder if you meant to say 'No'.MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • If one reads the whole intro to this debate, those who vote "No" are authorizing an editor to make more explicit that Santa does not exist. Note this also in the "No" responses. Jzsj (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I also like the "legendary" language. I think it is justifiable as a factual statement (i.e., there actually is a legend), and I hope that we'll keep that term, even if people decide to make other changes in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• No It should be clear that he is a folklore character, just like Moses and Daniel. And I am not certain why an 8-year-old would believe in Santa Claus anyway. My parents were kind enough to explain to me when I was 6 that "Santa" is just another name for Saint Nicholas, the patron saint of my hometown. And that he has been dead for 16 centuries.Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• No, of course not. As I argued above, to be "agnostic" on a topic where reliable sources are in clear agreement would make a mockery of WP:NPOV and WP:V. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's unfortunate that the "Yes" option was worded in what I see as a prejudicial way. Agnosticism is a philosophical system, and not the best way to describe omission of information for a good reason. I am not an agnostic, but I don't like the "No" option. Jzsj (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• No for the reasons stated by other editors above, although I would add that I think that "legendary" is fine as a description, as legends are generally understood to be less than real. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• No, I am firmly in agreement with the above editors. While I understand the sentiment behind wanting the article to remain agnostic, doing so would be entirely antithetical to the goals of Wikipedia. Plus, if we were worried about what an eight-year-old might accidentally discover while browsing Wikipedia, this would probably be the least of our concerns. --Drevolt (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes dont tell kids that santa doesnt exist. This will open a can o' worms where all articles relating to mythology can be edited so that eg. Muhammad doesnt exist, Jesus doesnt exist, the Buddha doesnt exist, Alexander the Great and his man eating demon horse didnt exist, unicorns don't exist etc. I would advocate for making it extremely subtle if included. 175.36.91.0 (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC) sock of Unicornblood2018 (talk · contribs) SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• No - no-brainer afaiac. This is an encyclopedia, presenting facts as they are, not as a sub-set of children in a few parts of the world (perhaps) wish they were. --bonadea contributions talk 08:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• No, article must be clear.--Never Forget 2701 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes I like the lede now, though I would take out the link to "legend" and just say "a figure in Western culture" because I believe in using as few adjectives as possible to help build a NPOV. "Figure in Western culture" describe Santa Claus accurately. Whether he is real is not significant or debatable enough to mention in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloilo Wanderer (talk • contribs) 08:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Question for WhatamIdoing: How would you classify the current state of the intro in terms of "agnostic" vs. "clear that Santa Claus does not exist". Does describing him as a "legendary figure" in the first sentence make it clear that he doesn't exist? Colin M (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• No - but be gentle about it. The current wording which describes him as "legendary" is OK. Having a sentence explicitly claiming his non-existence or anything of the sort would be distasteful and wouldn't contribute to the article. There are some people who consider unacceptable any attempt to deceive children by telling them about Santa Claus of the Tooth Fairy or whatever, and go out of their way to make their nonexistence clear, but I hope the editors of Wikipedia don't subscribe to the same views. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• No It's hard to think that this merits a RFC. But we don't need to state in a stand-alone sentence that "Santa is not real". The present wording "a legendary figure ... who is said to bring gifts" makes the point clearly and encyclopedically, and is perfectly good as it stands. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If you read the whole intro and previous "No" responses then I believe you want to vote "Yes". Jzsj (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's correct, but I do agree with you that the question is poorly-stated and that the word 'agnostic' does not help at all. It would be better to ask "Is the existing 'legendary figure' wording acceptable?" My answer to that would be 'yes'. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Jzsj (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Jzsj and MichaelMaggs, the question is meant to cover more than just the words in the first sentence. For example, we have sources saying that most children stop believing in Santa Claus by age 8. Would you object to including that in the lead? (The "agnostic" wording comes from an editor who opposed the addition of anything that might lead to children discovering that Santa isn't real. It is a bit of a metaphor.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • WhatamIdoing, I wouldn't favour that, because the date at which children stop believing is not a sufficiently important attribute of the character that it merits being included in the lead. It reads like a sentence pushed in just to make a point. To me, 'legendary' is perfectly clear, but for those who worry that the word could imply that he was an important but now-dead person, I'd be equally happy with "fictional" or "In traditional festive legend, Santa Claus is a character..." following the example of Santa Claus's reindeer. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Another option would be "Folkloric character". MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would agree. (And the "metaphorical" use of terminology may have vitiated this whole Rfc: there are 875 Wikipedians who categorize themselves as "agnostic": it has real-life import.)Jzsj (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• No, we do not need to explicitly say that 'Good Nick' isn't real. - If that is the question. 'Legendary figure' adequately covers his status.

• • Whatever next? Will we be stating the obvious that Hamlet isn't real? Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that this would require a Yes vote, even though that seems to turn us into agnostics (which is a philosophical category). I think that the question was worded in a prejudicial way, whether this was intended or not. Jzsj (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Both statement are partially true, but using 'legendary' makes suficiently clear that this is not an actual, real, human persom, there is no need to state it more explicitly which appears to be the underlying question! Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Pincrete, I'm not sure that's necessarily clear.  These articles:  WBGX, John Wren, Trailanga, Alexander Argüelles, Françoise Rosay, Igor Protti, Michael Schenker, and Jan Potocki either use or quote the phrase "legendary figure" to describe actual, real, human people, several of whom are still living. I don't think that we can assume that "legendary figure" means "made-up story".
        I also want to take a moment to say thanks to all the editors who have shared their own views candidly. I know it can be hard, especially when other editors disagree with you. And I welcome all comments: the more, the merrier, and the more certain we can be about getting an accurate understanding of how the whole community feels about this. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I only looked at a couple of these examples, in both cases, the use (after intro statement), was "who became a legendary figure in Italian sport/French cinema etc.". The difference between that use and "is a legendary figure in X culture" in intro is unambiguous IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• No. Given the examples cited by WhatamIdoing, "Legendary" no longer seems quite as acceptable as I thought it was. "Agnostic" wording surely would violate site policy (V, NPOV), so that's out. I would support "fictional" to fully dispel any uncertainty that clings to legendary. Sorry, Virginia. DonFB (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• The lead should mention/acknowledge that Santa is fictional or legendary. -sche (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I note that of about 15 editors responding, only 5 come out clear for the "No" option ("say that Santa Claus is not a real, currently living person"), if left to the two options given. The other 10 would have to settle for more or less "agnostic", not in favor of the "No" option which would make explicit that Santa is not real. Much of the discussion here is over whether expressions like "legendary" or "fictional" make it clear enough that Santa doesn't exist. I am not opposed to these two terms, only to making it explicit, which I think is the clearest interpretation of the "No" option. Jzsj (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  I count at least eleven editors who have unambiguously said "no". —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• With such a loaded question from the start it is hard to find unambiguous answers, if you read what follows the "Nos". You're making all those who disagree with "No" to call themselves agnostics! The Rfc should have read explicit "Not exist" or leave implicit as "legendary" or "fictional". I prefer the "legendary" myself, since the legend that has grown goes back to a real character and has only grown fantastic in the past two centuries. And yet for theists there remain elements of belief in another world, and it matters whether you are "naughty or nice". Jzsj (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not making anyone call themselves anything (and neither is the editor who started the RFC). I'm just pointing out that your "5" number doesn't correctly reflect the responses to the RFC. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the source of confusion has to do with the word "agnostic". In addition to the narrow religious sense, the word "agnostic" also has a more general sense meaning "uncertain or having no position on a given issue". See wikt:agnostic. (By the way, the word "agnostic" here was introduced by a user who believes Santa's nonexistence should not be made clear in the lead—see #Lead above.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I realize that not everyone reads things the same way, but... That red box up there says "No, the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist." It goes on to provide an explanation that says, in part, "Readers...should learn that Santa Claus is not actually a real, currently living person." I do think that we can safely assume that anyone saying "No" actually means "No, the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist" unless we have very clear evidence otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• No: given that this RFC is not about adding "Santa's not real kids" but, in the wording of the RFC, trying to make sure there is a consensus that editors should have the possibility to "add information about why parents maintain this tradition, or the age at which children stop believing in Santa Claus" there should be no necessity for the lede to stay "agnostic". If editors find that relevant information from the body of the article is not represented in the lede then they should be free to add it. The wording of the RFC means that even if you don't think it should be explicitly stated "Santa is not real" or "...is a fictional character" but are open to the addition of information that may imply or convey Santa's non-existence for the purposes of encyclopedic completeness then the answer must be no and given WP:NOTCENSORED I think there is a strong argument that this article should not remain by necessity agnostic for WP policy reasons. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes keep lede agnostic, no need to ruin xmas Atlantic306 (talk)

@Atlantic306: Why not? WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy even if it runs Christmas. Also any kids old enough to check wiki probably knows 🎅 is false. So we are not spoiling anything. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - I don't really see any negatives in keeping it agnostic (are kids not trusting Wikipedia because they think it omitted key knowledge in their youth) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes keep lead agnostic. --PRDM__9 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• YES keep the agnostic lead. It’s not appropriate to shove agendas or make positions outside of the topic or ignoring RS WEIGHT, so seems not really a good thing to mandate solely on a WP rfc that as written would require intro must say Santa does not exist. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The wording of the rfc is the complete opposite of how you characterise it:

Note that the outcome of this discussion does not need to result in any drastic or ham-fisted change, like adding "Santa isn't real, he doesn't have flying reindeer, and he's not bringing you any presents!" to the article. Instead, it could result in no change (we've identified the general direction, and we're satisfied with what we've got for now). However, it could also result in some smaller changes. For example, if editors decide that the introduction should provide direct information about Santa Claus' non-existence, then we could (for example) add information about why parents maintain this tradition, or the age at which children stop believing in Santa Claus

Alduin2000 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Do you really want to get into the deeper spiritual reasons "why parents maintain this tradition" and allow children to believe in a world beyond the visible world? Treating the childlike belief in the unfathomable Santa Claus as pure ignorance would make more sense to those who have decided there can be no being beyond our comprehension. Jzsj (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Present lead is neutral. Borsoka (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• No. Santa Claus is a character, a character with a huge tradition around it and believed to be real by some, but he's still a character, and for me it should be treated as such and made clear in Wikipedia for a more effective and less divided approach on the treatment of topics such as his relation with Christmas or his relation with children. Apolo234 (talk)
• Yes. The current lead is fine as written. I'd like to echo the other comments that the RFC is confusingly-worded, though. Gimubrc (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm adding some highlighting to the table that may help. (I'm not sure that very many little children read Wikipedia articles, but it's truly charming and sweet to see so many editors thinking about them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• I undid your changes in the alternatives. They should appear as they did when all these editors voted on them, confusing statements and all. Anything else would deny the confusion that exists in many editors' responses. It's too late now to try to clarify through highlighting. Jzsj (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• No - RFC bot led me here. However, I don't think it should be omitted for the same reason that we do not omit spoilers from movie articles. Wikipedia articles are meant to convey factual information, not to comfort some parents by omitting information. We shouldn't throw the manual of style out of the window; we wouldn't omit something factual and WP:DUE in other articles...why would we omit it here? Per WP:CENSORED, "I don't want children to know things" is not the way Wikipedia articles should be framed. Ever. - Aoidh (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• No - the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist. Santa is an imaginary person. As we grow up, we don't look for Santa at Christmas. I think it doesn't care of "agnostic". Won96 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  Santa Claus is a man-made character. It's just a traditional belief, but it doesn't mean it's true.--Won96 (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia is not censored to shield kids' feelings from the facts. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• No clearly has a stronger basis in Wikipedia principles and policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per Borsoka. "But you go ahead Henry, you do it your way. You go on back in there and tell them that you rule there is no Santy Claus. Go on. But if you do, remember this: you can count on getting just two votes, your own and that district attorney's out there." - the campaign manager. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• No The relevant content guideline is Wikipedia:Spoiler, which makes clear that we do not protect our readers from the truth. "Agnostic" is a quasi-religious term that should not be applied to Wikipedia content. If reliable sources disagree, then we draw no conclusions in Wikipedia's voice. But there is not a single solitary reliable source that claims that Santa exists. Santa is fiction, myth, folklore, and fable. The attempt to portray him as real is understandable deception by parents that should not be aided or abetted by this Wikipedia article. There can be no ambiguity about this. Santa Claus is fictional and the lead paragraph must make that clear, although not in a hamhanded way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  "Agnostic" has a more general sense, as seen in the dictionary entry (adjective sense 2). A similar example is "schizophrenic": a technical definition, and one used more loosely in everyday conversation—again, per the dictionary. I had no problem understanding the intent, but perhaps we should have accommodated editors who might. And I write this only because it has come up several times in prior discussion here. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• You know that "spoiler warning" template we used to put above plot summaries back in like, 2006? Bring it back and then no. I can't have it? OK then, no, per WP:Notcensored. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - I agree completely with Jzsj above: "I find the present lead very well worded and respectful..." It is neutral. Keep as is. Gerntrash (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• No - It should be clear that Santa is a fantasy figure, just like the tooth fairy. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• No, we need to abide to a real-world point of view where appropriate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Demographics

As there have been several comments that assume young children (i.e., those who still believe in Santa Claus; it's a developmental thing) will read this article, I thought I'd spend a while sorting out whether that's plausible. Bottom line up front: It's not.

The current lead for this article is written at a Reading level that is suitable for university students. Depending upon the model you prefer, it's either undergraduate or graduate levels. For example, the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests' "reading ease" test gives it a score around 45, and a US grade level of 15, which is equivalent to the third year of university.

The median age at which children stop believing that Santa Claus is a real, living person is age 8. That means that they're usually capable of reading material with an FK score around 110 and a US grade level of 2. I seriously doubt whether anyone who believes in Santa Claus is going to be able to read this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• So leave it as "legend" and these university students will know what is meant. Jzsj (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

163.150.160.2 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

SANTA IS NOT REAL

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

Santa is fake Urmum673 (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideau^talk 17:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

Noticed misuse of the word "principal." Change to "principle" in the following line:

Change this: When Ak, Master Woodsman of the World, exposes him to the misery and poverty of children in the outside world, Santa strives to find a way to bring joy into the lives of all children, and eventually invents toys as a principal means.

To this: When Ak, Master Woodsman of the World, exposes him to the misery and poverty of children in the outside world, Santa strives to find a way to bring joy into the lives of all children, and eventually invents toys as a principle means. 148.75.165.228 (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. MegaGoat (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

And I've undone it. In this case 'principal' is the correct word. - MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

...Almost thought I had it, looked it up, guess it was wrong. But thanks for noticing the error. MegaGoat (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

St. Nicholas in Argentina or other South American countries.

I didn't see anything about traditions in Argentina, where I live. Here children put out their shoes on the eve of 5th. January, because the Three Magi visit that night and leave small gifts. The 6th. January is a national holiday. As we celebrate Nativity in the summer, nowadays not so much is made of Santa and his sleigh, especially concerning poorer people. On Christmas Eve it's traditional for neighborhood people to walk around near their Church with candles and maybe chanting religious songs, especially about the Virgin Mary and Jesus, as well as God. Then there is a midnight Mass. Wealthier families have the traditional feast same as in other western countries, although Christmas is mostly called Navidad, or Nativity. I could probably think of other stuff to mention, but I noticed nothing much is mentioned about our latino traditions. I love Wikipedia. Sylvia SylviaEvelyn (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, SylviaEvelyn. When the Argentinian children put their shoes out, is it for Santa Claus, or for the Three Magi? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

WWE 24/7 Championship

Tonight on WWE's Monday Night Raw, Santa Claus won the WWE 24/7 Championship, defating Akira Tozawa for the title before losing it to R-Truth. As other non-wrestling celebrities have won the title (such as Marshmello and Kyle Busch), I was wondering how his brief reign should be listed on this page (I'm thinking just with the template and category). Tom Danson (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's commercial, scripted trivia, of minority interest, and nothing to do with the subject of this article. It doesn't belong at all. HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, doesn't seem relevant. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Whoever the actor was is who would get the listing lolMuur (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Der Weihnachtsmann

The modern Santa Claus (of the canonical Coca-Cola-advertisement-style) is called der Weihnachtsmann in German. This is seen as a completely separate person from Saint Nicholas. Der Weihnachtsmann wears red and white fur and shows up at the end of December; St Nicholas wears the clothes of a medieval Catholic bishop and shows up in early December. Weihnachtsmann redirects to this page, but none of this is explained.

Of course, in English-speaking countries, St Nick and Santa are two names for the same character. But the distinction is preserved in some countries, and perhaps the fact should be at least mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Controversy about deceiving children

Does this sentence contain a mis-typing? Viz: "With no greater good at the heart of this lie than having some fun, some have charged that the deception is more about the parents, their short-term happiness in seeing children excited about Santa Claus, and their nostalgic unwillingness to prolong the age of magical thinking, than it is about the children."

It would seem to make more sense if it were a willingness or urge to prolong, rather than unwilligness as stated. NeilOnWiki (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Why are you trying to ruin magic for children by putting this on an easy google Search? 82.6.53.68 (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored. See also the above discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Imaginary vs. fictional

Shouldn't we use the word fictional not imaginary? This is consistent with other articles like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Elsa (character) etc. which refer to them as "fictional" not "imaginary". Spacemo80 (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to redefine cultural norms or teach people what to think; children don't need Wiki based editorial commentary to protect them. Saint Nicholas was very much a real person and is the character upon whom Saint Nick aka Santa Claus, Santa Klaus is based. Those are nicknames for Nicholas. It is best to leave it neutral and state the obvious - the story of the historical person, Saint Nicholas, has in European Christian culture evolved over the past 15 centuries. It's not necessary to belittle a billion people's religious beliefs just to make a Wiki entry. SanaroG (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's actually what I wanted to write in the first place. I made a compromise with DonFB to use "imaginary" instead of "fictional", but I would gladly change it to "fictional" if everyone is fine with it. Félix An (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "imaginary" is better than "fictional". "Fictional" makes it sound like a character from a work of fiction (which is what Superman, Batman, and the other characters you linked are, but Santa Claus is instead a figure from folklore). —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. I think it's good enough the way it is right now. Félix An (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

2601:248:5400:CB20:51AF:36CC:9D8E:18F0 (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

SANTA IS REAL

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Santa Claus is a mythical character because was not created by the authors

Santa Claus is a character from folklore and legend, not fiction because the authors didn't create it, the fictional character is Mrs. Claus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gugaantony (talk • contribs) 14:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand. That's why I now support using the word "imaginary" rather than "fictional." Félix An (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Should this paragraph be part of the lead section?

"Typically, after the children have fallen asleep, parents play the role of Santa Claus and leave their gifts under the Christmas tree. Tags on gifts for children are sometimes signed by their parents "From Santa Claus" before the gifts are laid beneath the tree."
Félix An (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Fictional" and related info should not be in Santa intro—WP:CENSOR must be weighed against WP:OM and cultural contexts

What I mean by "cultural context" can be seen in analogous situations concerning Muhammad and gender identity. Culturally, Muslims frown on depicting Muhammad through art. The infobox at Muhammad, unlike virtually all other contemporaneous personages, does not contain a depiction of Muhammad. A note regarding this from their talk page is as follows: "This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artist's depictions further down in the article." Similarly, avoidance of exposing Santa's "fictionhood" are common in news media (to avoid spoiling children) and are therefore "the most common" ways to describe Santa worldwide. There are, however, depictions of Muhammad later down the Muhammad article, as well as in the separate article depictions of Muhammad—just as there are "depictions" of Santa's true fictional nature later down in Santa's article.

Similarly, culturally, it is now customary in Western societies to refer to persons using their preferred pronouns and gender, regardless of biological sex. It is even customary (within Wikipedia at least) to avoid reference to birthnames/"deadnames" when the person wasn't notable under that name. Is this censoring? Some would argue so, but others would say it must be viewed through the lens of cultural context and weighed against WP:OM, for example: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Legendary is the suitable alternative here; including the offensive material in the body sections instead of the intro is the suitable alternative here. There is no reason why the cultural offensiveness of Muhammad's depiction in the lede of Muhammad or the birthname/deadname/sex of Zoe Quinn in that article are any different than the cultural offensiveness of certain material prominently featured on Santa.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This RFC last year found consensus that "the lead section should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist." —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I was unaware of its existence. I stand by my position here but now acknowledge that current RFC-derived consensus would be that the lede itself should be clear that Santa does not exist. I still believe "legendary" fulfills that requirement. Just as we use "myth" in contexts such as the intro of Genesis creation narrative despite the general population understanding the definition of myth to be "fictional tale" rather than "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical", we can use legendary even if the general population usually understands it as the "famous; very well known" definition rather than the "based on a legend" meaning.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the wording lead section of the article

1. Should the lead section use the word "legendary", "imaginary", "mythical", or something else?
2. Should the lead section include a paragraph that notes that the role of Santa Claus is fulfilled by parents? Félix An (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Imaginary and Strong Include (see my reasons in the past discussion). Félix An (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Legendary or something similar and Weak exclude - use of 'imaginary' is unnecessary and improper here - the myth of Santa Claus is a lot than just an imaginary being, as he is based upon St Nicholas and other traditions. Further, as many people depict and fulfill the role of Santa, saying Santa is imaginary is just unnecessarily brusque. "Imaginary" is defined as "existing only in the imagination" - Santa exists, yes, in the collective imagination, but also within a shared world culture, literature, movies, art, etc. Santa is not limited to the imagination of individuals. The Easter Bunny article states "is a folkloric figure and symbol of Easter". Calling Santa a legendary/folkloric figure and symbol of Christmas would make certain sense. As for the paragraph on the role being fulfilled by parents, I don't think it's strictly necessary. It's certainly related but it isn't central to the character of Santa; it should certainly be discussed below but I don't find it is needed up top. Just my thoughts. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Can't believe that this argument is still going on. I agree with User:El cid, el campeador that 'imaginary' isn't right. To avoid people reading legendary as "famous", why not start with "In traditional festive legend, the character of Santa Claus is said to bring gifts ...". That tells readers he is a character in a festive legend, and it's quite hard to read that as meaning "real and famous". Also, exclude on the second question; that's only part of his role, and applies in some families only. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  No need to pander to the uninitiated. People should know the meaning of the word legendary, and if they don't, they can look it up. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:29BA:F0EC:297D:2064 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Some people might even know that there's more than one definition of the word legendary. I think MichaelMaggs' suggestion of the "traditional festive legend" does a great job of indicating which of those meanings is meant here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think removing the paragraph mentioned in #2 would go against WP:NOTCENSORED, as it is an important point that should be in the lead section. Félix An (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot)I think legendary is the right word (mythical is alright but a distant second choice for me) and imaginary the wrong word. I think the content about parents should reflect MOS:INTRO in how we summarize the article. The two sentences currently present seems right in terms of balance though I'm not sold on those being the right two sentences to summarize. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Just noting I have no preference between legendary and folkloric as a first choice based on the discussion below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Legendary or something similar 'festive legend' is also fine. 'Imaginary' is inaccurate, since this is a character who is partly based on a real person. Compare for example Ogier the Dane, which our article calls 'a legendary knight', who is another composite of historial figure and myth. I don't feel as strongly about the parent stuff, though I do think we don't need it in the lead section. - MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Legendary as legend also includes miracle stories about saints. "legend, in a wider sense, came to refer to any story that is set in a historical context but that contains supernatural, divine or fantastic elements." Dimadick (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• In traditional festive legend... would be preferable to "legendary" due to the possible ambiguity for maturing readers. Folklore is another possibility, although folkloric is cumbersome. Exclude. If one was wanting to include #2 to show SC isn't real, the phrase "In traditional festive legend, the character of Santa Claus is said to bring gifts..." makes that more than abundantly clear: "festive legend"; "the character of SC"; and, "is said to bring gifts". The other proposed adjectives, "legendary", "mythical" and "folklore", accomplish that goal as well. If there is a different motivation behind #2 (assuming it is necessary at all), it more properly belongs in the body, as previously outlined.Kringle Claus (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Legendary because that's the only word that perfectly describes what Santa Claus is. And obvious exclude. While this RFC is going on, the article should also be restored to its former state before you edited it today. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:29BA:F0EC:297D:2064 (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Imaginary. I suggested this as a compromise a while back, without any strong conviction that it's the best option. Now, having given more thought to the question--and having looked at definitions/descriptions of other terms (shown below)--I'm sticking with it. I'm using Wikipedia as my source for definitions/descriptions of two other main contenders: "legendary" and "mythical".

  Legendary (quoting the lede to the article "Legend"): "A legend is a genre of folklore that consists of a narrative featuring human actions perceived or believed both by teller and listeners to have taken place within human history." The actions of Santa Claus as described in contemporary popular culture are not "perceived or believed" to actually have "taken place within human history". Further, as has been discussed, 'legendary' can mean famous, as opposed to fictional, so we should avoid that connotation.

  Mythical (quoting the lede to the article "Myth"): "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives or stories that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods, or supernatural humans. Stories of everyday human beings, although often of leaders of some type, are usually contained in legends, as opposed to myths." Santa is not considered a god, though he might be thought of as "supernatural". However, I'm not aware of that term being applied to him. Note the second sentence in the quotation: "Stories of everyday human beings...are usually contained in legends". Santa is not an everyday human being.

  To summarize: No human being, even in exaggerated legendary form, does the things attributed to Santa Claus, like visiting every domicile in one night, transported by flying reindeer, with a big sack that miraculously holds gifts for all the world's children. All of these behaviors and traits are imaginary, rather than the stuff of legend or myth. Sure, Santa is derived from St. Nicholas, and the lede makes that clear. But the contemporary Santa and his attributes are imagined. DonFB (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Add: The closing sentence of the lede--about parents--can be dropped. DonFB (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Respond - you depend upon the definitions of 'legendary' and 'mythical' as for why they are not suitable, but you do not cite to any definition for imaginary as for why it -is- suitable. I think the closest page WP has to Imaginary is Object of the mind, which has the definition: "An object of the mind is an object that exists in the imagination, but which, in the real world, can only be represented or modeled. Some such objects are abstractions, literary concepts, or fictional scenarios." That doesn't sound like Santa, does it? Or Imagination: Imagination is the ability to produce and simulate novel objects, peoples and ideas in the mind without any immediate input of the senses.. That certainly does not describe Santa or his origins either - there is significant 'input' on the senses and it's not as if every individual child independently creates him in their mind. Therefore, there is no basis for saying Santa is 'imaginary', and it's hard to imagine 'imaginary' being a compromise in any way - in fact, I think it's more extreme than a word like 'fictional'. 'Legend' may not be a perfect fit but it's off-wiki definition is "a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated." Meanwhile, 'myth' is defined as "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." With mythical being defined as 'occurring in or characteristic of myths or folk tales.' I think either one fits Santa considerably more than 'imaginary.' Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• folklore (Summoned by bot) – "In Western Christian folkloric tradition, the character Santa Claus, also known as...". A "legend" is "a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated; 'the legend of King Arthur' ". Santa Claus is not a legend; he is not regarded as "historical" by adults; if one is talking about Saint Nick, he is historical; when talking about the guy flying around in a sleigh, nobody regards him as historical. Children don't regard the latter as "historical" either, rather, he is real, and in the present. So, "legend" doesn't fit either for adults, or children. "Folklore" works better here. Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've suggested "In traditional festive legend..." above, but would also be happy with "In Western folkloric tradition, the character of Santa Claus...". I would not want to include "Christian", though, as SC is definitely not part of any current Christian tradition. His precursor St Nicholas was part of such a tradition, but the English Father Christmas was certainly not. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  MichaelMaggs makes an interesting point. It's isn't the *tradition* that is Christian exactly, but the majority religion in the Western countries or regions that follow the tradition. But not even all of them; Spain, for example, and some other countries follow the Three Wise Men instead. Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• folklore: I agree with Mathglot here. Santa Claus is not "legendary" nor is he part of a legend. He is a myth but he's not quite "mythical". He is "imaginary" in the sense all fictional characters are imaginary, but that's a very broad term that doesn't really convey his role here. But he definitely is part of a "folkloric tradition", so let's go with that. Loki (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Care to explain how he's not legendary? 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:A4E9:102B:9361:5A57 (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Also, what about the second question? Do you think that the paragraph about parents playing the role of Santa Claus should stay in the lead section, Mathglot and Loki? Félix An (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Folklore or Legendary: The way Santa Claus is talked about and 'interacted with' in culture exactly matches folklore or legends, though I lean toward folklore. Fictional characters are disclosed as such to children (compare with Disney Princesses), and imaginary implies a kind of delusion, but most adults who 'celebrate' Santa do not believe he literally exists, and are not deluded. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  There may be deluded kids reading the article, and Wikipedia is supposed to give facts and truth to the reader, whether old or young. Félix An (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  When I said 'delusion' I meant it in the sense of being somewhat unreasonable, so small kids who believe in Santa wouldn't be included as that. I was drawing a distinction between the ways various characters are used in culture, and I think that fiction is way different from legend or folklore, and is not a catch-all for 'not literally true.' And once something gets to be used on a cultural level, it is too large to be 'imaginary' which to me sounds personal or tenuous. I don't think Lady Liberty or Romulus and Remus are 'fiction' either, in that sense. AnandaBliss (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• In the Western folkloric story or According to the modern festive legend or anything along those lines is better, I think, than imaginary or mythical. (Between imaginary and mythical, I prefer mythical.) I also like the way these phrases label the story rather than the character. I think this might communicate the same basic information while saving us a great deal of hassle over "But St Nick was real, so Santa's not purely imaginary!"
  On the second question, I have no strong opinion about whether to include it, but it we're going to, then it needs to stop being so modern-US-centric. In some times and places, Santa (i.e., a neighbor or relative dressed in a costume) delivers your present in person or leaves it at the door. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Legendary. He is neither imaginary nor mythical (a version of imaginary). He is based on a saint/legend. The only acceptable alternative would be folklore, which of course is a noun, so the sentence would need rewriting. "Folkloric" is not a proper word. But "legendary" fits to a tee, so no need to change anything. Jenny Jankel (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Jenny Jankel, folkloric is a word: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/folkloric Félix An (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Look it up in a real dictionary. Seems somes dictionaries consider it a real word while others don't. Meh. Jenny Jankel (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Mythical and Exclude. "Mythical" is specifically applied, in WP and elsewhere, to all kinds of people and things as being not proven to exist, including ones that may be believed to exist by some, such as Biblical figures and events. "Legendary" is ambiguous, as legends can be created for real things; it's often used for sports figures to promote their impact, such as "the legendary Willie Mays", for example. "Imagined" describes a mental process, which won't apply to many readers, so is not inherent to the subject; it also sounds somewhat pejorative, perhaps implying something wrong in such people's thinking. For "parents are Santa Clause", that is only true for some households, and AFAIK a small minority of them. I see no reason to insist it goes in the lede; it would have to be understood by adding some explanatory context, which would make it wordy and distracting for the lede. Put it later in the article. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Folklore and Exclude Considering the story of Santa Clause is a folktale, the other options don't seem as fitting. I think the lead should be more historical-based and less about parents involvement. Comatmebro (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Legendary and/or folkloric and exclude (in lede). 1) The subject is based/steeped in reality so is a historicaMythical l figure although the fable has changed throughout the years (1600ish or so of them.) Mythical would imply something un/pre-historical. Imaginary is something wholly fictional/created in the mind (only in the imagination) which is almost the level where "modern" Claus exists. 2) Parents are not the only role-players for modern–Clause, it can be anyone from any relative or acquaintance, co–workers, charity or otherwise complete strangers.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Maybe it should be clearer that the red-suited figure in the floppy cap with reindeer and gifts originated in the United States in the 19th century, and spread around? See for example Saint Nicholas and the Origin of Santa Claus. Maybe something like,

Santa Claus, also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Kris Kringle, or simply Santa, is an imaginary a character originating in the United States in the early 19th century who is said to bring gifts to the homes of well-behaved children on the night of Christmas Eve (24 December) or during the early morning hours of Christmas Day (25 December). The modern character of Santa Claus was loosely based on traditions surrounding the historical Saint Nicholas...

There is enough concern about "American Santa" pushing out other traditions, that there is pushback in some countries. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that both of those points (that it's essentially a 200-year-old US story, plus the cultural imperialism problem) should be included somehow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How about this, a mix of everything:

Santa Claus, also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Kris Kringle, or simply Santa, is a imaginary character originating in festive legends and folklore in Western culture. This legendary character is said to bring gifts to the homes of well-behaved children on the night of Christmas Eve (24 December) or during the early morning hours of Christmas Day (25 December)

Félix An (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The RFC seems to disagree with your suggestion of "a imaginary character". Overall, I like Mathglot's version better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Revisited article to see what the lede currently says, and looked at the cited Washington Post item, which serves as a footnote to "legendary" and discovered that the WaPo article does not use the word "legendary" at all, but does use the word "imaginary" three times and "imagination" twice. Consensus on an adjective still seems to be up for grabs, but this footnote sure does not support "legendary", but does support "imaginary". DonFB (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point. This responses to this RFC have been low on sources. Is one of these terms ("imaginary", "legendary", "folklore", etc.) more common than the others in reliable sources? —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Added Encyclopedia Britannica source referring to Santa as legendary. https://www.history.com/topics/christmas/santa-claus and https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/12/131219-santa-claus-origin-history-christmas-facts-st-nicholas/ refer to the legend of Santa Claus. I don't want to add 3 sources to a single word, but these should be sufficient. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Since many people really want to stick with "legendary," I added a footnote to clarify to readers the correct interpretation of that word in this context. Félix An (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

We all understand that you are concerned that readers won't understand the world 'legendary', but the RFC has not borne that out. We don't need a footnote explaining wording choice. - MrOllie (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd earlier removed the pointless footnote against the word 'legendary' but was reverted. All the remaining one does, apart from making the text more difficult to read, is to serve as a big notice to the reader announcing "Ooh, look everybody! Wikipedia editors have had a big argument about this!" MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC expired?

Why has the RFC template just been removed with the comment that the RFC has "expired"? I thought we've all been waiting for someone to close it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

In cases like this one where consensus is obvious, RFCs may not be formally closed unless someone asks for it (there's a good explanation at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure) - MrOllie (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

When an RFC has been advertised for 30 days, the bot assumes that the discussion has probably gone on long enough, and that we've forgotten to remove the template. If you want a formal closing statement, then removing the template is usually the first step. It signals that no additional comments are thought necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like more feedback. I think there will be many people that think differently. I would like to wait until Christmas is almost here, which is when this article gets popular. Félix An (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not really how RFCs work. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:7DB5:9F6F:E854:EAD0 (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Felix, you started this RfD in July and not December - that was your decision. There was some variation in responses, but almost no other editors agreed with your arguments. An RfD cannot go on indefinitely, and gamesmanship will get you nowhere. I can't figure out why you are so determined to have Santa labelled as 'imaginary', but please don't let your determination get in the way of objective and productive editing. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

Hello I want to edit the worse because I want to put how Santa loves my daughter Rachel and show her that because that is her wish so would you be a doll and let me edit it please? Emily.Baire.08.26 (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is an encyclopedia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

"🧑‍🎄" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 🧑‍🎄. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 3#🧑‍🎄 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Mr. Claus 2A02:C7F:D603:D800:31C2:569A:698F:A7B8 (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi anon, would you like Mr. Claus to redirect to this article? I have done that for you just now. Félix An (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

The last paragraph before the section ‘Criticism’ has a full-stop instead of a comma next to the word ‘geography’. 71.178.41.80 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020

Second to last paragraph of Letter writing to Santa contains two sentences that should have a period and space between them.

Should be "precisely at the Arctic circle. His address is: Santa Claus" instead of "precisely at the Arctic circleHis address is: Santa Claus" Matrew (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing this out. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)