Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

About Santa Claus

NO
In this RfC, there is consensus that the lead section should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist. Editors cite the WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV, and WP:V policies in support of the majority opinion.

Although the RfC statement does not ask whether any specific language would be appropriate, some editors commented on the terms legendary and fictional:

  • Legendary: Most editors who expressed an opinion on the term legendary believe it is appropriate in the lead section, regardless of whether they !voted "yes" or "no" on the main question. There is disagreement on whether legendary is sufficient to indicate that Santa Claus does not exist. Some editors argued that the term is ambiguous, because it can mean a revered figure who is not necessarily associated with a legend. Other editors thought that legendary clearly refers to a mythical figure in the context of this article.
  • Fictional: Editors who !voted "no" on the main question and believed that legendary is an insufficient description of Santa Claus's mythical nature suggest fictional as a term that is less ambiguous than legendary.

Further discussion may be necessary to determine the exact wording that should be used to reflect the consensus in this RfC. The final wording should not take into account the minority viewpoint that Santa Claus's mythical nature should be hidden from unaware readers, as this position is not supported by our policies. — Newslinger talk 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
  • 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)
@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)
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)
  • 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)

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)

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. aboideautalk 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)

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

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)

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[1] 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).[1] 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.[2] 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[3] 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)

References

  1. ^ St. Nicholas Center (2020). "Saint Nicholas and the Origin of Santa Claus". Retrieved 2020-07-17.
  2. ^ St. Nicholas Center (2020). "Rescuing St. Nicholas from Santa Claus!". Retrieved 2020-07-17.
  3. ^ Kelly, Marguerite (2011-03-28). "The benefits of playing make-believe with kids". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2020-07-15.

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)
More