Template:Did you know nominations/Clark (mascot)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Clark (mascot)

 * ... that Chicago Cubs mascot Clark is a descendant of the Cubs' 1916 mascot Joa?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Women's Premiership 8th of 10 QPQs
 * Comment: This should probably be an April fools hook.

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 23:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg The hook sentence Geneologists have determined that Clark is descended from Joa, the franchise's original live Bears mascot in 1916 is profoundly odd to say the least. I've removed that sentence. Genealogists didn't determine that, the team said it themselves, presumable as a joke, judging by the context in the news article. --Jakob (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have partially restored the content in a more sensible way.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Okay. BTW I already checked length, newness, etc. in the initial review. --Jakob (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg On April Fools' Day, as on any other day, the hook must be true. It is absolutely not true that a mascot character, whether in the form of a guy in a bear suit or a cartoon logo, is a descendant of a live bear. I'm shocked that the article had that phony genealogist garbage, so I'm glad that's gone. The hook can say that the team created a biography claiming the ancestry, or a new hook can be supplied, but the original one is unacceptable. In any case, I see no April Fools' potential here. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  19:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought of this at first, but descendant mentions a figurative ancestor or source, which is presumably the use intended here. --Jakob (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A figurative usage is not directly supported by the source, which refers to an actual lineage claimed by the team: "Clark's great-grandfather Joa". I think the intended use was clear when the article claimed that genealogists had determined the relationship. Even if someone overrules me and decides the hook is okay, I still see nothing April Foolsy about it. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  21:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there some rule on what types of jokes are April Foolsish. This is a joke about figurative and literal uses of the word and the counterintuitive nature of the veracity of the claim?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I neither withdrew the hook or its April Fools nomination. So I unstruck the hooks, which I still deem nominated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (ALT1)... that according to the Chicago Cubs, their new mascot Clark is a descendant of their 1916 mascot Joa?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The "rule" on the types of jokes, from April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know is: "April Fools Did You Know items should present some trivia that can be presented in a manner that is possibly unbelievable to the reader." I don't think an apparent claim of a mascot being descended from an earlier mascot is unbelievable, so the hook is not a joke; only if a reader gets to the article would they realize they've been misled, and not really amusingly. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If that be the case, it is a matter of making it clear that the claim is that a human in a costume is claimed to be a descendant of an animal. It is just a matter of wording the hook.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * (ALT2) ... that some Chicago Cubs employees are descendants of the Chicago Cubs' 1916 live bear mascot? --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (ALT3) ... that some Chicago Cubs employees are descendants of a live bear? --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , I thought you might have responded by now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Well, I hadn't responded because my opinion hadn't changed, and I was hoping others would provide their opinions. But since you asked.... I really don't like ALTs2 and 3. ALT1 is fine, but I still don't think it's April Foolsworthy. As for the "rule" I listed, I put it in quotes for a reason – although I certainly feel that the best AFD hooks appear to be unbelievable by themselves, there's always IAR, so I suppose an ordinary-looking hook could be used if it ultimately ends up in the reader being misled when they see the article. So, even though I personally would only accept ALT1 and not for AFD, I won't object if other users feel otherwise.  M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  01:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are making no sense if you are trying to convince me that it is believable that the Cubs hire people descended from live bears, which is what I believe you are saying if you don't feel ALT2 and ALT3 are unbelievable. How could you possibly consider it believable?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not even the tiniest bit close to what I was saying. I thought I had made it clear that I would only consider ALT1. I was attempting to phrase things diplomatically (even providing an IAR excuse that I really don't believe in, as an allowance for ALT1), but I guess I'll have to be more explicit: I hate ALT2 and ALT3 and if it was up to me, I would never allow them on the Main Page. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  07:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But they all seem to clearly conform to what AFD hooks are all about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , where are you on this now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @ I recognize the April Fool's appeal of ALTS 2 and 3, which make sense assuming that the figurative use of "descendant" is meant here. However, ALT 1 is the only one that is unambiguously true regardless of whether descendant is meant to be figurative or literal (but ALT 1 is not so April Fools-like, so if we go with that, I'd recommend using it as a regular hook instead of an April Fools day one). My review on the article content still stands. Oh and, here's an ALT 4: ... that the Chicago Cubs claim that some of their employees are descended from a live bear? --Jakob (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think ALT1 has too much detail. I'd go with ALT4 so the page can get the benefit of viewership under the AFD hoopla.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT4 is much more acceptable than 2 and 3, which push the limits of a supposed figurative meaning too far. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  20:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Let's go with ALT4, but link Chicago Cubs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'm not entirely sure why this was promoted without ALT4 being formally reviewed; also, this was intended to be an April Fools hook. (DYK check says the article is a stub, so it certainly should not have been approved with that still true.) I have to say, however, that I think ALT4 isn't acceptable: the hook says "some of their employees" as if there are a number of them: in fact, the article says nothing about the (presumed) person or persons inside the Clark suit, so this could be one person who might be a volunteer and not an employee at all. If you mean Clark himself is an employee, then singular is absolutely required. I think ALT1 could work as an everyday hook. Maybe something additional could be gleaned from this Cubs page on Clark? Note: I've struck the original hook and ALT2 and ALT3 as having the problems noted by Mandarax, which I agree mean they shouldn't be used. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You complain that he may be singular and may be a volunteer. Is this correct:
 * ALT 5: ... that the Chicago Cubs claim that one of their representatives is descended from a live bear?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * and The clock is getting short on this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT 5 is better than ALT 4. --Jakob (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: to avoid confusion, I'm striking ALT4, since I found it was problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)