Talk:The Frosties Kid/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. 
Add Topics / Sections which are redundant/ephemeral See WP:ARCHIVE

Contents

CGI Frosties Kid

  • "It is also believed that the Frosties Kid is a CGI (See [1])".

Mmmmmm... apart from doubtful grammar - who actually really believes that the child is figment of the art departments imagination? Tony the Tiger - we can all be sure about, but as for the Frosties Kid? Its just some bizarre hoax dreamed up by somebody when he was bored. I think that any reference to CGI needs some serious thought about how we Phrase any sentence with the claim. Mike33 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

very true. Jum4 19:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

CGI

Have you seen the evidence? Also the grammer is correct "The... Frosties Kid is a Computer Generated Image (or imagery)" CGI.--Science Lord 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


I can believe he is a CGI because that is what the evidence supports. Plus it isn't thought by many he is living in South Africa most people think he is dead.--Ford Prefect 2 21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

yes you can believe it, noone said you couldn't! just keep it on the discussion page! 22:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Closure

The article is fine as it is, I see no need to dispute the factual validity of the sources or material seeing as everything checks out - I have done the legwork and research myself. Also I have been a close observer of this "phenomenon". Thus the ammendments put in place have clarified the overall article which is about the internet/ad phenomenon of this Frosties Kid. I have also corrected some mistakes that were overlooked. Anyone with a problem take it up with me on my talk page before making further changes, unless there is further information uncovered i.e. the Kid's real name which is still unknown at this time. Piecraft 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree Piecraft, the article seems fine to me too. Everything in the article at present is relevant. Bababoum 21:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either of you understand how Wikipedia works, then. I am removing the information again and will continue to do so until the text follows Wikipedia POV/OR guidelines. More specifically: 1. The introductory paragraph makes a lot of claims about the Frosties Kid being an internet phenomenon. If that's so, it ought to be easy enough to find sources for this info. Get them. You can't just say "a lot of blogs are talking about it". This is not encyclopedic. 2. Since the article is about the Frosties Kid and not a specific commercial, why is it necessary to devote four paragraphs to a blow-by-blow report of everyone that happens in a commercial? 3. Wikipedia cannot treat rumors as encyclopedic fact. If you want to talk about potentially libelous rumors about a living person - even if it is to debunk those rumors - you have to do it with properly cited sources. Period. 4. What is the point of reciting the lyrics of the commercial's jingle? Not only is it a possible copyright violation, it's just plain dumb. wikipediatrix 02:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Do not brand or drastically manipulate an article to suit YOUR POV wikipediatrix, just because you may be new here does not give you the power to overrule an article which has been given the attention to detail by those who particularly understand or know more about the subject matter than yourself. It's bad editors such as yourself who make this encyclopedia a terrible place, learn to research or look into the subject before branding it as non-factual or unsourced. This article is based on a real internet phenomenon which in turn is based on the controversy and speculative hype around the Frosties ad which has been of current interest in and around the UK. Wikipedia is not pen and paper, and therefore is not a regular encyclopedia, it strives to retain information on all forms of cultural phenomenons, including those present on the internet and television. The so called "claims" from the introduction paraprgahe are entirely YOUR opinion, these claims are substantiated by the fact that they are backed up by the facts retaining to the ad. Being an American you have no knowledge or interest it seems in understanding those facts. Being an American myself but LIVING in the UK I know for a FACT that those purported claims are true to nature. I agree that it is not required for there to be "four paragraphs to a blow-by-blow report of everyone that happens in a commercial" seeing as that is not necessary and takes away from the essence of the article at hand, which is to document and inform the reader about the phenomenon and impact this ad has had on the community of the Net as well as teleivision on a whole in the UK and elsewhere globally (on the Net). As for your third criticism this is NOT a rumor, this is an ACTUAL ad which has sparked up considerable interest from both British media as is supported by the links to BBC Radio 1 and the OFFICIAL STATEMENT released by Kellogs relating to the internet blog/forum claims that the Frosties Kid was killed/committed suicide etc... There is NOT rumour as to the factual content of this ad existing and causing annoyance amongst many users of the Net and viewers of TV - similar in the same respect as the Crazy Frog phenomenon which hit the UK as well a couple of months back. As for the lyrics of the commercial those are of interest to the character of the Frosties Kid and examplify the Frosties Kid's irritating entity of which this entire article is relating and talking about. There is NO copyright violation, get your facts straight and stop being a Wikinazi. Take it easy, this might be a seirous article but it regards a very non-serious subject. Piecraft 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I will not respond to personal attacks. Without proper sources for your claims, the information cannot remain in the article. wikipediatrix 03:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
wikipediatrix I think you're truly blind to the facts as they stand. 1) I did not attack you personaly, nor did I insult it, I simply stated that you should not manipulate nor change an article to suit YOUR terms or POV which is what you're doing without researching or knowing the facts at hand being an American you wouldn't know much about this phenomenon seeing as it is a big deal here in the UK/Ireland. And 2)There are enough verifiable sources, including an open official statament by Kellogs that was read out on the Scott Mills Show on BBC Radio 1, not sure if you're familiar with that show but it is rather well known and even has its own article on Wikipedia. The information WILL remain as long as I have someting to say about. Your ingorance to the subject, and by ignorance I mean the fact that you are not knowledgeable to have the right to change this article accordingly, proves that you are unsuitable to edit this article. Thank you. Piecraft 11:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Good lord Wikipediatix, get your head out of your ass and chill. First of all I fell allot of your criticism is uncalled for, secondly everything you had demanded citations for ARE ALREADY THERE!!

Adverts details can be found on http://www.visit4info.com/
Kellogg’s statement was read on live on air
There is a link where you can listen to an excerpt.

Most of your criticism is basically POV in itself. I do agree there is the need to keep the article concise and relevant, but that does not give you the authority to rant and rave like a loon swinging a handbag. Let's be honest most articles on Wikipedia are over embellished and long winded. Now I will be adult about this and not just undo your reverts but will let others discuss and hopefully we can agree on a compromise. Jeekers now I'm off to do some real work! --Jum4 08:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Wikipediatrix, I believe your services are needed for a simlilar article! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheilas%27_Wheels --Jum4 08:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Crediting NME

Why is it thought that the thread on the NME boards is the first occasion of the rumour hitting the internet? It appeared on football365 a couple of weeks beforehand.

NME quoted from F365 - F365 started it, NME just copied us a few days later.

I'm not questioning that, but do you have any proof of this? Bababoum 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We are looking for the original thread as we speak

The Guardian Sat June 24th

Can't find a reference of this online, anybody got this it their recycling box!!

David Whitehouse writes in the Guardian
Pity the poor Kellogg's marketing department... all they wanted to do was make an advert in which a chirpy young scamp would skip his way through the streets of a suburban town attracting other children like a Pied Piper with a silly ditty about his breakfast. So, they set out to hire an angelic young choirboy with a voice so beautiful it could shatter the beaks of songbirds. Then disaster struck. It appears that, on the way to the shoot, this choirboy's balls dropped with quite monstrous results. They wanted Aled Jones, but they got Mick Jones. And what we're left with is a jingle being sung by a boy at the exact moment his voice breaks, in a tone so monotonous it appears to be operating at a frequency which toys with people's bowels. It is, quite simply, the worst soundtrack to an advertisement ever. His voice is so oppressively dull that prolonged listening is like having every orifice systematically packed full of wet bread by a politician with no facial features.
--80.169.25.68 09:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Phenonomen and Intrigue

Phenonomen and Intrigue are very useful words to discribe our friend The Frosties Kid. Wikipedia it has been pointed out is not a pen and paper Encyclopedia. It is a living, evolving project - just see the reports of the Mumbai Bombings and watch how subjects evolve.

Like the story of Little Mikey, living people do become the target of fantastical gossip and rumour. You can sit on a bus and hear stories about The Frosties Kid. Its a living intrigue and has fascinated people for weeks. As for speculation about where it first started I think F365 (but WP:EN) would invalidate most links there.

I would strongly disagree with any editors wish to remove the article; I think that the article has a place and a purpose.

As per screen grabs from a video, its an accepted rule that a few screen grabs of a television programme does not breach copyright.

As a final thought I have requested the British Advertising Standard Agency to arbitrate on the matter of whether Kelloggs silence on the matter breaches the rules of advertising. Lets see if the judgment gives us some further details.

Rumours

Why aren't any of the rumours about the frosties kid included in the article? eg - He drowned himself in a bowl of frosties. Surely the rumours have to be mentioned.


JUST A SMALL check of the articles history would show that rumours have been removed and added and removed.

"drowned himself in a bowl of frosties." now that is too kewl 4 skool

Rumours are rumours. I suppose eventually the article may be a living Urban legend - but it can't become that just because one or two people think that now and give their opinions by its presence on Wikipedia

Some editors have used the word Phenonomen and Intrigue rumours are just that. But they have a very short life.

Wikipedia does discuss current affairs. I think that although a merited and useful article will need to be merged with an Urban Legend or Conspiracy article.

Personally, I think it was just a couple of lads to hot in the sun who got a lil jealous about a good looking kid waking up happy with his friend Tony the Tiger. Mike33 01:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


kellogg's response

emailed them last week asking for specifics about the advert which I presumed they are legally obliged to give out, but all I got was this formatted reply.

Re: 0685769A Inbox
consumercare.uk@kellogg.com to me
More options 7:13 pm (0 minutes ago)
Mr xxxxx 17 July 2006
Dear Mr xxxxx
Thank you for your email
The current Frosties advertisement has been well received by the vast majority of our customers and initial figures show
that it is attracting greater interest in the brand. We would also like to take this opportunity to confirm that the lead
boy within the advertisement is well and continues to live in his native South Africa.
Kind Regards
Lindy Middlemore
This is WP:OR and cannot be used in a Wikipedia article. wikipediatrix 11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we already know that. See the Kellogs Statement higher up this page. Bababoum 12:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Then what's the point of posting this email here? This isn't a chat room or a message board. wikipediatrix 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well it there are a couple of extra words when compared with the Statement read out on radio1, suppose it also verifies the Kellogs statement which some believed was made up by the beeb. --Jum4 14:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only intelligent lifeform here? Because I can clearly see why Jum4 posted the email, it was to prove the validity that this ad exists and the understanding that the questionable element of the "lead boy's" rumoured death which has become the centre of the controversy which STILL REMAINS essential to the article relating to THE FROSTIES KID. If you are too slow or uncapable of realising this I would suggest moving to another article that suits your purpose and knowledge a little more. wikipediatrix from the other article you have "edited" and "worked on" as well as your opinionated edits. It's good to be BOLD when editing but you need to also COMPROMISE and DISCUSS with others before making DRASTIC decisions to an article without any consent from any side. Now carry on... Piecraft 23:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ford Prefect 2 /User:Science Lord Same editor?

This is not a personal attack on any other editor.

Recently there has been a number of mischevious (though not malevolent) deletions of other editors text by User:Ford Prefect 2, User:Science Lord and User:82.37.82.115. A quick glance at User:82.37.82.115 contributions page shows that he has edited both of the other editors User pages without any apparant deletions, as long ago as May 2006.

The deletions aren't particulary important (mainly to do with CGI, which "both" editors contributed to.) The worst one was substituting User:Wikipedatrix name with mine. :-s

Would any other the above mentioned editors, care to confirm if they are all one and the same? And when deleting paragraphs give clear explainations of the reason behind it. Mike33 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see if the IP address 82.37.82.115 turns out to be another editor as well. And whether mischievous or malevolent, it's still vandalism and uncalled for. wikipediatrix 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we are not one in the same.

Why have my previous statements to clear this mess up been deleted? I would classify that as vandalism.

You've really pissed me off now there is no point of deleting what I have stated for it is explaining my actions which is what you asked for. I never signed as "Wikipediatrix". I am going to delete this discussion page because it is out of control and making no sense. It is Not vandalism to withdraw what you say Wikipediatrix. Now leave me out of this because I have done nothing wrong. And in answer to your question about me and Science Lord's "relation" there is none we just coincidentally share the same views--Ford Prefect 2 21:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude. You're not even talking to the right person. Mike33 raised the Science Lord question, not me. wikipediatrix 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Look guys you are not helping yourself by keep on re-editing the same paragraphs - it is clearly the same hand at work just see [Talk History] over the last few hours - who do you think you are trying to fool? I give you the benefit of the doubt. But please no threats of deleting whole sections - that is PURE DESTRUCTION. Mike33 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is now abosolutely pathetic, this discussion is going no where as nothing new is being added, the new information being added is just going in a loop, I propose we return to the matter at hand.--Science Lord 14:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I least I'm giving a threat unlike Wikipediatrix who deleted the whole Frosties kid without saying so. I have reason to delete this section of the discussion because it has nothing to do with the Frosties Kid article and It is completely wrong. I AM NOT SCIENCE LORD. So there are you happy now? or do I have to write an article on why I am not Science Lord.--Ford Prefect 2 14:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, ok, - but very close editing and substituting one name for another after an edit looks very suspicious. However, benefit of the doubt is given. Anyway, its not a crime on Wiki to sock, just annoying when you want to know which editor wrote what (see history passim). As for Wikipediatrix, think its all explained above [Problems Topic posted by Wikipediatrix]. The article has been almost impossible to source and has been constantly vandalised since it sprang up a fortnight ago (a similar article was on the quick afd list after a few weeks in mid-june). The frosties kid is listed on one of the popular Urban Legend sites, but whether or not that makes it Notable is for editors to debate. I don't really care if he is CGI, died with a dream to star in a commercial, whether he's called Joe Cheetham or Rik Roem, got beaten to death by tiger hating youths or drowned himself in his own bowl of frosties, we need to know that the runours are Notable, that WIKI is not seeing as purpetuating false rumours and hopefully giving correct details about who the frosties kid is. Is it possible? - personally I doubt it. But I wait in hope....... Your friend, They're gonna taste great Mike33 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As Dead As A Dodo / Has Died Like Frosties Kid

Mmmmmmm how new idioms arise. Somebody actually used the phrase in an email to a live blog (Guardian Unlimited > Sport > Cricket > OverbyOver Sat July 15)

"43rd over: Pakistan 243-5 (Yousuf 112, Razzaq 0) Imran Frings has persuaded me to print this fascinating message with sheer flattery and desperation: 'This is Imran, mailing from a friends account as mine appears to have died like Frosties Kid. My wife reads your commentary every game, and I was wondering if you could pass on a message for me? Rachel, I know about you and that teacher from Plymouth. Its over, I want a divorce.' Good lord! Are we breaking new ground here or what? News of an affair and a divorce! Imran, I'm stunned, as for any rumours you may have heard that I recently left a teaching post in Plymouth - well, they are just not true. Rachel are you out there? Can we get a response to this bomb shell? Oh and Monty has come on at the other end."
[Guardian Unlimited Sport's OverbyOver 15/07/06] Mike33 04:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)