Talk:Pringles/Archives/2015

Manufacturer and Location

I have recently opened a tub of Pringles (club store packaging) and noted that it reads 'Manufactured by Pringles Manufacturing Co. Jackson TN 38301-5072'. Elsewhere, the package reads '© ® TM 2014 Pringles LLC'. Should the manufacturer in the article be updated / changed? LorenzoB (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Brad Pitt was in a Pringles commercial. Get used to it.

One of the most recognizable faces and names on planet Earth was in a Pringles commercial. This is a fun fact. If you hate fun facts, go edit Boreapedia. Kapuchinski (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Brad Pitt is one of the most famous individuals to have ever existed. Talk page if you disagree." Yes, Brad Pitt is the subject of at lease one chapter in widely used American history text books. The impact on Pringles of his early appearance in a commercial for them is, unfortunately, not yet documented.

Yes, it is apparently true that Pitt was in a commercial. I will be working with my therapist for months to come to hope to get over this. That said, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

I assume this was before he was one of the most famousest actors in the whole entire history of the world ever. This is common and trivial. At most -- with a reliable source -- it might be worth a mention at Brad Pitt, if it was a significant part of his career. Nothing indicates this ad was a significant part of the history of Pringles, the subject of this article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This article mentions 7 other people who were creatively involved in Pringles. Coca-Cola, Suntory, and Burger King articles all mention celebrities that were in their commercials. None of whom have the notoriety of Brad Pitt. Kapuchinski (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand the desire to add "fun facts" to the article so as to liven it up a bit, but I don't think all "fun facts" merit mentioning and I tend to agree with SummerPHD on this. WP:ONUS says: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." I am not disputing that Pitt is very well-known or that he appeared in the commercial. Including that information in the article, however, should not be based on how famous Pitt is now (or was back then) as an individual, but rather on whether his participation in the campaign significantly impacted the company and whether this impact received significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:UNDUE. If the article was simply a list of famous people who have appeared in Pringles' commercials, then perhaps all that would be needed is a reliable source which verifies said participation. The cited source, however, does not go into anything about the impact that Pitt appearing in the commercial had on the company. The article seems to be more about Pitt himself than about Pringles and is just the personal opinion of the writer as to what is the best Pringles' commercial ever. I think better sourcing is needed so show how the campaign and Pitt's use in the commercial impacted the company's sales or public image, etc. for it the information truly relevant to the article per a long the lines of WP:IPCEXAMPLES (I know that's from an essay. I am just citing it for reference.)

The inclusion of similar information in other articles does not automatically mean it warrants inclusion here. The logic behind other stuff exists does not really only apply to deletion discussions. The context and sourcing (or lack thereof) for information used in other articles only pertains to those particular articles. Disagreements about what content should be included in this article, should be resolved here through discussion and a consensus relevant to this article should be established, unless there are policy/guideline concerns which take precedent over discussion.

Finally, we as editors do not own the articles we create or edit. Most of are here to help build an encyclopedia. We essentially are "protectors" of Wikipedia as a whole, and not simply a single article. A big part of editing involves working together and working towards consensus. We may not always agree with the consensus, but if it is soundly based upon policy and guidelines, then we have honor it or try and change it. Using expressions, such as "Get used to it" or "go edit Boreapedi" are not, in my opinion, really conducive to achieving collaboration or consensus. If the consensus is that the information does not belong in the article and this is based upon policy/guidelines, then it shouldn't be there. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Well said. In the end this is just trivia. It was not a notable ad-campaign for either Pringles or Brad Pitt. — Strongjam (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

All correct that this commercial appearance was not notable at the time. Brad Pitt has since become one of the most recognizable faces on the planet, making this fact notable enough for inclusion, more than the rest of the section at least. As for my tone, too many wikipedia editors view their voluntary task as sacred and view adding information as blasphemy. Making fun of this helps deflate their bloated self-perceptions and defeat the enemies of interesting facts. Kapuchinski (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Brad Pitt is now well known ("one of the most recognizable faces on the planet", "one of the most famous individuals to have ever existed" and other hyperbole aside...). That said, our normal approach here would be to say, "Is this a significant aspect of the history of the product?" The immediate follow-up, of course, is "How do we decide?"

Typically, I tend to go with what independent reliable sources have to say about the topic: An article about Gerald Ford in the New York Times discusses the role of Chevy Chase's impressions on SNL in Ford's failed re-election bid? That is relevant material about Ford. Independent reliable sources about Richard Nixon don't discuss the notable films, songs, albums, operas and disembodied heads in the 31st century? Neither do we.

So far, you have used one source, a blog post from someone at The Atlantic gushing over this, like, most awesomest commercial EVRRR! In the four years since this apparent re-discovery, no one seems to see this as crucial data about Pringles. It's an enjoyable enough little bit of trivia. So far, the consensus here is that it is not significant information about Pringles.

To sell their product, companies hire actors for commercials. To pay the rent, struggling actors do commercials. Some of those products survive the Invisible Hand in the marketplace. Some of those actors later become well-known. Talk show hosts/magazine writers/etc. sometimes run across these old ads and spread them around. It's entertaining. It does not, however, tell us anything about the product. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kapuchinski: There's no need to "defeat" anyone. We are not at war with "interesting facts". FWIW, I've been trying tried to find a reliable source which might be used to support the inclusion of this information in the article. Googling "Brad Pitt Pringles commercial" does get quite a few hits, but all these seem to be more interested in the fact that Pitt (not unlike many other celebrities) had appeared in a commercial when he was younger and not very well known. Some of the articles/posts use words like "cheesy", "embarrassing", "corny", "before they were famous" so the focus is more on actors themselves than the actual product they were pitching. I have not been able to find any critical discussion of the commercial at all or any impact it might have had on Pringles. These might not be the best examples to help explain what I mean, but at least this Business week article about various Coca-Cola ad campaigns or this Variety article about Super Bowl commercials make an attempt to explain how a particular ad campaign/commercial impacted a particular company or industry as well as possibly even society. That's the kind of thing we need and I afraid that until we find it I have to continue to agree with Strongjam and SummerPHD that this information should be removed. If the consensus here is that the information should be removed, then the it falls upon you to convince people otherwise. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You have your reasons, and I am sure they matter to you, but now the Pringles entry has less information and is less fun. Kapuchinski (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that this is a weight issue. It is information. So is Tom Cruise's favorite color, the pH of Pringles, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's t-shirt size, etc. Wikipedia, though, is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Whether or not the fact is "fun" is subjective and irrelevant. Sorry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Fun has weight. Pringles are so much fun that their ad campaign merits sections and paragraphs, but a sentence about a the biggest actor of our day's participation in it is a waste of space? Pringles has had some insane iterations through the years. Raspberry, consomme, colored orange to celebrate the Dutch monarchy, etc. I found this out on wikipedia. What a great source for information and how fun, I thought. I tried to keep the list of fun flavors on but it was too much. The anti-fun brigade has its way again. Kapuchinski (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Fun has weight, but WP:WEIGHT has more. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

O M G! Brad Pitt was in a Spingler commercial?!!??! Where can I buy a copy??? LOL [Feel free to remove my silliness if it offends you.] Flizzjkzaop (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)