Jump to content

Talk:Scott the Woz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 123: Line 123:
**:'''Oppose''' per No such user – [[User:DecafPotato|DecafPotato]] ([[User talk:DecafPotato|talk]]) 17:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
**:'''Oppose''' per No such user – [[User:DecafPotato|DecafPotato]] ([[User talk:DecafPotato|talk]]) 17:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per No such user. This is a stylization that is already covered by the redirect. [[User:AngusWOOF|<strong><span style="color: #606060;" class="nowrap">AngusW🐶🐶F</span></strong>]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF#top|<span style=" color: #663300;">bark</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AngusWOOF|<span style="color: #006600;">sniff</span>]]) 19:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per No such user. This is a stylization that is already covered by the redirect. [[User:AngusWOOF|<strong><span style="color: #606060;" class="nowrap">AngusW🐶🐶F</span></strong>]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF#top|<span style=" color: #663300;">bark</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AngusWOOF|<span style="color: #006600;">sniff</span>]]) 19:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
*:Makes sense, I didn't know this. I don't know of any other instances of article names using different capitalization than the show name.
*:Should the "The" form be used throughout the article, just with a lowercase "the" as the article title? Or should it stay as is?
*:I think it makes more sense to use the proper name of the show throughout the article. Also worth noting that the infobox states that the channel name is "Scott the Woz", but this is incorrect. [[User:Sebastian Hudak|Sebastian]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sebastian Hudak|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Sebastian_Hudak|Contrib.]]</sup> - 20:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:07, 28 November 2022

Contested deletion

(I have no idea how this contesting thing works so sorry if I do something wrong)

I don't think this page should be speedily deleted because I don't think the reason given is applicable. Since the writing and referencing is completely new and done independently from any previous attempt of writing an article on the same subject and since two events have been referenced in the article that have received media attention (charity event and twitter account hacking) have transpired after the last time I can find a draft for an article of Scott The Woz being deleted (in November 2020), meaning that the two reasons why this draft might meet the criteria for speedy deletion don't apply in my opinion, that doesn't mean that the article doesn't meet any criteria for why it shouldn't be deleted or not published but I think it specifically doesn't meet the two cited as reasons for the nomination. CordiBordi (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Addition

Additionally to what I said before just by checking the "list of YouTubers" article I have found many channels with many less subscribers and significant feats. I tried to avoid using primary sources but with them the article could grow a lot in size and detail. I personally don't really see any reason for why there shouldn't be a wikipedia article about Scott The Woz, considering the channel's popularity and other factors. CordiBordi (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CordiBordi, you have to consider that Wikipedia's guidelines on notability differs from what YouTube fans consider as notable channels. I'm gonna sound like a broken record here, but in order for a YouTuber to attain their own article, they have to receive significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources (basically coverage from outlets like The New York Times, Polygon, Kotaku and so on). It pretty much means that going by Wikipedia's logic, a YouTuber with 100k subscribers can pass the notability guidelines over a channel with upwards of 1-5 million, just so long as the 100k YouTuber has received substantial coverage from news outlets. The problem is that a large majority of the news outlets considered reliable on Wikipedia only manage to cover YouTubers when they've either
  • a): made an extremely viral video or meme that takes the nation by storm (Harlem Shake)
  • or b): gotten embroiled in a massive controversy (pretty much everything PewDiePie did from 2017-present).
This sadly means that YouTubers like Scott get discarded fairly easily in spite of their positivity and popularity. Game Theory made a video about this if you're interested. But anyways, it just seems like Scott's an example of WP:TOOSOON; he's a rising star right now, but maybe in a year or two he'll blow up tremendously and Wikipedia editors will scramble to write an article on him. Maybe wait a little bit until something comes up for him, and spend a little while checking for any new sources on him. It's what I've been doing for a YouTuber I like who's had his article deleted recently. :)
PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PantheonRadiance yeah you're probably right, hopefully he gets more attention from the media soon so this article can be published :). Also is there a way to take the draft off of the submission for creation? I'm new to wikipedia and maybe it's actually really easy but I couldn't find how to do it or if it's even possible ;_; CordiBordi (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CordiBordi To be honest, I don't even know myself either, I'm somewhat new to this too lol. I think so long as you work on the draft actively, it should be fine. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove any references to any unreliable sources per WP:RSP and WP:VG/RS. Also do not cite the channel itself unless it's something akin to self-published "draw my life" videos. You need to use news references that publicize when the YouTuber has released something noteworthy. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the person needs to have been more notable than the AFD evidence presented as of October-November 2020. If you have more news articles since then, please provide those. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some good examples: Jazza (YouTuber), DanTDM, Parker Plays, all have news and/or television major media coverage. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is scott the woz notable?

Scott the Woz is notable because of his consistent high quality videos and for being the first youtube personality to have episodes air of G4 as part of the G4 relaunch.

Okay, look. Scott doesn't have a Wikipedia page yet because he hasn't proven to fulfill the General Notability Guidelines. I, and so many other editors, have already pointed out that very few media outlets (or at least, reliable media outlets) have discussed him and/or his YouTube channel. While Scott has announced that he will become a G4 personality in the near future, there still (surprisingly) hasn't been any coverage from media outlets about it. This, and the relative newness of him as a YouTuber, leads me to suggest that Scott's an example of WP:TOOSOON; he only garnered popularity within the past two years, and while he may get bigger in the future, right now not many sources have taken notice of him.
However, I think the AfC reviewers may need to take a look at these sources. Recently I came across this source from PC Games, a gaming magazine from Germany whose editor-in-chief wrote about Scott. In case you wonder about the magazine's reliability, an article from it appeared as a citation for Paper Mario, a featured article. The source was in the Paper Mario page months before editors determined that the page was suitable for FA-status, suggesting that the FA reviewers deemed the source reliable enough. It talks about not only Scott but his web content, comparing him to the AVGN: "For me he is what the Angry Video Game Nerd was when he gathered a fan base, some of which is still loyal to this day, around him in 2004 on the relatively young Internet with his different videos full of heart... Scott the Woz is the only, or at least the only known, legitimate successor who has everything (minus the retro focus) that made the Nerd unique, only significantly better."
Also, two other sources already used in this draft talk about his charity event for Critical Care Comics and the Children's Miracle Network. I believe CBR is considered reliable for internet comics and pop culture, and both articles focus on him and his charity stream.
Finally, I'm not entirely sure of the reliability of HITC, but this article does talk about his Twitter account being hacked, among other crucial facts about him. If the source is reliable, this could be used to establish his notability. Overall, while I'm uncertain if these sources justify him having a full Wikipedia article, I believe these sources should be enough to at least keep this draft here for now. I'm pinging @Robert McClenon, AngusWOOF, Theroadislong, and Curbon7: for feedback. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PantheonRadiance, there aren't notability requirements to keep the article in draft, however, if it gets resubmitted after rejection it will be considered for MFD as tendentious editing. And if it's recreated after that, it will become creation protected and any hopes of getting it reviewed will be met with strong opposition. Assuming it hasn't gone that far, If you need AFC reviewers to analyze the three sources per WP:THREE to see if the meet WP:GNG then you can ask for that. In this case, it's already been deleted at AFD, so you need to show new notability of the person since that previous AFD. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As User:AngusWOOF says, there are no notability requirements for drafts. Drafts are only deleted either if they are abandoned for six months, by the G13 process, or if there is a deletion discussion after they are tendentiously resubmitted. I rejected this draft because the resubmissions were becoming tedious, and were not focusing on improving it beyond its condition a year ago when the AFD deleted the article. So anyone who wants to have an article approved should add text (not merely references) to the article that was not in the article when it was deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This, the draft talk page, IS the place to discuss how to get an article accepted. Do not simply resubmit, and do not simply add references. Discuss, and expand the text of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF and Robert McClenon: Okay, I understand the draft guidelines. What I meant was that I don't think anyone should edit this draft anymore unless they find new reliable sources, or at least re-edit it utilizing the sources I brought up. I simply want to ask if these sources would be sufficient enough to grant him notability, under WP:THREE. Personally if this draft were made into a live article with these sources, I would see Scott's page to at best just barely cross the threshold for notability - maybe not enough to survive an AFD again but enough to bypass a Speedy or PROD. So for any editor reading this, I recommend waiting until new sources come in.
Also just to state this: I don't intend to edit this draft mainly because I don't watch Scott's videos, so I suggest someone else work on this draft once more instead. Preferably someone who's both a fan of Scott AND understands Wikipedia's GNG. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PantheonRadiance, someone who's not a fan (or anti-fan) would be fine so as to not have pov issues. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF Fair enough. Just added the PC Games source as a ref-idea. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this and figured I'd stop by to say, from what I'm seeing he is not notable, yet. As Pantheon said above this is most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. He might start to gain notability as his channel grows (and he airs on TV in more accessible places) as reliable secondary sources might start to have coverage on him. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanna say to take a look at WP:FANCRUFT which describes what is and isn't suitable in articles. I'm not oging to make edits to this draft right now not just because I'm a fan of him, but because I have no reason to do so. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022 notability?

SK2242, can you explain what makes Scott notable now since the previous AFD and this discussion? What articles were added to show this? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited look good for notability imo, wasn’t really sure why it got rejected. If you disagree we can take it back to AfD. SK2242 (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes less is more

I really don't think the behavior of most Scott The Woz-related edits I've seen on Wikipedia have done any good for the article's potential. I constantly see vandalization to articles of games that are running gags in the series, and nearly every time I take a look at a draft, it's filled to the brim with fancruft-tier writing and details about stuff only Scott fans really care about. It's important to look at these pages from an encyclopedic point of view- instead of focusing on in-series content, such as characters and songs, we should be focusing on the series itself, as well as its release and impact. Piling in details about the setting and lore of the series isn't going to brute-force it into being a good article worthy of inclusion. As a fan of the series, I, too, would like for Scott to have an article on Wikipedia, but most attempts are nowhere up to typical Wikipedia standards, which only hinders things more. In the meantime, we should work to improve the draft over time, as more reputable, notable independent sources become available, instead of trying to brute-force our way through Articles for Creation. Thanksolotl (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksolotl, if there's a way to merge his biography into this article as with DanTDM, Stampy, or even Parker Plays, that would be helpful and then we can redirect the leftover drafts that have a bunch of episode spam. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there much of note missing from the mainspace article that's sufficiently supported by a source? Taking a quick look at the other drafts I can't see much missing, most of the same beats are covered (childhood creativity, early youtube channel, 2016 pre-Scott The Woz internet skits) I do think the drafts could be redirected to the mainspace article. Thanksolotl (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tag 'em with {{R with history}}. SWinxy (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Episode lists

What is the current consensus of making an episode list? I believe it should be made because firstly, this page is made for the Scott the Woz series, not the channel. Therefore, the page should have an episode list like other show pages would. Secondly, in the episode list of the G4 show, the descriptions are referenced by stating which episodes of the Youtube show it includes. This is redundant because there is no information on the Youtube episodes on Wikipedia, so this information would be useless to people who look onto the page. There is a list of episodes already out of Youtube on the iMDB page for Scott the Woz, so if a source is needed, it is available. If there is a reason why we can't add it, please respond to this message, because as of now, I can't see a proper reason as to why this should not be allowed. ElevenHour (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ElevenHour, I think descriptions of each G4 episode would be fine; basic outline more so than just "these YouTube episodes", though consensus is that listing every YouTube episode would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight.
I think we could do a separate and short "Plot" section, similar to many other TV shows (if you can find out what the hell actually goes on in the series lol), though. DecafPotato (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DecafPotato I agree that adding info to the G4 episodes would be good. However, I do believe that adding the YouTube episode list would be good, maybe in a separate page to declutter this page though.
Series like Angry Video Game Nerd have pages for episode lists and while I do understand that AVGN is much more bigger than Scott The Woz, I don't see why adding an episode list would go against submission rules (given that sources are referenced, although I'm not exactly sure what sources you would need for it quite yet) if we don't write Scott's opinions in detail in the descriptions. (For example, the Chibi-Robo Zip Lash episode would be some thing like "Continuing from the 2nd Dark Age of Nintendo episode, Scott covers what he believes to be the worst Nintendo game in 2015, Chibi-Robo Zip Lash.")
Also, the link you gived was for giving too much information about a minor opinion. Did I miss something in the link, because with my suggestion, I do think this problem can be avoided. ElevenHour (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ElevenHour essentially, it (along with WP:TOPIC, WP:WHENSPLIT, WP:SCOPE, WP:OOS, and others) say that minority parts of the subject shouldn't take up a lot of space in the article. So, in this case, it would refer to a table about all 200-something episodes being roughly 70-80% of the article's size, even more if it contains plot details. And when the list of Scott's episodes aren't 70-80% of his notability, being that he also has charity, TV broadcast, general premise, background, etc., that causes problems.
So I think we would need a way to find that information, and put it into the article in a method that doesn't make up the vast majority of the entire article. DecafPotato (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DecafPotato Does my idea for making a page for the episode list would work? It would display all that information without obscuring the whole page, and other shows do it too. ElevenHour (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ElevenHour. The problem, then, would be that the episode list itself would need to demonstrate notability on its own, separate from the Scott the Woz series as a whole. So I think we can expand on the G4 episodes; MOS:TVPLOT states that up to 200 words is the general limit for single-episode plot descriptions in an episode table, though 50-100 may be more reasonable for a non-plot focused series. And I think a separate plot summary is the only way we can incorporate the plot of the show, without running into the myriad of policies, guidelines, and essays surrounding the topic (feel somewhat obligated to mention WP:IGNOREALLRULES, but I think that's far from applying here) DecafPotato (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DecafPotato You raise a very good point. Demonstrating notability would be very hard. However, I do think with the current amount of insight that Scott himself has given us, I do think it's doable. I'd like to reference AVGN again; his episode list references a lot of primary sources, not secondary sources, which means a lot of the citations were from his own videos and site. Given how much commentaries and behind the scenes videos Scott produced, I do think it's possible. I do want to thank you for indulging me on this conversation though. I think I now have a basic idea of what I can add and what I need to do. Imagine that I gave you a complimentary cookie for you. ElevenHour (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we make an episode list? And not the G4 episodes, I'm talking the actual ones uploaded to youtube. I mean, theres already a Number of episodes, so why not make a new page just for those episodes? BeastofBeef (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BeastofBeef it's currently under development! search for Draft:List of Scott the Woz episodes ElevenHour (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't list every series made by YouTubers on YouTube, otherwise PewDiePie and others would have huge lists of episodes. It's like a radio talk show or regular podcast. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF That's the thing I want to circle back to though. While I do agree that Scott isn't as big as PewDiePie or others, he has 1.7M subscribers. He has appeared on cable television. He has an officially licensed Monopoly board. How notable do you have to be to get an episode list? Also, many shows that appear on national television or streaming services are very similar to podcasts. If they can get episode lists, I do not believe the problem here is the format of the show.
I understand this page has had numerous problems with notability and vandalism. And like Decaf has said, there are important things to note when making one. However, I cannot say with good faith that the reason Scott cannot have an episode list is simply because "He's not as big as PewDiePie or others". ElevenHour (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ElevenHour, it's not the notability of the person, as the example I offered involves highly-known YouTubers that produce thousands of episodes. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF YouTubers such as AVGN (and sort of Critical Role) have episode lists. I don't see why Scott cannot given notability and sources are given correctly. ElevenHour (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See PewDiePie videography and how that does not list every single episode. Critical Role is more of a programmed web television series. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF PewDiePie Videography is about everything made by the YouTuber PewDiePie. Of course because PewDiePie produces many videos, often unrelated to each other, it would be shortened to notable videos only. However, this page is for Scott the Woz, the SERIES. Shows have separate pages for episodes list, so I can't see why Scott the Woz can have one. ElevenHour (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF Jumping in to clarify that the Scott The Woz series isn't really comparable to a radio show or a podcast at all - the channel uploads relatively infrequently (less than once a week at its peak, a number which has steadily decreased, there have been 11 episodes total this year) In format and in production value, and according to its creator, Scott The Woz is more comparable to a television show, or like you've said, a web television series like Critical Role, than a traditional YouTube channel's content. Similar programs have had episode lists, usually in separate articles, without any issue, and I don't believe notability is a qualifier for episode lists either. Thanksolotl (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thanksolotl Thank you for putting these into words, I often have a tough time explaining things. At the time that the first reply came, I started making a page for the list at Draft:List of Scott the Woz episodes. If anyone would like to help me there, it would be much appreciated. ElevenHour (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Create a Borderline Forever article

Some specific episodes of TV shows have their own article. I feel that Scott the Woz's 200th episode, Borderline Forever, warrants an article. It is practically a TV movie, having more reviews than other episodes on IMDB. Unlike other StW episodes, this one has a plot that is very interesting to read. So, hopefully some experienced editors can create a Borderline Forever article. Iamtheduckie (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Borderline Forever should be listed as a special on an episode list BeastofBeef (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By Wikipedia standards, Scott The Woz is barely notable as is, I don't think an article about a single episode of the show would pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. Not sure I've ever seen a secondary source cover Borderline Forever in any meaningful capacity. Thanksolotl (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. If reliable sources are found covering the episode, it should be added to this article, maybe in the "history" section or something. I highly doubt enough reliable sources can be found to justify a split. DecafPotato (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2022

Scott the Woz → Scott The Woz – The name of the show and of the channel stylize it as "Scott The Woz", with a capitalized "The" SebastianTalk / Contrib. - 08:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_the_Woz&oldid=1124412500"