Talk:Tom Scott (YouTuber)/Archive 1

Archive 1

YouTube channel

Two points:

1. {{youtube|user=enyay|Tom Scott}} works, but youtube.com/TomScottGo suggested on www.tomscott.com also works, and might be better: He uses TomScottGo also on Instagram. I don't see how {{youtube}} could support the clearer youtube.com/TomScottGo URL.
2. "Entertainer" is fine, but I mainly know his computerphile videos, and from that I'd guess that "computer scientist with a background in linguistics" (or vice versa), and a decent grasp of security, could also describe him. In one of his "entertainment" gigs he interviewed Edward Snowden (example). The utter dubious computerphile redirection is up for grabs.

–178.24.246.236 (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Kostas20142 (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Tom Scott (entertainer) → Tom Scott (Youtuber) – No evidence of entertaining in article or sources. Only notable for YouTube channel, cf. Natoo (Youtuber). Alternatively Tom Scott (presenter). In ictu oculi (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, Sounds less encyclopedic, Also would like to add that there isn't yet another Tom Scott that comes under entertainer, If there is, Then this move might be more warranted. SageWater (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Tom Scott (presenter) as less vague. "Youtuber" isn't really a word except in Internet slang.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  "YouTuber" is now in the OED and Wikipedia has List of YouTubers. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree that "entertainer" is not a good description, even if what he does is often entertaining. He makes a lot of factual videos and these seem to dwarf the pure entertainment of shows like Citation Needed while the less formal Matt and Tom stuff is somewhere in-between. I'm not a massive fan of "YouTuber" (although I have added it as a category) as that ties people to one platform. In Scott's case he has done TV and he could, if he chose, switch platform without it fundamentally affecting what he does. "Presenter" is not too bad but it does not reflect that he is making these videos himself, not presenting them for other people. How do we feel about Tom Scott (video maker) or something along those lines? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  Factual and entertaining are not mutually exclusive, hence "edutainment". —Tom Morris (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: I originally created the page and it has been through a variety of disambiguation labels including "TV presenter" and "comedian". Part of the reason I moved it to "entertainer" originally was because of the subject's own unhappiness with previous disambiguation labels, specifically comedian. Tom has not sought to have his Wikipedia article changed or influenced in any way beyond the disambiguation label (as well as the supply of a better picture via OTRS), and I think unless we have good reason to overrule a subject's wishes, it seems fairly reasonable to stick to a label that the subject finds acceptable. With social media personalities and the rise of newer media forms, the existing labels we have like "TV presenter" (or "actor" or "comedian" or whatever) are going to become less relevant and our language isn't really coming up with any good new alternatives, just lots of really bad douchey terms like "media personality" and so on. I picked it because it seems like the least bad of a series of bad options. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't have a requirement that people whose notability derives from YouTube necessarily have to be disambiguated as "YouTuber" rather than a broader term for what they do on YouTube, so this isn't in and of itself a compelling reason to move the article. There may be a good reason that hasn't been presented yet, and there may be a better alternative disambiguator — but there's no requirement that notability from YouTube always automatically forces the person to be dabbed as YouTuber. That said, the person's own wishes aren't a valid argument for or against the choice of disambiguator, either — we routinely see people who have been active in a variety of fields try to push their article to an excessively disambiguated collision of everything they've done, such as "(politician, writer, musician, activist and athlete)", which isn't useful. So I'm not fundamentally opposed to changing the disambiguator here, but I'd need to see a more compelling argument than "notability from YouTube automatically requires the dab to be YouTuber". Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose per above and consistency. Please close this move. Ꞷumbolo 19:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference for his birthday?

Probably not a prudent thing to try to track down per WP:DOB --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 22:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I tried to find a reference for his birthday. After creating a quiz on Us Vs Th3m in 2014 called "What's The Theme Tune Of Your Life?" based on "the number one on your 14th birthday", he posted on Facebook that he got Believe by Cher (Link) which was on number one of the UK charts from 31 October 1998 to 12 December 1998 (Source). As of 30 November 2016, Wikipedia listed his birthday as 26 November 1984 quoting IMDb (Link). On 17 October, the day now given on Wikipedia and IMDb, the UK number one was Girlfriend by Billie (Wikipedia: "The song debuted on the UK Singles Chart on 17 October 1998 at number one."). Adrio (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Removed per WP:DOB. Best we can do from sources looks like "age based on year" where a news article states his age at a particular time. --86.185.142.236 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC) I found an old tweet to him from Matt Grey that corroborates 26th November as the correct date: Check out @unnamedculprit’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/unnamedculprit/status/7953430698000385?s=09 I also recall having seen 26 or 27 Nov given on his old personal website (thomasscott.net) at one point but as it's been removed from the Internet Archive I can't verify via that route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.92.6.57 (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Just noticed this conversation. It seems there is no definitive answer available, so I've changed the birth date to just show as "1984". If you are going to change it back to showing the full date, I'd recommend including an inline citation there since there's so much conflicting information. --IagoQnsi (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC) That seems appropriate, especially as it seems some redditors have been a tad annoying. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC) redacted information Citing <redacted>[data] which is not well known or widely publicised, is borderline privacy violation. It should not be publicly linked. Have removed your reference. Nextmonkhood (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC) My apologies, was not aware of the Wikipedia policies (or the reddit debacle, for that matter) regarding all of this sorta stuff. Just figured that it's all public information that'd be useful in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDnomaid (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Change "2.1 million subscribers" in the first paragraph to "2.2 million subscribers". 2600:1702:1DC1:82C0:BC04:17C4:8545:7538 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Ionmars10 (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

change "t-shirt" to "T-shirt" in "Tom Scott in his signature red t-shirt in 2016" QoopyQoopy (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It seems that both capital and lower-case T are acceptable and common. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tom Scott signature red.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Middle Name

Tom's full name is (redacted), I feel that this should be on the page under 'Born as', and the introduction paragraph. I added these changes but they were reverted without comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobSa (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see the edit notice at the top of the page. Ionmars10 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Section on websites

I just removed the following text from the article:

In July 2004 the UK government released a website called Preparing for Emergencies. Tom made his own version under the domain http://www.preparingforemergencies.co.uk/.He managed this as the government only bought the domain ending in .gov.uk and not .co.uk. The Home Office said they were going to take down the website but they never did. The fake one is still live as of February 2021. He has also made other website like the North-o-Meter which is a joke game, which guesses how far far up north you live based on question you answer. Another one is You Can't Do Simple Maths Under Pressure which is a supposedly easy game with basic math questions but under a small period the answer the question. He also made one called Are You Hated By The Daily Mail?. There are many more on his website: All his projects Games.

If sources can be found some of this might plausibly belong in the "Other projects" section of the article, but it looks like trivia to me. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Age request?

Can someone add his age to the article? I think he looks in his late 30's or early 40's please. 174.228.131.212 (talk)

He doesn't want it listed and we respect that —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

TheDJ, Since when does wikipedia ask the subject of the user what they want in the article? Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:DOB: "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

TheDJ, Thank you! Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand this. I've been reading this rule and it's bizarre. If wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED how is it that a notable person can just ask an encyclopedia to do certain things? CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's called privacy. And it's courtesy. We are not some TMZ trash tabloid. Specificially WP:BLP is higher in ranking of our rules than WP:NOTCENSORED. Also we have time, we can provide highly detailed information later if needed. As long as it's just not that important to the general reader, compared to how important it is to the subject, it just doesn't matter that much. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to add that he is in his 30s as of 2021 - as confirmed in one of his recent videos. The argument being he said it himself, so on that basis he doesn't mind the world know that information. RobertEves92 10:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This still doesn't make sense - how is someone's birthday a breach of privacy? Regardless, on the basis that there's a lack of RS for it is my only reason for understanding why date of birth has not been included. The best I could find was Podchaser (besides IMDb which is generally unreliable) [1] putting his birthday at October 17, 1984. This has been included in the Norwegian wiki on Scott: [2]. But unless such a reliable source is made it's best to leave it blank under that concept. The privacy thing doesn't seem to make sense. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, he does confirm that he was 19y/o in July 2004 per this video (and there is also this article about him, which he displays in the video). So we could list his DOB as 1984/1985. I don't think I'm gonna do it, but if someone else wants to, there it is. Delvethedragon (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Delvethedragon I understand your plight, however, if he has stated that he doesn't want to have his DOB present on this article then it seems invasive to include it.

Furthermore, you should understand his choice and maybe not trek the web to find these things,

(sorry for the Extremely late Response) Geinky (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by my "plight", but I didn't trek the web for it. I recalled it from having watched the video from my subscriptions and just provided links to what I was remembering. I didn't comb the web or something. Tom Scott himself provided this to his viewers of his own free will. Delvethedragon (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Delvethedragon right so on a bit more extensive checking I've come the conclusion that infact you are right and I am wrong. obviously I understand this. But if I am mistaken he never stated the year and it was in.

My argument isn't really necessary but I know my points are mainly incorrect.

But first and foremost Tom has said he wanted his DOB to be hidden and we Should respect that even if he said his age (as of 2004) in a video 4 years ago as a short, passing comment.

thank you for your time. Geinky (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

He does state the year in the video if you check.

"But first and foremost Tom has said he wanted his DOB to be hidden and we Should respect that even if he said his age (as of 2004) in a video 4 years ago as a short, passing comment."

Okay, sure, that's fine. I don't really care if it's added. Like I said back in August, I'm not gonna add it to the article. Someone else can do that if they really want to, and then you can take it up with them. Delvethedragon (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Delvethedragon true I must have missed it, sorry for wasting your time Geinky (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It's alright. No hard feelings :) Delvethedragon (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The October date is a fake date that Tom Scott has put online to throw smoke in front of people trying to find his real birthday. I know the date, but will not post it here; however it is public knowledge via Companies’ House that he was born sometime November 1984. Companies’ House Thomas David SCOTTA Tree In A Box (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Us vs Them

Shouldn't his work on Us vs Them be added to "Early work"? Itay Volk (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I meant "UsVsTh3m" Itay Volk (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Careful

This YouTuber is very private about personal life I think.SterlingPound4 (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC) SterlingPound4 (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is already a specific Arbitration Committee notice at the top of the article page.

"Arbitration enforcement mandate: You must not post any personal information about the article subject unless there is consensus for the addition on the talk page. See the page notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Tom Scott (entertainer)."

--RedHillian | Talk 21:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

New update photo

I believe a better photo should be added as the one in the information box is from 2016 apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SterlingPound4 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the photo is from five years ago doesn't mean the photo is not good enough anymore. This photo is a very good quality portrait, and no more-recent alternative is available as of today on Commons. Gyrostat (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Gyrostat:. WP:AINTBROKE is a good essay on this, as is WP:BEANS. There is no reason to replace it as it is a remarkably good quality portrait. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Tom Scott (presenter). The consensus option seems to be "presenter". "Youtuber" is supported by 4 and opposed by 3. "Presenter" is supported by 9 and opposed by none. (non-admin closure) VR _talk 00:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Tom Scott (entertainer) → Tom Scott (Youtuber) – I know we discussed this four years ago, but I think it's worth revisiting it. Tom Scott's notability rests on the popularity and widespread attention of his Youtube channel. Moreover, calling him an "entertainer" is misleading, as the vast majority of his videos educate instead of entertain. After all, what else would a video entitled "Things you might not know" be? As a second choice, Tom Scott (presenter) would be also better than what we currently have. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Small point, but if we do go with Youtuber, it should be spelled "YouTuber" with a capital T.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment, while I do support the idea of moving the article away from having "entertainer" in parenthesis (as that doesn't really cover the scope of his work), I feel "youtuber" (case aside) also doesn't fully appreciate his other attributes. I wouldn't say describing him "primarily" as a youtuber is a disservice, but I just feel there could be something more appropriate, I'm just not sure what. Failing any better suggestions, it's probably slightly better than entertainer. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose (YouTuber) - I believe it goes against our core philosophy to promote brand terms in the disambiguation portions of our titles (upper- or lowercase doesn't matter). (video producer) or (presenter) are quite fine alternatives. The current (entertainer) should change, as it is imprecise. -- Netoholic @ 19:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I am inclined to agree with your analysis regarding brand promotion (it wasn't my primary concern, but it's a fair one). I would support the simpler "presenter" of your two suggestions as more acceptable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I would support "presenter", and suggest another alternative - "internet personality" - although he's not what I'd consider an influencer, which is what Internet personality, redirecting to Internet celebrity, is effectively about. Legowerewolf (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Are there any other persons with "YouTuber" in their article title? --Spekkios (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose (Youtuber) disambiguator and instead, moved it to just Tom Scott (no disambiguator), as he is clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC regardless whether he is youtuber, entertainer, or presenter and move dab Tom Scott page as Tom Scott (disambiguation). A second option Tom Scott (presenter) will also be acceptable. 125.167.58.66 (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Tom Scott (YouTuber), perhaps Tom Scott (educator), or even (presenter) (but not the primary topic grab); just please, not "entertainer". We have a huge category tree under category:YouTubers, several other people disambiguated as such, and "YouTuber" is a WP:RECOGNIZABLE everyday word which entered dictionaries. And all of a sudden, we have concerns about promoting a commercial brand? No such user (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose as per comments by Netoholic above. Wikipedia should be neutral and not promote brands in article titles. If a person is a journalist reporting for the BBC, we don't add (BBC journalist) to the title, but just (journalist). If a physicist holds an academic position at the University of Bristol then we also don't add (University of Bristol professor) to the title, but just (physicist). Why should an exception be made here? Mr Scott's article should have a title that is independent of his current employment. ArticCynda (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Tom Scott (YouTuber) consistent with other (YouTuber) dabs Category:Male YouTubers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment to those opposing "YouTuber": This word is part of the English language. See Cambridge Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Collins Dictionary, and Oxford English Dictionary (paywall site, but see news article here.) 162 etc. (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@162 etc.: Perhaps it may also be because this person is not exclusively a youtube personality and the alternate "presenter" more widely covers his character. The article, afterall, does introduce with, "Thomas Scott is an English YouTuber, educator, game show host and web developer". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC):

Support per other support above, for the same reasons; also (Presenter) or (Educator). I also note that a "YouTuber" as discussed here isn't employed by the platform, but is a user of it, potentially receiving a share of advertising revenue.--RedHillian | Talk 21:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Support "presenter". I think presenter is definitely the best option here. Educator perhaps over implies his qualifications and job, making it sound like he is a formal educator (teacher, professor, etc.) and YouTuber may be too tight of a description, as he does plenty of other things. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support "presenter". Even youtuber would be better than the current name, but that's the best suggestion yet IMO. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2021 (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.

"Xnopyt" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Xnopyt. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 14#Xnopyt until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The Technical Difficulties Channel

I added a link and subscriber/view counts for the new channel announced in the TOTPAL Christmas Special but it was removed for some reason, can someone with more knowledge of how Wikipedia edits work sort it out please 2A00:23C4:800:3C00:95F3:AAAF:74B4:88C6 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edit got reverted by a bot as a bit suspicious (link to YouTube from an IP user) - I've reverted the bot's removal. Legowerewolf (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

New channel

Tom Scott plus 2402:3A80:1B92:74F2:0:13:7A79:8801 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It's already listed. Legowerewolf (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

There's another new one, folks. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHqDTfIX-0DGaHlWvv6JZCw Legowerewolf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Legowerewolf The domain for that channel now ends in /c/LateralPod. Lateral was a [series Tom did in 2018 https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL96C35uN7xGLZj-FTNfZYmo3uv6-MJ0D-]. That playlist for it is listed as "Season 1", but there was never a season after it. Perhaps it's coming back, this time on its own channel? Strugglehouse (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It's actually /c/Lateralcast, but point still stands Strugglehouse (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Legowerewolf Got to ask - how did you find this channel? Strugglehouse (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Tom's got a newsletter. Sign up here: https://www.tomscott.com/newsletter/ Legowerewolf (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Legowerewolf Forgot about that. Thanks! Strugglehouse (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Education

He's said before that he's got education in linguistics, although I think he's self-taught in programming stuff.

In fact, here we go. From a talk he gave at the Royal Institution:

3:57: "And those might be about linguistics, which is what my degree is actually in. They might be about the basics of computer science where I'm self-taught but checking my script with experts."

4:22: "Now, my degree is in linguistics with a research masters in educational studies."

Is this good enough to at least leave the linguistics in the infobox?

(Summoning @Dawkin Verbier) Legowerewolf (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, although my impression of the education part in the info box is that it doesn't state the field of study one has graduated from, per Template:Infobox person. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Would degree not include the field of study? Legowerewolf (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Associated acts

I've just noticed that the "associated acts" section of the infobox lists several people that (to my knowledge) Tom has only collaborated with once or twice. Does that qualify one to be an "associated act"? He has collabed with over 20 people in the last year or two. I didn't want to go ahead and remove them since it seems like they've been there a while, but it seems to me that basically all the creators in the section other than Matt Gray can/should be removed. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I've removed all of them except Matt and Brady Haran considering he's done several Computerphile videos as well. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Career section photos

The career section currently has five photos which seems a bit over the top. It previously had just one.

2.101.212.201 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You have a point. Support cutting it down to one or two. Probably prefer the photos of him giving a talk, but I don't consider myself the best judge of this kind of thing. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@2.101.212.201 Why does it matter if there are a few photos on the article? They show Scott at various points in his career. It's not cluttering up the article, why not include them? Strugglehouse (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Full name of Tom Scott

The full name of Tom Scott is (redacted) should we change the beginning of the article accordingly?:

(redacted) is an English YouTuber and web developer. Daniel Maak (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Per the request of the subject, we do not include his full name. The consensus can be found in numerous other sections on this talk page regarding his privacy, and at Template:Editnotices/Page/Tom Scott (presenter). Apologies for editing your comments, but it is best to remove the BLP privacy violations.--Cerebral726 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move 31 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is wide support for this move, and no apparent reason in policy to give the supporting arguments diminished weight. A parenthetical disambiguator does not need to encapsulate everything about a person; it is often just the most notable thing about the person. The arguments for (YouTuber) sound generally in greater naturalness and recognizability, as well as consistency with other articles. Additionally, there is not sufficient support for WP:PTOPIC given concerns about the size of page-view lead, long-term significance, and undue focus on online subjects. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 08:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Tom Scott (presenter) → Tom Scott (YouTuber) – Tom Scott is primarily a YouTuber, and as such that's what he is known for. Most of the arguments against using the term "YouTuber" I've seen on this talk page are either that it doesn't sound encyclopedic enough or that it's a brand term. I don't think these arguments can be valid unless Tom Scott has garnered a reasonable amount of fame from something other than YouTube, which he has not. Tom Scott was a presenter for British television a couple of times over a decade ago; he is not a presenter and it is not what he is known for, and certainly not notable enough to be the disambiguator in this article's title. It just feels like "presenter" was the first term someone thought of so the article wouldn't have "YouTuber" in the title. Plus, numerous other articles have "YouTuber" in the title, 3 examples being Laura Lee (YouTuber), Jim Chapman (YouTuber), and Brandon Rogers (YouTuber). – Treetoes023 (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. Probably most known for his YouTube career. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Treetoes023 Support per nom Panamitsu (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. Bear of Tomato (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. He's not going to be a (regularly-posting) YouTuber for much longer. At the end of the year, he's taking a break of indeterminate length, as he's announced in a few videos now. He is continuing with other projects, including Lateral, which are not primarily on YouTube.

In the above discussion, I was a supporter of "Presenter", although I also brought up the option "Internet personality". Legowerewolf (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment. There's also the possibility that we remove the disambiguation tag - I'd argue that this Tom Scott is the primary topic by that name. Legowerewolf (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that Tom Scott qualifies as the primary topic. From a gut check pageviews perspective, he is not several orders of magnitude times above the 2nd most viewed Tom Scott (saxophonist) [3], which is usually the required disparity. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Several orders of magnitude? Really, Cerebral726? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I should have written "times", but got a bit hyperbolic. I've striked and fixed it. Just emphasizing that the requirements for primary topic are fairly steep. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Has worked on plenty of projects outside of YouTube. While it's understandable that presenter may seem slightly imprecise or broad, I think it's broadness is a strong suit, as it covers the wide variety of projects he has become notable from. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Weak support. Although I don't love this use of the term "YouTuber", the consensus seems to be in favor of it. A similar move occurred for Drew Gooden (YouTuber), and he's significantly notable from multiple platforms. —Vigilant Cosmic Penguin (talk | contribs) 03:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. User:History6042 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Even if he retires next year, so what? His prominence as a YouTuber is far more significant than work as a vague "presenter." The other projects alluded to by Cerebral above were incredibly minor and, if those were the only things he did, he would not be notable enough to create an article on him. SnowFire (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Either YouTuber or internet personality describe him better. Schierbecker (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support - even if he retired tomorrow and became a full-time piano player in local bars and pubs, he would still be notable for being a YouTuber. Red Slash 05:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - If someone asked me who Tom Scott is, my response would be a YouTuber, not a presenter. Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 06:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Support. Right now, he's best known as a YouTuber. If/when he becomes better known for something else, or the term YouTuber falls out of popularity, or whatever else, we can always move the page again. –IagoQnsi (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - This is the most accurate description at the moment. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above, but also do not agree with the suggestion that he's the primary topic. It's true the pageviews are high, but they're not more than all the others combined, and they're also inflated because he's alive and an online personality. In terms of lasting significance, Thomas A. Scott (once president of the world's largest corporation with a budget larger than the U.S. government) or Tom Scott (saxophonist) have just as much going for them. :3 F4U (they/it) 01:40, 6 August 2023 (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.

Lateral

Lateral should probably be mentioned on the page, but yeah, we don't need the full episode table in this article. Might be good to list notable folks that have appeared on the pod. Legowerewolf (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Although it has been suggested that this Tom Scott probably has the most common usage, editors argue that he does not have the long-term significance to be the primary topic. Editors also argue that there is no primary topic here; and that Thomas Scott, some of whom commonly referred to as Tom Scott, further complicates. I see a consensus not to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• Tom Scott (YouTuber) → Tom Scott
• Tom Scott → Tom Scott (disambiguation)

– The YouTuber is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. On Google Trends, we can clearly see that the YouTuber is searched much more than the saxophonist, who is the other "most common" use of the name as listed on the current disambiguation page. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Strugglehouse (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Primary topics are not just determined by pure views or if it's usage is more likely than the others, they're also judged by long-term significance. I don't see this Tom Scott as being more significant in the long-term, or at least more significant by a wide enough margin, to be considered the primary topic estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

While not the only part, online searches do play a big part in this.

Also, I personally think he's already far more significant than the saxophonist (who I've personally never heard of), and will continue to be. Do you really think the saxophonist is any more significant (or will become any more significant) than someone who's presented popular television programs, written popular web toys, created a social media network, organised a national level holiday, been the president of the University of York Students' Union, won various awards, been on quiz shows such Only Connect and University Challenge, hosted a radio show, has presented at various venues and gatherings, ran for Parliament in the 2010 United Kingdom general election, and has over 6 million subscribers on YouTube? Strugglehouse (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

No. None of those do a primary topic make. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Estar8806 Those clearly show that Scott has seen significant coverage and has done and been a part of many notable projects. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Significant coverage and notable projects, yes. That proves he passes WP:GNG. But to prove WP:PTOP you need most common usage (which this Tom Scott probably has) and long-term significance, which I think it's too soon to tell in this case. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

References

I personally think he's already far more significant than the saxophonist (who I've personally never heard of)... And I've never heard of this Tom Scott. But it's completely irrelevant who's heard of who. You can't just assume that someone is more notable because you've heard of them or less notable because you haven't. Or that everyone will have heard of the person you know. We all have different areas of interest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Support. I'm thinking of this from a usefulness to readers perspective - someone typing "Tom Scott" in the search bar is overwhelmingly likely to be looking for the YouTuber, so this saves them a click, and it's easy to hatnote to the disambiguation page. casualdejekyll 23:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Struck. Tom Everett Scott complicates the matter. casualdejekyll 23:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll Article titles follow WP:COMMONNAME, and for Tom Everett Scott, this is "Tom Everett Scott". That's what he's known by, not simply "Tom Scott". If that were the case, his article would currently be something along the lines of "Tom Scott (actor)". We can see that he is known by his full name by Google Trends, as well as his Twitter account. His article should certainly not be moved to "Tom Scott". Strugglehouse (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There's still a reasonable cause for confusion. COMMONNAME is not the only policy to be considered, but WP:PRECISE applies here too. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Estar8806 And "Tom Scott" is not precise enough to identify the actor, as that's not what he's known by. The YouTuber is known simply as "Tom Scott", so that's precise enough to describe him, but not the actor. Strugglehouse (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understand precision. There's more than one Tom Scott. If the YouTuber were the only Tom Scott, then he it would be precise enough. But alas, there's more than one Tom Scott, and therefore it's not precise enough. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Estar8806 Okay, but WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also matters here. There's more than one John Adams, but the president takes it, and we have John Adams (disambiguation) for everyone else with the name. There are thousands of other cases of this on Wikipedia. This should be no different. Strugglehouse (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Because the president is clearly the primary topic, there's simply no argument there. A primary topic has to have long-term significance and more common usage. John Adams has both compared to others by his name. I'm not convinced that the YouTuber does compared to others who share his name. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I never said to move him to Tom Scott, just that he complicates the matter. casualdejekyll 00:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll But how does he? He's not known by Tom Scott so it doesn't get in the way of this article being called Tom Scott. The actor can still be on the disambiguation page. Strugglehouse (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no primary topic here, and the jazz musician is not the only person who makes this less than advisable. Tom Scott (businessman) and Tom Scott (cartoonist) and Tom Scott (rapper) receive significant attention. Further, several entries listed at the disambiguation page Thomas Scott have subjects that are often referred to as "Tom Scott". Perhaps the most prominent is Thomas A. Scott, an Assistant Secretary of War under Abraham Lincoln who was at one point the president of the largest corporation in the world (see, for example, Re-Assessing Tom Scott, the Railroad Prince). Dekimasuよ! 05:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Support per nom.[4]

  History6042 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absolutely not. Nowhere near being more notable than all the others on the list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Notability is a yes-or-no question. Can't be "more notable". casualdejekyll 16:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I beg to differ. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, by the way. I forgot to clarify casualdejekyll 16:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Casualdejekyll But why? You never actually clarified why Tom Everett Scott "complicates the matter". Strugglehouse (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. While this Tom Scott does seem like the primary topic to me that is because I am British and I watch a lot of YouTube. I am sure there will be sports fans and many others looking at this and asking "Who is this guy?". There are several significantly notable Tom Scotts so having the disambiguation as the first thing readers are offered makes more sense than taking a guess at what they want and potentially confusing a significant proportion of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  @DanielRigal That's why hatnotes exist. We have Template:For, Template:About, etc. for a reason. It lets us link to other people with similar/the same names. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  My point is that other people might think that one of the other Tom Scotts was the primary topic and that's not as obviously incorrect as it seems to those of us who watch a lot of YouTube. DanielRigal (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not enough evidence this Tom Scott is far-and-away the primary topic when there are loads of other Tom Scotts (and Thomas Scotts). Over the last year the disambig page Tom Scott has been getting over 50 times (!!) as many total views as this page on average ([5]). Massviews over the year 2022 similarly show that seven other Tom Scotts received more total views than this one ([6]). Per casualdejekyll's struck support, the usefulness to the reader matters, and it seems clear the average reader benefits far more from disambiguation here. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Estar8806 et al, there's no primarytopic here and as noted Thomas Scotts complicate things as well. –Davey2010^Talk 18:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Support Wikinav shows nearly double the traffic is going to this version of Tom Scott (the presenter) than the saxophone player from the generic Tom Scott page. The YouTuber is definitely the primary topic here. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Belichickoverbrady's stats, clearly not prominent enough to be the primary topic. Doubling the traffic is not even close to enough, it should be an order of magnitude more than all other topics combined -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  ..no? That's.. not how that works casualdejekyll 13:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  casualdejekyll is right History6042 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  No, WP:PT1 per the statement made in the move request WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has not been established. It is not greatly more likely, A doubling is not a sufficient margin to be "much more likely" -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per 67.70. J947 † ^edits 21:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The correct inquiry to make here is with Massviews, which shows that since 2015, the YouTuber has received orders of magnitude fewer views than the actor, Tom Everett Scott, and fewer views than Tom Scott (businessman), Tom Scott (cartoonist), Tom Scott (linebacker), Tom Scott (Canadian football), Tom Scott (politician), Tom Scott (painter), and Tom Scott (poet). Here are the top five by five-year pageviews (excluding Tom Everett Scott). BD2412 T 00:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Up until a week ago this article was called Tom Scott (presenter) and before that was called Tom Scott (entertainer). Fixed pageviews = [7] History6042 (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Better numbers for the subject, but I am still not convinced that there is a primary topic here. BD2412 T 02:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BD2412 Here's that page with Tom Scott (presenter) and Tom Scott (entertainer) added. Tom Scott (presenter) has 11 times as many page views as the next highest (the businessman) within the five years, and Tom Scott (entertainer) has 17 times as many. I think that makes a primary topic. It shows that that's what people are most likely searching for when it comes to the "Tom Scott" name. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose He might be my favorite Tom Scott, but I also don't see where there is any Tom Scott which is more prominent than any other. The current situation is best. --Jayron32 13:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose. The clickstream shows only 65% to the YTer and pageviews 70. My (admittedly arbitrary) rule is 75% for a ptopic, which this falls just short of. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 16:46, 19 August 2023 (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.

Year of birth

I am going to be very careful with this talk page entry, as I am fully aware of the arbitration enforcement notice.

There is a video on Scott's YouTube channel where he states how old he was in a specific year. There are also news articles (see here and here) about the topic that Scott was talking about, which also says how old Scott was at that time.

Using this info, it would be possible to add Scott's year of birth. I'm quite sure that on any normal article this would be completely acceptable, but of course I will ask here due to the article notice.

Despite the notice, I still think this is acceptable. WP:BLPPRIVACY states that "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, [...] err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it.". The notice reads that "You must not post any personal information" but that "Personal information is defined broadly and includes [...] month/date of birth". My interpretation of that is that a year of birth is acceptable, but not a full date of birth.

The notice also states that "You must not post any personal information [...] unless there is consensus for the addition on the talk page", so that's what I'm here for - to seek consensus. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Including a year or approximate year seems ok to me. I'm assuming that the arbitration notice was placed there after an archived talk page discussion where some people tried to track down his exact DOB. Hunting down an exact birthdate would definitely be inappropriate and would not make the article any better, but it's valuable to have a broad idea of how old he is.

In the video, he says he was 19 years old when the Preparing for Emergencies leaflets were mailed out. Later in the video, he shows a screenshot of a BBC article about his parody website, and the screenshot includes the article's publication date: July 29, 2004. This adds up with our own article about Preparing for Emergencies, which says the campaign began on July 26, 2004 (and it cites another BBC article). So I think it's probably reasonable to say he was 19 in July 2004, and given that all the information is in one video, I don't think this goes against WP:SYNTHESIS. We can use {{birth based on age as of date|19|2004|7}}, which looks like this: 1984 or 1985 (age 38–39). –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi Yes, I think that's the most appropriate way I'd doing it. He also states himself in the video that it was in 2004 - "That sort of joke was still new and exciting in 2004." Strugglehouse (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Based on the history of this topic, I'd say it's better not to. Legowerewolf (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar; what is the history you're referencing? At WP:BLPPRIVACY, it says If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it., so it seems reasonable to me to include a two-year range, especially given that it comes from Scott's own video. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/AKlOjywe1mH2VuF0B1sngNqkkb8/appointments here's an official government record with the month and year, which may be enough to put this to rest? Akaibu1 (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Akaibu1 Unfortunately, no. Government documents are not allowed for sources of personal information. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse, IagoQnsi, and Legowerewolf: Widely reported his age is not. But a year approximation—simply list the year—based on his own video—it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public—conforms to the letter of WP:DOB. Perhaps there seems to be consensus for this? Of course I'd feel less cautious were there a more contemporary profile mentioning his current age. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Streamy Awards

The page currently reads "In 2022 and 2023, Scott won the Streamy Award for Learning and Education". However, from the source given in the page, , he was only nominated for the 2023 award, and did not in fact win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Znedd1 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done, good catch! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

References