Jump to content

Talk:Tom Scott (presenter)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

YouTube channel

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
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 ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  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?

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Addition of Middle Name

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

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) putting his birthday at October 17, 1984. This has been included in the Norwegian wiki on Scott: . 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

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago17 comments14 people in discussion
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)
@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

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in 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

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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.[1] 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

  1. ↑ Seager, Susan (26 April 2020). "Op-Ed: The Hollywood sign is a public treasure, and no one should have to pay to use its image". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2021. Retrieved 18 May 2020. British YouTuber Tom Scott mocked the chamber's trademark...

Requested move 31 July 2023

Latest comment: 2 years ago20 comments17 people in discussion
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) , 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. 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)
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

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 2 years ago42 comments16 people in discussion
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)

– 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,[1] written popular web toys,[2] created a social media network,[3][4] organised a national level holiday,[5][6] been the president of the University of York Students' Union,[7][8] won various awards,[9] been on quiz shows such Only Connect[10] and University Challenge,[11] hosted a radio show,[9] has presented at various venues and gatherings,[12][13] ran for Parliament in the 2010 United Kingdom general election,[14] and has over 6 million subscribers on YouTube?[15] 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

  1. ↑ "My life as one of Sky 1's Gadget Geeks". www.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  2. ↑ Burrell, Ian (2021-05-30). "How to heat hamsters humanely while setting the web alight thanks to the power of YouTube". inews.co.uk. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  3. ↑ Hern, Alex (2014-09-12). "The rise and rise of emoji social networks". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  4. ↑ News, A. B. C. "Emojli: New Emoji-Only Instant Messaging App". ABC News. Retrieved 2023-08-15. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  5. ↑ "Meet the Uni of York alumni competing in Christmas University Challenge". University of York. 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  6. ↑ "Preview: International Talk Like A Pirate Day with Mad Cap'n Tom". Londonist. 2010-09-16. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  7. ↑ "'Pirate' becomes new student union president". York Press. 2008-03-10. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  8. ↑ "We have a pirate president! - University News - The Yorker". theyorkerarchive.github.io. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  9. Jump up to: 1 2 Barnard, Mike. "Student radio talent celebrated at the Student Radio Awards 2008". Milkround. Archived from the original on 2 May 2012. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  10. ↑ "BBC Two - Only Connect, Series 3 - Episode guide". BBC. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  11. ↑ "University Challenge announces line up for its twelfth festive series". www.bbc.com. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  12. ↑ Computing Insight UK 2016 Highlights, retrieved 2023-08-15
  13. ↑ Emojli: Behind the Scenes and Why You Should Never Build An App, retrieved 2023-08-15
  14. ↑ "Fringe candidates fight for votes". 2010-04-29. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  15. ↑ "Tom Scott - YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
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)
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)
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

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

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 41–42). –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

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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, [1], 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2023

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

change 5.99M subscribers to 6.22M subscribers Gus cox (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a link to a reliable source. Rehsarb (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2024

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Years active 1999–2024 EthanSharrocks (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

As stated in my edit, he is still active, he just won't be as active on the main channel anymore. He has specifically stated that he will not be leaving forever, just temporarily, and that he will still be uploading to his podcast. CommissarDoggoTalk? 16:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 Not done per User:CommissarDoggo. Meteorname (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrongly attributed quote about his break

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section about his break starting on 1 January 2024 falsely attributes the quote "It’s probably not goodbye forever, but this channel will stop. At least, for a while." to the announcement on January 1st, even though the article it links to refers to an older video where he announced this.

It's not "wrong" in the sense that it is true he said that and it's in reference to the same thing, but it reads as if the quote is from the video on January 1st. I don't know what the policy is about referencing youtube videos directly (possibly archiving first), but there are other fitting quotes which would also elaborate on his motivation (spending time with loved ones etc.) Jade.128 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you add some information about his last upload

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

add some information about his retirement 92.18.23.239 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's already there -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 19:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Please specify what to change, or at least more specific information to add. Meteorname (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Subscribers

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The infobox shows him as having 14.00 subscribers UnknownCoop (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2024

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under career, youtube career, third paragraph replace the first sentance "On 1 January 2024, Scott announced that he was taking a break from his YouTube work after a decade of consistent weekly uploads." with "Scott announced that he was taking a break from his YouTube work starting 1 January 2024, after a decade of consistent weekly uploads." The current phrasing implies the announcement of the break was on the date, instead of 1 january 2024 being the date when the break started. Brafricaon (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Birth Date

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am aware that there has already been an RFC a few years back about this. We cannot put the exact date. However, his public Companies’ House disclosure puts his birth date as November 1984 [1] A Tree In A Box (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@A Tree In A Box Companies House is public by law, not by choice. It cannot be used here. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay, that seems to be the policy. A Tree In A Box (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Years active

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should we change the years active from 2006 - 2024 as he stopped making content for his main channel then? 90.197.30.93 (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@90.197.30.93 His main channel is only on break, not permanently stopped. Additionally, he still makes and releases regular content via other channels, such as his podcast, social media and collaborations with others. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2024

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the first line, the brackets say that he was born in 1984 or 1985, but it should be changed to the fact that he was born in [REDACTED] (from [REDACTED]. Sammyseal7 (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This information is not public by choice of the subject. PianoDan (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (2)

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change references of "Thomas Scott" to "[REDACTED]" as per [REDACTED] These are already cited in the article as sources. I.e.: [REDACTED] (born 1984 or 1985) is an English YouTuber and web developer... PJSans (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:NAME. PianoDan (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the first sentence of the Early Life section:

Change "Thomas Scott[8][9][10] was born in 1984 or 1985[8][11]..." to "Thomas Scott[8][9][10] was born in [REDACTED]..."

Here is the source [REDACTED]

If we still cannot make this change, then simply remove the date of birth year?

Thedenverite12 (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

As explained in other edit requests, we cannot include that as a source since it's not be made public by choice. Do you understand this policy? (also see MOS:NAME) Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

talk like a pirate day

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

the article says that he started running uks talk like a pirate day in 2009 but in every 2008 mad capn tom clip/interview i can find he says that hes been running it for five years so clearly the article is incorrect. maybe someone could fix it ? 2A02:85F:ECD4:D800:39C7:668C:A96B:7C95 (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I checked the 2008 York Press source, and it confirms that he had been running it for five years before then. I have fixed the error. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
awesome !! glad to be of help. 2A02:85F:ECD3:7D00:CD69:1240:927:F4 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The article says Tom Scott has been active on YouTube, from "2006-Present", but he actually took a break from YouTube from 2nd Janurary 2024-Present ish... Ish because he did post a video about returning to YouTube with some new videos, but it does say on the Thumbnail "This video will be deleted in 7 days." So that's why I don't think he has officially returned to making YouTube videos? If you agree and can edit the article, can you update the article? Ek1738 (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

He has still been doing stuff on YouTube (Lateral, and The Technical Difficulties) just not on his main channel. the wub "?!" 19:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh - I didn't know that, my bad :P Thanks for correcting me! Ek1738 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but the channel was said to be his main channel, and the views and subscriber count is only about the main one. IdkIndex (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Birth date based on age template

Latest comment: 10 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Why not include a full date when we know the date of the article mentioning his age's publication? Spectritus (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Privacy concerns. As brought up in another section by Firefangledfeathers, see WP:BLPDOB for more on this. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@Harryhenry1 That's not relevant to the question. I'm talking about the publication date of the article mentioning his age. Why only include 2004 when we have the full date? Spectritus (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I still don't understand where you want this change to happen? All the listings for 2004 sources on the page list their dates in full. Can you be more specific? Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@Harryhenry1 It has actually been readded, nevermind. Spectritus (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The birth date for Tom Scott is incorrect. Per the [REDACTED], lists his birthday as [REDACTED]. Source: [REDACTED] 23.243.5.106 (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

|answered= could someone also fix this error? 39.109.224.194 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: As explained above on this page, this is not public information, and should not be included per the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. (Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth...) Aerin17 (t • c) 07:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Change Tom Scott's DOB?

Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion

There are clear source showing that Tom Scott's birthday is indeed [REDACTED]. This facts have been confirmed by Tom Scott himself in an introduction video he posted years ago. Could we make that change? It has been a long time 39.109.224.194 (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it also shows on his company entry on the UK Government's official website.
[REDACTED]
Bold Tuudugc (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
  • No. Many discussions on this talk page have already established that we must not include this information about Tom Scott as he does not want this information to be public, and we cannot treat a government website as public information as Tom Scott did not choose for it to be public. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
    How is a literal government website not considered public information? If Tom Scott doesn't want people to know his birthyear then just remove this 84 or 85 lol 66.181.188.203 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
    See WP:BLPDOB for more info on Wikipedia policy on this. There's a difference between allowing your DOB on a low-traffic government website because it's a prerequisite to registering some legal entity and wanting your DOB on one of the most popular websites on the internet. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
    Should we get an oversighter to remove this information then? Currently it still shows up in the history of this talk page? @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 14:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    I understand your concern, but I don't think Oversight is necessary for this. While this information about Tom Scott is too private to be included in his Wikipedia article, it's still public information in the sense that anyone can easily find it online. So it's probably not serious enough to require Oversight. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

DOB

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2025

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change Date of Birth to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] ~2025-40880-99 (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

No. See other threads on this page. Indagate (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Change tense of the first paragraph.

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's fairly well known that Tom Scott no longer makes videos. The first paragraph should be changed from 'Scott creates educational videos' to 'Scott created educational videos', with some added context on how he no longer makes videos, and maybe more focus on the other things he's doing. Stickynotememo (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You're right, this sentence should be past tense. I've changed it to specify that it ran from 2014 to 2024. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Change career?

Latest comment: 4 months ago12 comments10 people in discussion

Hello, on Tom Scott's official website (https://www.tomscott.com/), there is a footing for researchers/LLM scrapers that states this: "You must not use ‘YouTuber’, as it is not an accurate description: the majority of Tom’s output is not on YouTube, and Tom strongly prefers descriptors that are not tied to a particular corporation or medium." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-41089-29 (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up; it brings up an interesting situation. Scott says here that he prefers "broadcaster" or "presenter", but a previous move discussion specifically chose to avoid "presenter". (Some participants in the discussion opposed the word "YouTuber" for similar reasons to Scott, so they probably feel vindicated right now.) The argument against "presenter" still holds—as far as I can find, there still aren't many reliable sources using the word "presenter". It's still true that most of sources are about his YouTube work. Based on that, it might make sense to keep "YouTuber", as he is still primarily notable for being a YouTuber (like how Michael Jordan was a famous basketball player, even during the year that he played baseball). But then it's a question of how much we weigh the preferences of the article subject. Scott says he's also okay with "content creator", and this would be acceptable for the article title. If someone started a move discussion, I would probably support that. However, I don't think it's a strong enough case to avoid "YouTuber", which is backed by more reliable sources. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
His website is a primary source and not usable for describing him. If secondary sources label him a Youtuber, he's a Youtuber (on Wikipedia). However, youtuber is just a member of larger categories (like influencer or entertainer), and I wouldn't oppose changing the parenthetical in the URL. BishopsHouseofHorrors (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Still a primary source but in his newest podcast episode he says "This isnt a youtube video" when talking about his podcast, so how about tom scott(podcaster)? Could this be done? At the moment the podcast is his primary output, though this could change when he posts new youtube videos. ~2026-14353-51 (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
While Scott's own opinion on how to list him (as identified by the OP here) does not guide our decision-making, it's worth considering this article's name. FWIW the previous RMs were 2021–23 – a time when Scott was far more regularly posting to YouTube. While he probably is most known for his YouTube media (it's how I'd describe him to someone), we could consider using a different article name – the parenthetical disambiguator's function is to disambiguate, not to be a WP:SHORTDESC. I wouldn't object to this being Tom Scott (content creator) (other than the fact I don't particularly like the term, as I think describing creative media as "content" is devaluing, but that's my personal beef). It is sufficiently disambiguatory without compromising accuracy (we only need to be as accurate as to distinguish different articles with a similar name). So much like Vigilantcosmicpenguin, I'd probably support a move to that if there was an RM. MIDI (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Also here from today's Lateral episode. While Scott is certainly most known for his YouTube content, its not unreasonable to say that his work has extended past the site considerably. I also personally dislike the term content creator, what about Tom Scott (internet personality) as the disambiguator instead? ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 16:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
I am personally preferential to Tom Scott (internet personality), but I haven't seen many articles with the same naming scheme. Stickynotememo (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Would Digital Media Creator work for everyone? ~2025-43727-57 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I would also wager myself for this one. He is necessarily known for his work on the internet, and none of the other Tom Scotts we have on Wikipedia are known for the same thing. It's pretty all-encompassing, still disambiguates the guy from everyone else, and it's clear to readers. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 18:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
I've made the WP:BOLD move to internet personality. I haven't read any of the reponses here as opposition to the move, but I'm happy to start a more official discussion if the move is reverted. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 19:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi @LaffyTaffer,
I've decided to revert the move as, per my edit summary, I think given how many recent historical disputes we've had on this issue between giving the article a more general suffix descriptive term versus using the suffix "Youtuber" it's probably best such a similar move have that formal Move discussion before it's done again. I'm happy to support your preferred option though, as I agree with the merit of it being a more accurate general descriptor to his works. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the explanation :) Will get started on a move request ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 21:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2026

Latest comment: 4 months ago35 comments18 people in discussion
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. WP:SNOW move to "Tom Scott (presenter)". (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Tom Scott (YouTuber) → Tom Scott (internet personality) – While youtube is the source of Scott's initial notability, he largely is no longer a youtuber and his work has at this point extended past the site. Internet personality feels like a sufficiently general descriptor. I initially made a bold move as it appeared uncontroversial per #Change career?, but was reverted due to the number of moves that have already occurred in the past 5 years.

While this requested move isn't directly at his request, it does come from him expressing frustration at the YouTuber disambiguator in episode 178 of Lateral (at ~4:47, I will admit to being a little bit grumpy that my Wikipedia article describes me as "YouTuber".) ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 21:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England have been notified of this discussion. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 21:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Worth noting up here that as nominator, I now oppose "internet personality" in favor of "presenter" per Sott's response below. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 20:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Internet personality is probably a better (if still imperfect) descriptor for Tom Scott's output given it ranges beyond what's principally on YouTube (and certainly for what he continues to make). Admittedly the fact it annoys him seems more to do with his personal hangup over the term (he's far from the only one to view it as being "beneath" what they do) than a matter of inaccuracy, but at this point I don't think it provides any more clarity/specificity in the same way we label musicians as that or say "guitarist" as opposed to the suffix of their band name. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Presenter per appropriate subject request Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I was wondering if there was precedent for "Internet personality" as a disambiguator. The answer is yes. There are currently 12 article titles with "Internet personality" as a parenthetical (compared to 4 uses of "Internet celebrity", 1 use of "content creator", and 9 uses of "influencer"). So "Internet personality" is indeed the right choice, if this article is moved. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support presenter per article subject request. Although previous arguments against "presenter" remain valid, "presenter" is a reasonably neutral and meaningful descriptor. The opinion of the BLP subjects should be considered; the subject has expressed concern that this article title affects his reputation, so I believe this is a case where we should grant courtesy to the subject. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: Tom Scott has recently announced he's coming back to YouTube , so it may be better just to wait and not make a move. Stickynotememo (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Was it announced somewhere else that this wouldnt be a Nebula exclusive or is the mobile version of that url not rendering something? ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 00:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
According to the Nebula subreddit, it was announced on Tom's Newsletter. I'm not subscribed to it so I can't confirm this, but it apperently said:
"The first episode of "Tom Scott: England" goes live at 4pm, Monday 23rd March, on Nebula, and at the same time there'll be a big flashy public announcement on my YouTube channel. Each episode in the series will be released free on YouTube one week after it appears on Nebula."
Realtent (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, that changes my own opinion on the matter. Will possibly come back with my own !vote after sleeping on it. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 00:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I retract my opposition given the fact that he will probably continue to be active on other platforms, not solely youtube. Stickynotememo (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support: Continued release of content on YouTube doesn't change that it is a poor descriptor of his output. He releases content on Nebula now, podcasts, newsletters, etc. as well as YouTube. It is also beneficial to match a person's preferred descriptor when it is also fair, accurate, and widely used.- Cerebral726 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Moving Support to "Presenter" per subject's request below. His argument is well formed, especially with regards to the pitfalls of both "internet" and "personality". Cerebral726 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support: In accordance with Cerebral, if he still makes and uploads content that is not on Youtube then a more encompassing term should be used. Realtent (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
In addition, many of the other pages that use (Internet Personality) are about creators who create on multiple platforms and/or make different types of media. His podcasting and other content would likely have him falling outside of him being solely known as a Youtuber, though I can't really back that up. Realtent (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support (Presenter) as it addresses the concerns I expressed while also having widespread usage Realtent (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Cerebral726. YouTube is definitely significant to his notability, but it's not necessarily all-encompassing or defining. Also, I think terms like "content creator" are too vague; it's best to directly refer to the internet/social media. Wracking talk! 04:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support (presenter) per others who changed their !votes following Scott's comment. Wracking talk! 23:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment from article subject (see below) Tomscottgo (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support (presenter) per subject request. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 13:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support presenter. Scott himself makes an extremely good argument for presenter, and he has been consistent about this preferred title for multiple years. Rooves 13 (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support presenter. I was coming here to suggest that as an alternative before I even saw the subject's comments, as that really is the proper term for a person (especially a British one) who hosts various media programs.
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The Tom Scott article has previously been at Tom Scott (Presenter). Worth reading the [existing discussion] that caused it to move to Youtuber. Stickynotememo (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
It's also worth considering that Scott's career seems to be in a fairly different place than when that discussion took place. At this point he largely does not upload to YouTube anymore, and there's an argument to be made that he would at this point be notable for his work independant of his YouTube career. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 22:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. I have read through the previous discussion and largely come to the conclusion that the circumstances have changed and that this move is warranted given Scott's current and recent projects. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 22:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Fully agree that the circumstances have changed, but it's worth reading anyway. Stickynotememo (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support presenter per WP:BLPKIND and because he hasn't really been on yt since 2024, although he's featured in one of Evan Edinger's latest videos a couple days ago racing across London. JuniperChill (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support presenter as per the subject's comment and as per Realtent's comment. I originally considered "internet personality" as a valid dab since there was precedent and most of his works involve the internet, however I did so as a compromise since "presenter" was already discussed and rejected and I wanted to avoid a WP:SNOWBALL. That being said, I'm all for establishing "presenter" as consensus since he's got a presence in places that aren't YouTube, formats that aren't video, projects that aren't his. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 22:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support "presenter" per subject's comment and Realtent's comment. Xenryjake (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support (presenter): Per subject's comments, plus it more accurately represents Scott's output. While he is known for his YouTube content, he is also known for his talks on stage, his podcast, his series on other platforms, etc. "Presenter" encompasses all of this. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support (presenter): Agree that there's a need to move away from YouTuber. I think presenter is preferable per subject's own preference, as well as, to me, "internet personality" implies a very different type of person more akin to a lifestyle guru than an educational presenter. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Longer comment from Tom Scott

Hi folks. I'm the subject of the article. I've never intervened on my own article before because WP:COI, but I just got an email telling me about this move and discussion. Given that Wikipedia's one-line definition of a person massively affects how they're presented across the internet, I'd like to make a strong argument for presenter. Because that's what I do!

First of all: thank you for moving away from "YouTuber". Most of the things I make aren't on YouTube, and tying a person to a single corporation feels unpleasant and odd. Frustratingly, that's how a lot of places refer to me, because that's how Wikipedia refers to me, which feels like citogenesis. It's obviously inaccurate, or at least too limited, though!

However, "internet personality" doesn't make sense either. That's never been used (to my knowledge) by any reliable source. It's also too narrow: first, for "internet", because my professional work also takes place outside of the internet, on television, radio and stage. The first big public thing I did was a TV show. And second, for "personality", because that means the shows and work would be about me, rather than the things I'm talking about.

WP:NCPDAB says to use a noun that's a standard, commonly used tag. "Presenter":

Here's proof that this is actually me.

Thanks! Tomscottgo (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2026 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2026

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the first sentence: Change (born 1984 or 1985) to (born 1984) ~2026-17721-84 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable secondary sources do not specify the year; they only narrow it down to the range 1984–1985. The specific year can only be verified through legal records, but we cannot use legal records as a source. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Scott_(presenter)/Archive_1&oldid=1365912738"