Talk:Scott the Woz

Contested deletion

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

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

Little Addition

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

@CordiBordi, you have to consider that Wikipedia's guidelines on notability differs from what YouTube fans consider as notable channels. I'm gonna sound like a broken record here, but in order for a YouTuber to attain their own article, they have to receive significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources (basically coverage from outlets like The New York Times, Polygon, Kotaku and so on). It pretty much means that going by Wikipedia's logic, a YouTuber with 100k subscribers can pass the notability guidelines over a channel with upwards of 1-5 million, just so long as the 100k YouTuber has received substantial coverage from news outlets. The problem is that a large majority of the news outlets considered reliable on Wikipedia only manage to cover YouTubers when they've either

• a): made an extremely viral video or meme that takes the nation by storm (Harlem Shake)
• or b): gotten embroiled in a massive controversy (pretty much everything PewDiePie did from 2017-present).

This sadly means that YouTubers like Scott get discarded fairly easily in spite of their positivity and popularity. Game Theory made a video about this if you're interested. But anyways, it just seems like Scott's an example of WP:TOOSOON; he's a rising star right now, but maybe in a year or two he'll blow up tremendously and Wikipedia editors will scramble to write an article on him. Maybe wait a little bit until something comes up for him, and spend a little while checking for any new sources on him. It's what I've been doing for a YouTuber I like who's had his article deleted recently. :)

PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@PantheonRadiance yeah you're probably right, hopefully he gets more attention from the media soon so this article can be published :). Also is there a way to take the draft off of the submission for creation? I'm new to wikipedia and maybe it's actually really easy but I couldn't find how to do it or if it's even possible ;_; CordiBordi (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@CordiBordi To be honest, I don't even know myself either, I'm somewhat new to this too lol. I think so long as you work on the draft actively, it should be fine. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Why is scott the woz notable?

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

Okay, look. Scott doesn't have a Wikipedia page yet because he hasn't proven to fulfill the General Notability Guidelines. I, and so many other editors, have already pointed out that very few media outlets (or at least, reliable media outlets) have discussed him and/or his YouTube channel. While Scott has announced that he will become a G4 personality in the near future, there still (surprisingly) hasn't been any coverage from media outlets about it. This, and the relative newness of him as a YouTuber, leads me to suggest that Scott's an example of WP:TOOSOON; he only garnered popularity within the past two years, and while he may get bigger in the future, right now not many sources have taken notice of him.

However, I think the AfC reviewers may need to take a look at these sources. Recently I came across this source from PC Games, a gaming magazine from Germany whose editor-in-chief wrote about Scott. In case you wonder about the magazine's reliability, an article from it appeared as a citation for Paper Mario, a featured article. The source was in the Paper Mario page months before editors determined that the page was suitable for FA-status, suggesting that the FA reviewers deemed the source reliable enough. It talks about not only Scott but his web content, comparing him to the AVGN: "For me he is what the Angry Video Game Nerd was when he gathered a fan base, some of which is still loyal to this day, around him in 2004 on the relatively young Internet with his different videos full of heart... Scott the Woz is the only, or at least the only known, legitimate successor who has everything (minus the retro focus) that made the Nerd unique, only significantly better."

Also, two other sources already used in this draft talk about his charity event for Critical Care Comics and the Children's Miracle Network. I believe CBR is considered reliable for internet comics and pop culture, and both articles focus on him and his charity stream.

Finally, I'm not entirely sure of the reliability of HITC, but this article does talk about his Twitter account being hacked, among other crucial facts about him. If the source is reliable, this could be used to establish his notability. Overall, while I'm uncertain if these sources justify him having a full Wikipedia article, I believe these sources should be enough to at least keep this draft here for now. I'm pinging @Robert McClenon, AngusWOOF, Theroadislong, and Curbon7: for feedback. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

PantheonRadiance, there aren't notability requirements to keep the article in draft, however, if it gets resubmitted after rejection it will be considered for MFD as tendentious editing. And if it's recreated after that, it will become creation protected and any hopes of getting it reviewed will be met with strong opposition. Assuming it hasn't gone that far, If you need AFC reviewers to analyze the three sources per WP:THREE to see if the meet WP:GNG then you can ask for that. In this case, it's already been deleted at AFD, so you need to show new notability of the person since that previous AFD. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

As User:AngusWOOF says, there are no notability requirements for drafts. Drafts are only deleted either if they are abandoned for six months, by the G13 process, or if there is a deletion discussion after they are tendentiously resubmitted. I rejected this draft because the resubmissions were becoming tedious, and were not focusing on improving it beyond its condition a year ago when the AFD deleted the article. So anyone who wants to have an article approved should add text (not merely references) to the article that was not in the article when it was deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This, the draft talk page, IS the place to discuss how to get an article accepted. Do not simply resubmit, and do not simply add references. Discuss, and expand the text of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF and Robert McClenon: Okay, I understand the draft guidelines. What I meant was that I don't think anyone should edit this draft anymore unless they find new reliable sources, or at least re-edit it utilizing the sources I brought up. I simply want to ask if these sources would be sufficient enough to grant him notability, under WP:THREE. Personally if this draft were made into a live article with these sources, I would see Scott's page to at best just barely cross the threshold for notability - maybe not enough to survive an AFD again but enough to bypass a Speedy or PROD. So for any editor reading this, I recommend waiting until new sources come in.

Also just to state this: I don't intend to edit this draft mainly because I don't watch Scott's videos, so I suggest someone else work on this draft once more instead. Preferably someone who's both a fan of Scott AND understands Wikipedia's GNG. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

PantheonRadiance, someone who's not a fan (or anti-fan) would be fine so as to not have pov issues. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

AngusWOOF Fair enough. Just added the PC Games source as a ref-idea. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I just saw this and figured I'd stop by to say, from what I'm seeing he is not notable, yet. As Pantheon said above this is most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. He might start to gain notability as his channel grows (and he airs on TV in more accessible places) as reliable secondary sources might start to have coverage on him. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I also wanna say to take a look at WP:FANCRUFT which describes what is and isn't suitable in articles. I'm not oging to make edits to this draft right now not just because I'm a fan of him, but because I have no reason to do so. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

July 2022 notability?

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

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

Sometimes less is more

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

Thanksolotl, if there's a way to merge his biography into this article as with DanTDM, Stampy, or even Parker Plays, that would be helpful and then we can redirect the leftover drafts that have a bunch of episode spam. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there much of note missing from the mainspace article that's sufficiently supported by a source? Taking a quick look at the other drafts I can't see much missing, most of the same beats are covered (childhood creativity, early youtube channel, 2016 pre-Scott The Woz internet skits) I do think the drafts could be redirected to the mainspace article. Thanksolotl (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Tag 'em with {{R with history}}. SWinxy (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Episode lists

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

@ElevenHour, I think descriptions of each G4 episode would be fine; basic outline more so than just "these YouTube episodes", though consensus is that listing every YouTube episode would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight.

I think we could do a separate and short "Plot" section, similar to many other TV shows (if you can find out what the hell actually goes on in the series lol), though. DecafPotato (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@DecafPotato I agree that adding info to the G4 episodes would be good. However, I do believe that adding the YouTube episode list would be good, maybe in a separate page to declutter this page though.

Series like Angry Video Game Nerd have pages for episode lists and while I do understand that AVGN is much more bigger than Scott The Woz, I don't see why adding an episode list would go against submission rules (given that sources are referenced, although I'm not exactly sure what sources you would need for it quite yet) if we don't write Scott's opinions in detail in the descriptions. (For example, the Chibi-Robo Zip Lash episode would be some thing like "Continuing from the 2nd Dark Age of Nintendo episode, Scott covers what he believes to be the worst Nintendo game in 2015, Chibi-Robo Zip Lash.")

Also, the link you gived was for giving too much information about a minor opinion. Did I miss something in the link, because with my suggestion, I do think this problem can be avoided. ElevenHour (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@ElevenHour essentially, it (along with WP:TOPIC, WP:WHENSPLIT, WP:SCOPE, WP:OOS, and others) say that minority parts of the subject shouldn't take up a lot of space in the article. So, in this case, it would refer to a table about all 200-something episodes being roughly 70-80% of the article's size, even more if it contains plot details. And when the list of Scott's episodes aren't 70-80% of his notability, being that he also has charity, TV broadcast, general premise, background, etc., that causes problems.

So I think we would need a way to find that information, and put it into the article in a method that doesn't make up the vast majority of the entire article. DecafPotato (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@DecafPotato Does my idea for making a page for the episode list would work? It would display all that information without obscuring the whole page, and other shows do it too. ElevenHour (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@ElevenHour. The problem, then, would be that the episode list itself would need to demonstrate notability on its own, separate from the Scott the Woz series as a whole. So I think we can expand on the G4 episodes; MOS:TVPLOT states that up to 200 words is the general limit for single-episode plot descriptions in an episode table, though 50-100 may be more reasonable for a non-plot focused series. And I think a separate plot summary is the only way we can incorporate the plot of the show, without running into the myriad of policies, guidelines, and essays surrounding the topic (feel somewhat obligated to mention WP:IGNOREALLRULES, but I think that's far from applying here) DecafPotato (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@DecafPotato You raise a very good point. Demonstrating notability would be very hard. However, I do think with the current amount of insight that Scott himself has given us, I do think it's doable. I'd like to reference AVGN again; his episode list references a lot of primary sources, not secondary sources, which means a lot of the citations were from his own videos and site. Given how much commentaries and behind the scenes videos Scott produced, I do think it's possible. I do want to thank you for indulging me on this conversation though. I think I now have a basic idea of what I can add and what I need to do. Imagine that I gave you a complimentary cookie for you. ElevenHour (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we make an episode list? And not the G4 episodes, I'm talking the actual ones uploaded to youtube. I mean, theres already a Number of episodes, so why not make a new page just for those episodes? BeastofBeef (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@BeastofBeef it's currently under development! search for Draft:List of Scott the Woz episodes ElevenHour (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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

@AngusWOOF That's the thing I want to circle back to though. While I do agree that Scott isn't as big as PewDiePie or others, he has 1.7M subscribers. He has appeared on cable television. He has an officially licensed Monopoly board. How notable do you have to be to get an episode list? Also, many shows that appear on national television or streaming services are very similar to podcasts. If they can get episode lists, I do not believe the problem here is the format of the show.

I understand this page has had numerous problems with notability and vandalism. And like Decaf has said, there are important things to note when making one. However, I cannot say with good faith that the reason Scott cannot have an episode list is simply because "He's not as big as PewDiePie or others". ElevenHour (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

ElevenHour, it's not the notability of the person, as the example I offered involves highly-known YouTubers that produce thousands of episodes. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF YouTubers such as AVGN (and sort of Critical Role) have episode lists. I don't see why Scott cannot given notability and sources are given correctly. ElevenHour (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

See PewDiePie videography and how that does not list every single episode. Critical Role is more of a programmed web television series. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF PewDiePie Videography is about everything made by the YouTuber PewDiePie. Of course because PewDiePie produces many videos, often unrelated to each other, it would be shortened to notable videos only. However, this page is for Scott the Woz, the SERIES. Shows have separate pages for episodes list, so I can't see why Scott the Woz can have one. ElevenHour (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF Jumping in to clarify that the Scott The Woz series isn't really comparable to a radio show or a podcast at all - the channel uploads relatively infrequently (less than once a week at its peak, a number which has steadily decreased, there have been 11 episodes total this year) In format and in production value, and according to its creator, Scott The Woz is more comparable to a television show, or like you've said, a web television series like Critical Role, than a traditional YouTube channel's content. Similar programs have had episode lists, usually in separate articles, without any issue, and I don't believe notability is a qualifier for episode lists either. Thanksolotl (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thanksolotl Thank you for putting these into words, I often have a tough time explaining things. At the time that the first reply came, I started making a page for the list at Draft:List of Scott the Woz episodes. If anyone would like to help me there, it would be much appreciated. ElevenHour (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

If it were a television series it should have a Futon Critic entry. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF Except it only covers like 5 networks? So long, and thanks for all the fish (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, Futon Critic has zero relation with Wikipedia and there is no rule about a show having to be on one specific website to be included. So long, and thanks for all the fish (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that the YouTube episode list has been removed. Are there any plans to make that list its own article? 3:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaydenTCEM (talk • contribs)

This is an old conversation, but I'm throwing in my two cents anyway.

1. "List of Honest Trailers episodes," which is relatively comparable to a list of Scott the Woz episodes, has survived AfD two times. It could certainly be argued that Honest Trailers (whose article is a section of Screen Junkies', for what it's worth) is more notable than Scott the Woz, but that might have some trouble reaching consensus.
2. Angry Video Game Nerd has "List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes." AVGN is probably more notable than Scott the Woz, but the content of the episode list would be similar.
3. While this page has had its notability questioned with some frequency, an episode list would be a reasonable split from this page; if I understand correctly, a reasonable split from an already-notable parent article isn't required to be notable in and of itself.
4. A draft for a Scott the Woz episode list is currently in progress at Draft:List of Scott the Woz episodes (not created by, but mostly written by, myself). There will likely be significant discourse if and when it's submitted to AfC. For that reason, I personally am planning on just crossing the notability bridge when we come to it.
5. This would be different from, say, a complete videography of PewDiePie. He has series, but they don't really have plot per se. A list of times where he played Minecraft or browsed Reddit wouldn't be of much use at all. Meanwhile, series like Scott the Woz and Angry Video Game Nerd benefit more from having an episode list, because they have unique and creative content that can't be boiled down as easily as a Minecraft Let's Play.

— gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 03:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Create a Borderline Forever article

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

I think Borderline Forever should be listed as a special on an episode list BeastofBeef (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

By Wikipedia standards, Scott The Woz is barely notable as is, I don't think an article about a single episode of the show would pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. Not sure I've ever seen a secondary source cover Borderline Forever in any meaningful capacity. Thanksolotl (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. If reliable sources are found covering the episode, it should be added to this article, maybe in the "history" section or something. I highly doubt enough reliable sources can be found to justify a split. DecafPotato (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Requested move 28 November 2022

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: WP:SNOW close; against naming conventions such as WP:NCCAPS and MOS:TM Thanksolotl (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

---

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

• • @Sebastian Hudak: Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:TM we do not blindly follow capitalization (or other stylization) used by the name holders, so this is not uncontroversial. No such user (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

    Oppose per No such user – DecafPotato (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per No such user. This is a stylization that is already covered by the redirect. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Makes sense, I didn't know this. I don't know of any other instances of article names using different capitalization than the show name.

  Should the "The" form be used throughout the article, just with a lowercase "the" as the article title? Or should it stay as is?

  I think it makes more sense to use the proper name of the show throughout the article. Also worth noting that the infobox states that the channel name is "Scott the Woz", but this is incorrect. Sebastian^{Talk | Contrib.} - 20:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  That's an error, and I've corrected it. DecafPotato (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per No such user. Scott may officially capitalize 'the' but Wikipedia style consistently uses lowercase in cases like these. I believe the page began as Scott The Woz and was already moved to "the" in the past for this exact reason. Thanksolotl (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2022 (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.

Entire YouTube episode list

My deepest respects to the editor who added the complete list of Youtube episodes with duration, upload date and description of each. That would have taken a very, very long time. However I do wonder if this edit is necessary – the massive list significantly clutters the article. Maybe each table could be set to auto-collapse so that following prose sections like Fundraising aren't lost behind the six huge tables? Thoughts? Marcostev88 (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixed! 69.166.47.133 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to rewrite the summaries. Those are copied straight from his video summaries. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I did the first season, and will probably get around to the rest, but yeah, it may be a WP:COPYVIO problem. DecafPotato (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

did the second and some of the third...these take way too long, i think i may leave the rest up to someone else. DecafPotato (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

One solution that might help is using the "Ten Best Episodes of Scott the Woz" and "Help I Like a YouTuber" sources to fill out some information about the plots of each episodes. There aren't many sources that cover all of his episodes together, but at least it's something. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability review

I'm not entirely convinced Scott the Woz (the series or the person) is sufficiently notable enough for a Wikipedia article—I don't plan on taking this to articles for deletion, or at the very least want to bring this issues to light to allow an opportunity for correction beforehand. I'll be going over every listed reference in the article to evaluate what it contributes to the claim of notability in the article:

1. The first source is Wozniaks's YouTube channel. While it is worth including in the article, as it verifies a number of statistics used in the infobox, as a primary source, it does not contribute to notability.
2. Source two is from Game Rant, published by Valnet (a very controversial publisher). Per the listing at WikiProject Video games' source list, This site cannot be used to demonstrate notability, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming.
3. PopCulture.com (and its sister site, ComicBook.com) do not have much consensus in terms of reliability. The only discussion of PopCulture.com that I could find was very small and did not have any emerging consensus. Assuming perfect reliability with no flaws whatsoever, that is one source so far.
4. The next source is Screen Rant, which is more Valnet. Like with Game Rant at the WikiProject Video games source list, This site cannot be used to demonstrate notability, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming.
5. Innovation & Tech Today is entirely undiscussed, as far as I could tell. As an interview, it's largely a primary source, though the fact that this outlet chose to review Wozniak specifically can be seen as an indication of notability, should the site be determined to contribute to notability. The reliability of this source can be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. If we assume perfection, that's two.
6. Once again referencing the WikiProject Video games source list, PC Games is reliable and can contribute to notability. That's now one firmly reliable source that can contribute to notability, two if one counts PopCulture.com or three if one counts Innovation & Tech Today.
7. Not only is The Daily Dot listed as only "situationally" reliable at the perennial sources list, the mention of Wozniak is only one sentence long, absolutely not significant coverage that contributes to notability.
8. We Got This Covered is listed as generally unreliable at the perennial sources list, meaning that, in most cases, it shouldn't be included in articles at all, let alone used to prove notability.
9. Variety is listed as generally reliable at the perennial sources list, however it's mention of Scott the Woz is three words long...
10. G4 itself—as it's being used for information about itself and is affiliated with Wozniak, it's a primary source, and thus doesn't contibute to notability.
11. Comic Book Resources (CBR) is Valnet, see Game Rant (#2) and Screen Rant (#4).
12. CBR, see directly above (#11).
13. We Got This Covered, see #8

The rest are designated primary sources, and thus don't contribute to notability.

So yeah, one source (two if you count a source with no consensus, and three if you count an undiscussed source). While the general notability guideline says that any numbers of sources may be acceptable for an article, the amount of sources currently present in this article is (in my opinion) not enough to prove withstanding coverage and notability. DecafPotato (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with that analysis - frankly, I wasn't aware of the issues with the cited sources. Problem is, I simply don't believe there is that much coverage about Scott. Those sources constitute most (if not all!) of the places that have covered the channel, and it leaves me doubting this is an issue that can be corrected per se. Not sufficiently notable? Thanksolotl (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I can see how its notability leaves a bit to be desired, but I think it weakly meets WP:GNG. The Innovation and Tech Today source is a Q/A interview consisting of statements made from Scott himself, so it doesn't contribute to notability. CBR had a stronger journalistic reputation in the past before Valnet acquired it, but in my opinion the two CBR articles proves notability in the context of what it's sourced to - the Charity Drive articles don't seem like trivial clickbait or churnalism. As for PopCulture.com, I think you should hold a discussion on its reliability if you have the time. If it is considered reliable, I'd vote a weak keep in a hypothetical AfD between that source, PC Games and CBR. PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Better image?

Is it possible we could get a better image of Scott for the page, preferably one of him smiling? He begins each episode with a smile, and all we get for this page is 😐 RteeeeKed💬📖 03:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We can only use screenshots of videos with the Creative Commons tag on them. Since his material is not tagged with it, we had to use a BeatEmUps video featuring Scott, which does have the tag. If you can find any other photo, go ahead. So long, and thanks for all the fish (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

petition to make a page for borderline forever

it deserves one Kh98963 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

If you can find official reports on the episode, you can. For now, sadly nobody has reported on it, so the best you can do is expanding the text on the episode table. So long, and thanks for all the fish (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

what do you mean by official reports? like, a review of the episode by a big website? Kh98963 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Use reliable, secondary sources. Not all "big websites" are reliable, and not all reliable sources are big websites. It doesn't have to be reviews, just find articles that features people talking about the special, reviewing them, or anything else that may prove a statement. However, it might not work. Your page might get rejected despite sources if it's deemed to be not notable whatsoever. So long, and thanks for all the fish (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Name Change

Should we move the page to be under the name "Scott The Woz" or keep it with the lowercase "t?" The article specifies in the beginning that Scott The Woz is stylized in start case. Thumbtoe (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

See the previous move request discussion and conclusion. The article already states the formatting, and the redirect for Scott The Woz still exists. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

• Scott the Woz Face (cropped).png (discussion)
• Scott the Woz.ogg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

hello

we should add a page for all the charecters, like some of the more obscure ones (e.g. Mute Vegan, Police Employee) FalafelIsntHere (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

i think the dedicated scott the woz wiki would be a better place for that GGISHERE - witness my glory - insult me 23:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The aftermath

So I've noticed recently that this page was contested for deletion, and have since removed details without general notability or citations. While I do think it has made the page more consistent, I cannot help but think that some details that was erased feels a little unnecessary. Sure, the biography of the creator was unnecessary, but things such as the episode list of the main show (which we have already agreed are warranted on this very talk page) and credits such as producer and editor, people credited in the show itself, are details that other shows have without citations, because they are important notes about the article. I want to make sure that people agree with this statement to a certain degree, since I do not want people erasing and rebuilding the article over and over again over the same thing. So long, and thanks for all the fish (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think much of a consesus was reached in the previous discussion about an episode list. I'll offer my opinion: this is a YouTube series with just above 250 episodes, most of which have received no reliable secondary coverage. Listing all episodes would be (and was) well over half the article, and a split seems inappropriate since this article just barely meets the notability guidelines. To me, the IMDb external link seems more appropriate for information on specific episodes. As for credits, the series creator and his friends take most roles in production, and I'm not sure it's necessary to list their names repeatedly in the infobox; I think "Created by" suffices. Some things could possibly be added back, though, like theme songs and composers. IanTEB (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Largely agree with this sentiment myself, and is why I removed the episode list from the article - having it in takes up a significant portion of the article and feels like undue weight for a section with no sources that's better served by IMDb or a Scott The Woz wiki.

Infoboxes are also supposed to be concise; it's bad practice to add trivial or otherwise redundant info onto it. The sidebar doesn't need to be filled out for the sake of it. I'd say this is likely the case with specific theme songs, composers, etc. especially so considering Scott generally only has music composed for the occasional special episodes, and most episodes use stock video game music as backing tracks. Thanksolotl (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreeing with IanTEB and Thanksolotl on the exclusion of the episode list. Honestly, the only viable ways I foresee a list of all the YouTube episodes having enough merit to stay on the article are if

• a): somehow, a series of secondary reliable sources review every episode that had ever been released, akin to an "every Scott the Woz episode ranked" or weekly articles of each show like The A.V. Club and Paste magazine do for episodic series, or
• b): we make a condensed list of only the episodes that have received some secondary coverage, like adding all the episodes from the Screen Rant source and/or the Automaton article; in this case it would be like the PewDiePie videography.

Otherwise, the episode list sourced to TV Guide should suffice, until more sources arise for the show in the future. PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Seriously?

i recently just added a more quality picture of Scott the woz, and it changed back to the original photo like 7 hours later seriously, that’s the CHARITY BONANZA PICTURE, AND ITS LIKE 720p!!! why, just why? PixelThePro (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Before changing the picture, you should get consensus for the change via discussion here. If there is consensus to use the YouTube banner, other editors can assist on the technical side with getting the source information and moving it to en.wiki under a proper license. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

aight then forget it, i don’t wanna go through that PixelThePro (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"List of Scott the Woz videos" article?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in former revisions of this article, I remember there being a table for every video uploaded to the Scott the Woz YouTube channel, separated by season. I understand why it was removed, but seeing as how Scott the Woz in of itself is notable enough for Wikipedia, shouldn't there be a list article that the tables of episodes should be moved to? SuperWikiBrother (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)