Talk:From the Doctor to My Son Thomas/Archive 1

Created

Note: Page includes content from English Wikipedia article Peter Capaldi for Background sect, but with some improved sourcing there. That article page's version has poorer sourcing and for example I found the original source for an interview with Entertainment Weekly. I'll go back to that other Wikipedia article and improve it there, with this version from here. — Cirt (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notices posted of new article creation

I've posted notices of this new article creation, to the following talk pages:

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for GA

I've nominated this article for WP:GA, under subsection, Media and drama.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this subject suitable for inclusion?

It is well established that wikipedia is not about everything you find in newspapers or news websites, WP:NOTNEWS, so what makes this subject suitable for inclusion? --_nonsense ferret 16:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This goes well beyond that fancy shortcut. :) It amply satisfies WP:NOTE, having been reported on, in-depth, all over the world. — Cirt (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see that this is any more notable than say an ordinary plane crash, most of which usually fail despite hitting the news. --_nonsense ferret 16:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage here is not just passing but per WP:GNG is significant discussion in secondary sources, and has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". — Cirt (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw your attention to the fifth clause of GNG, this is a viral video, and in the world of viral videos, it really isn't that significant and has no enduring encyclopedic value. I'm really minded to take this one to AfD. --_nonsense ferret 16:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be splitting hairs from the fifth clause when the article clearly satisfies all other clauses there. Took me a good amount of time and effort to research and put this page together, It'd be most unfortunate to have someone try to disappear that work from being available to society. — Cirt (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DONTLIKE is not a notability criteria, neither is WP:Notability (videos). The video meets all the inclusion criteria of WP:NF through WP:GNG. The argument about this being a viral video does not work. It has established notability through widespread and enduring coverage, not through "popularity" or its non-viral less than one million hits. To claim something qualifying under WP:NF fails some other guideline or making one up, makes as little sense as claiming it fails WP:BOOK or WP:CHEESECAKE. Using inappropriate SNGs or imaginary is not how WP:N works. IE: Once a presumption of notability is met, we need not start splitting hairs to determine how meeting our basic notability criteria can be ignored. That's not how an encyclopedia is built. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, all these irrelevant things that nobody has referred to, except WP:NOTNEWS which is policy, and frequently used. --_nonsense ferret 17:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and WP:NOTPAPER is also policy, higher up, on the same page you keep citing over and over again. — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is long established that NOTPAPER is no argument at all for keeping anything, where is the quality of "enduring notability" that is required for inclusion, will anyone care about or be discussing this video in a years time? If not, then it really fails the key policy. It is no different from any other ephemeral and temporary celebrity gossip, all of which is not what wikipedia is for, and excluded, notwithstanding that it may be widely reported across the news media, by WP:NOTNEWS. --_nonsense ferret 18:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be laboring under a mis-understanding of what WP:NOTNEWS means, else sadly that same argument could be made against Star Wars, Harry Potter or The Hobbit. When a film has world-wide coverage it is not of simply "local" interest. Enduring, persistent, and wide-spread coverage assures the topic as notable.

You compared above to an "ordinary plane crash" as an example of NOTNEWS, yet Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has eminently merited an article specifically because of its wide-spread coverage and import. The difference here, just as with other projects under WP:NF is it being NOT ordinary through having coverage far outside its location of occurrence. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So notability of this 42 second video from Capaldi's phone is in the same ball park to that of Star Wars? That is a pretty interesting argument. --_nonsense ferret 20:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonsenseferret: As far as Wikipedia notability standards go... yes, they share "the same ball park" (your words) in that short films and those big-studio, highly-touted, big-budget blockbusters may be judged by the exact same criteria... coverage... and either our inclusion criteria are met or they are not. My "interesting arguments" (your words) were offered as intentional exaggerations illustrating that we do not assert WP:NOTNEWS when inapplicable, and no matter the project, if film criteria are met, we have notability. Kind of simple, really.

And though related and often confused, we do not measure notability by its "popularity", we measure notability by coverage. That a major film may be popular enough to have lots of coverage and a lesser film may have less coverage is not the issue. The issue is "does any film being considered have enough coverage to be considered notable by community standards"... and this short does. What is "interesting" is a denial of WP:GNG and WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis of GNG as a sufficient condition to establish notability is not supported by the language of that policy nor the long established practice of its application: it merely creates a presumption which must be carefully weighed up against the policies of what wikipedia is not, including WP:NOTNEWS. The subject in question was not a feature film on general release, it was not even a short film, it was a 41 second mobile phone communication which was uploaded to youtube. Will the artistic merits of this 'film' still be discussed in a month's time, or even a year? Pretty sure not, and for that reason it does not establish any sort of enduring quality which is long-established as a necessary condition for inclusion in wikipedia. Lots of celebrity gossips, crimes, murders, are plastered across the news media that will not be the subject of wikipedia articles. This is just another example. --_nonsense ferret 23:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A huge number of episodes of the Dr Who TV series are all notable in their own right, despite the fact that what makes them notable is mostly their mere status as episodes of that TV series. How tiresome. This rather odd video snippet is notable for rather different reasons. While I understand your objections, I think it still achieves a level of notability that the more mediocre Dr Who episodes probably never will. Such is the modern world. Best to leave it, I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And demanding a set film length or a non-digital format or a wide for-profit release are not film criteria. Coverage is. And to address a hopefully unintentional error, the GNG is a guideline, not a policy. And as a guideline it had been discussed and analyzed for years. Most simply stated, it allows a presumption for notability, not a presumption against... and this film's notability under that community standard has not yet been rebutted, while a repeated claim of a NOTNEWS violation has been.

Sadly, any dismissive speculation about what might happen in a year, is just that... dismissive speculation. And even in a year or more, the film would still have to concern itself with WP:NTEMP. See you then. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this article about a video that was uploaded a week ago has better sourcing than many articles on topics that nobody would dispute the notability of. (Eg. High-functioning autism). Although this article was created quickly, it was done well and was even nominated for a GA. And just because it's based on a viral video doesn't mean it's not notable; we've got articles on Rickrolling and Nyan cat. The sources clearly demonstrate WP:NOTE, therefore, I'd say this is a case of WP:SNOW. Luthien22 (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom navigation

I agree with Flax5, perhaps there were previously too many bottom navigation templates that weren't directly related, but I think we should keep at least one or two.

So instead of the four (4) related to Doctor Who from previous, I've just kept one (1) navigation template related to that subject, namely {{Doctor Who}} -- and added one {{Autism resources}} so now the reader or editor can find further information on either of those two topics discussed in this article. — Cirt (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Flax5 for modifying it to be a more specific template to {{Doctor Who episodes}}. — Cirt (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom navigation is relevant, even if this is not an "episode", itself. Please don't remove it, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to more general navbox, related to general topic of {{Doctor Who}}. — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted to GA quality

This article had a review and was successfully promoted to WP:GA level quality. Review is at Talk:From The Doctor to my son Thomas/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube video was set to private

So the external link no longer works. The top result for a search on youtube leads to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YBKEtHvuI Since this is a Good article, I don't want to mess it up by improperly editing the external link section, or if there are any special rules about doing so, or whatever. 74.128.43.180 (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a mistake on the part of the uploader, who knows. However, we should not post a link to a copy, as the copyright status is unknown. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that setting there now, it still is publicly accessible. Removed WP:NOR notation next to the external link. — Cirt (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quote boxes

Quote boxes were in the WP:GA version, and the article has been stable with them both for three months now, after having been successfully reviewed and promoted to GA by Miyagawa.

They help to highlight interesting material from the article text.

Please, let's keep them in the article.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA doesn't imply a final endorsement of the article contents. The quotes are present in the text, and it is entirely pointless to duplicate them in boxes. Why do you think they are necessary? 200.83.101.199 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote boxes highlight quotes from the article body text.
They break up the monotony of the page.
They have have in-line-citations after the quotes so the reader may easily check them and read further in the secondary sources.
They help to summarize and bring out a key fact from the article body.

Conclusion: For these reasons, the quote boxes should be kept.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, obviously. Quote boxes highlight quotes. But repeating text is obviously pointless.
The page is not "monotonous". If you think it is, then it needs comprehensive rewriting.
The quotes in the text already have in-line citations.
The quotes are not key facts and do not need to be brought out. The choice of which lines to "highlight" in this way is entirely arbitrary. Also, we have guidelines which say As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided... Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote. And let me once again reiterate the key point - the quotes are already in the text, and do not need repeating in boxes.

You're plainly not interested in actually discussing this, and I find your bald "conclusion" rather immature. I am also troubled by your initial dishonest edit summary, and your deletion of my post on your talk page asking you why you reverted my edit. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, coming in as a third party, I can see why this discussion has arisen. I agree that the quotes shouldn't be repeated, but I also understand Cirt's comments about the look of the article. So what I suggest is this: the quote box is removed from the Video message section and the one in Reception is kept - however the article text is edited so that the quote in the box is removed from the article text so that it only appears in the box. Does that sound reasonable? Miyagawa (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see how adding text breaks up the supposed monotony of text, and I think if there is such monotony, it should be solved by editing the text, which I certainly think could be quite significantly shortened. But, as there will be no duplication of text, I think your suggestion would certainly be an improvement. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, implemented suggested change, per recommendation by GA Reviewer Miyagawa, above. Please see DIFF. Thank you, Miyagawa, for the helpful and polite suggestion, most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From The Doctor to my son Thomas - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the video From The Doctor to my son Thomas for Featured Article consideration.

The article is about a message sent from actor Peter Capaldi in-character in his role as the Doctor on Doctor Who, to console an autistic young boy over grief from the death of his grandmother.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/From The Doctor to my son Thomas/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title format (caps)

The article's title format (caps) looks funny and seems inconsistent with WP's manual of style. Would "From the Doctor to My Son Thomas" or "From the Doctor to my son Thomas" be better? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best to keep it consistent with title usage from original title on YouTube. — Cirt (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

There are three photos in the article - one is of the video posted to youtube which is absolutely relevant and illustrative. However the other two I cannot see what relevance they actually serve to the article. They don't illustrate any point of the article - especially the Tardis - and unless there are any arguments for keeping them I am planning to remove. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I might have missed this in the text... why "my son" in the title? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily as that is the name of the video: From The Doctor to my son Thomas on YouTube. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who calls some kid "my son"? Why? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, the father uploaded the video to share with family members, so he titled it that way from his perspective. It went viral afterward. Feel free to suggest wording that would help make this more clear. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... OK. I'll nip into the article at some point and see if there's something I can do. Thanks for explaining. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just quote?

Why is the "Video Message" section a description of what's being said in the video, instead of the actual words? The video is so short it might as well be quoted directly, instead of an unnecessary distortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.214.3 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong infobox

This should be infobox film not television episode. Capaldi created this little video entirely himself and not as an episode of Doctor Who. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why "my son Thomas"? He's not Capaldi's son

2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:1C70:32C3:655E:8834 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: Thomas' father Ross Goodall posted the video to YouTube on 6 November 2014. DonQuixote (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]