Talk:From the Doctor to My Son Thomas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the From the Doctor to My Son Thomas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

From the Doctor to My Son Thomas has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 11, 2014	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
November 15, 2014	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
November 18, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 27, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The Doctor (pictured) sent a heartwarming video* to console an autistic boy on the death of his grandmother?*
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Autism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Doctor Who Low‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]