Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 March 19

= March 19 =

02:34:24, 19 March 2018 review of draft by Lilianmonique92
Thanks, I'm curious how to change the title of a creation page. Right now it is Miss Skills (TMS) but I'd like to change it to Mamy (TMS) where Mamy and The Miss Skills and Miss Skills and TMS would redirect. Is it an easy edit with some redirect inputs or should I recreate the creation page? Please advise

˜˜˜˜lilianmonique92

LMVALLE 02:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is currently in the wrong language (I'd assume it's Spanish). the English Wikipedia is only written in English; so there is no chance of the article being accepted at this current time in this state. There are generally naming conventions for articles such as this to follow, but renaming is something that is relatively easy to do, but only if the article is suitable. Redirects should only be created when the article is accepted, and in the main space.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

12:31:11, 19 March 2018 review of submission by EyesoftheFlash
Hello all,

The article Geoff Green was denied today as it lacked reliable sources. At this point of time, I would simply ask Wikipedia to reconsider their position that references relating to the source, phogue.net as being unreliable. Phogue.net is a very critical source and important in creating the article's notability beyond being a simple eSports gamer. Firstly, I would like to say that phogue.net is a primary source that is directly relevant to Green's achievements. This source can be verified by cross-referencing to the other sources provided in the original article.

My case in defending this source's validity is based on the accountability that is provided on the website. This isn't a simple opinionated blog, it was a hub for everything concerning the official Procon product. I would like to point out that over 1087 pages of users who have registered with the website. This is a demonstration of the interest surrounding Green's business. I would like to point out that all the sources I provided from this website were directly relevant and were the source of official news for this product. Green's announcements only ever specifically focused on providing updates to his consumer base regarding his product's releases or updates on the development of the product. Considering for his niche market within the community of the Frostbite engine he was extremely notable. Based on his success of Procon, he was the subject of an interview within the Battlefield Communities (sourced). I also have demonstrated his product being recommended externally on Cybergamer, Australia's leading eSports organisation since 2007.

When concerning the article that is being created, he was a notable public figure to both software developers and consumers within the Frostbite community. His success was determined by what is a marketing piece, not an opinion piece for his product. It is also important to note, that users have the ability to discuss directly with the developers as either commenting on the news articles or posting on the forums.

This leads me to my next point. Currently, Wikipedia doesn't seem to want to recognise an internet forum as a legitimate source of credible material. However, I disagree with this assertion. Both eSports and eCommerce are a growing field which are rapidly integrating various technological elements. This is no doubt evident by phogue.net to whom is difficult to classify as it has integrated various referential material into a single source. I am a supporter of the idea that an internet forum has the same sort of legitimacy as either a video or an audio recording, however it being only in virtual reality. The only difficulty in its validity is it can be difficult to establish the true identity of whom the users involved in the discussion.

However if sufficient evidence is demonstrated between a link with a forum user and a real life individual (to which I think I have a very strong case between the link of Geoff Green and the pseudonym, Phogue) then I cannot see any reason why internet forums should not be considered a valid source. Especially since it was the hub for which a business owner could have a public and direct conversation with their consumer base. In fact, if it is possible to establish a link between a pseudonym and a real life individual, then I am of the opinion that internet forums should be classified as an incredibly reliable source of information.

Thankyou for reading and I eagerly await your response.

EyesoftheFlash (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

EyesoftheFlash (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reconsidered. No change made in policies or guidelines. Affirm reviewer's conclusion regarding Draft:Geoff Green's failure to demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

12:37:40, 19 March 2018 review of submission by Dean.Connor
Hi there, just checking in to see if there is anything further I need to do to allow for publishing. Looking forward to hearing back from you!

Dean.Connor (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

18:22:27, 19 March 2018 review of submission by WattStreetWhiteStreet
Hi. I'm a new editor and still very much learning my way around. In my not-at-all exciting life I came across this gentleman today, Professor W Scott Thompson -. I'm amazed he doesn't have a page - he's a major foreign policy academic and has served in at least two US governments. Is there a place where I can suggest/ask if someone else would be willing to start a page as if I do it it will be woefully inadequate. 18:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)WattStreetWhiteStreet (talk) WattStreetWhiteStreet (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Articles can be requested (suggested) at Requested articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

18:50:27, 19 March 2018 review of submission by Lyza6107
Hello! After several rounds of edits, paying extra attention to the credibility and newsworthy reference materials in the citations (along with neutrality), this article is ready for re-review. My initial reviewer and another Wikipedia editor confirmed it was indeed in the queue to be re-reviewed. I'm hopeful for any insight on how far this article is on the list of waiting articles (like is it article 10 on the list, or 2,000)? If there's any insight that can be shared, great! My next Wikipedia article will be based on progress I made with this one. Thanks in advance for reviewing this message. Lyza6107 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thank you for being patient as we attempt to reduce the backlog. This was caused by a now-complete article creation trial that caused a massive influx of AfC submissions. Based on my quick counting, I believe your submission is number 303 or so, and should be reviewed very soon. Thanks for your patience!  JTP (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 19:16:20, 19 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mwmcelroy
I sent a response to AfC reviewer Chetsford this morning after receiving his/her notice of rejection and wanted to be sure it was received. All of your input pages say how important it is to hit the "Save page" button, but THERE IS NO SUCH BUTTON on your input pages. Did Chetsford receive my reply?

Thank you, Mark McElroy (Mwmcelroy)

Mwmcelroy (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Your response to  was saved at User talk:Chetsford, and that is where you should expect any continuation of the discussion between the two of you to appear.
 * Thank you for bringing the button labeling issue to our attention. I believe the "Save page" text you encountered has been corrected to "Publish changes", but let us know if you encounter the problem again. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)