Talk:WrestleCrap

April Fools' Joke

Is it worth mentioning anything about the annual April Fools' Joke that appears, e.g.: last years about selling the site? Essexmutant 15:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've recently added their April Fools' Joke for 2004 and 2005 on April 1, 2004 and April 1, 2005. --Oakster 11:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Music?

Does anybody know what the songs are called that they use on the podcast? ^---SilentRAGE! 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• RD's Weekly Trip to the Grocery is introduced by a clip from "The Streak" by Ray Stevens.

What's the themesong? ^---SilentRAGE! 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The theme song is "Play with Me" by Extreme. It will be featured as a song on Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s.COOLRUNNER87 15:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WrestleCrap Radio: Fax-trolla

RD specified on this past Friday's WCR that it's spelled "fax-trolla".

Notability

Please remind me how this site is notable and meets WP:WEB.

Also, it's incoming links from mainspace (excluding redirects but including links to any incoming redirects) number 5: two of which are trivial entries about April Fools gags (from April 1, 2004 and April 1, 2005) and one of which is the site founder. So, we're down to 2 incoming links of any value whatsoever.

I very much question the notability of this site, and suggest a merger or deletion. --kingboyk (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been discussed several times and is quite notable. Just because it's not notable to you, doesn't mean that thousands of other people aren't aware of the site. DX927 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about this site's notability - it certainly seems to be a highly well-known website among wrestling fans. However, the article desperately needs reliable sources to show its notability. Currently, it has one source that's independent of the website and its writers, and that's an interview with another website of questionable reliability and notability itself. I would like to see this article remain on Wikipedia, but better sources need to be found. Terraxos (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well we sorta can't add any sources to anything at the moment. DX927 (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Gooker 2007

Tried to insert the winner of the 2007 Gooker award, but this appears to be a high-level block! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitney Beers (talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Which would have been quite amazing for you to do since the VOTING hasn't even started. So there's no way for there to even be a winner yet. DX927 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The award may not yet have been awarded, but the voting has indeed started. It would appear you are somewhat behind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.129.53 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

However, voting hadn't started at the time the comment was made (16-17 December) 144.32.126.14 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The winner has been announced - it's Hornswoggle as Vince McMahon's son. Steveweiser (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

However, it seems that the semi-lock is keeping even me (who has been on Wiki for a while now) from being able to edit the WrestleCrap page. COOLRUNNER87 (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is actually full protected. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

{{editprotected}}

Before I add the request edit template is everyone fine with a line like:

2007: Hornswoggle revealed as Vince McMahon's son.

--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but why in the heck is this page so protected that I, a member of almost 3 years, cant' edit it? Why this much protection?--Bedford 06:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the log (click "History"), it says why. TJ Spyke 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done with weblink included.SkierRMH (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

External Link

http://wrestlecrap.blogspot.com/ WrestleCrap Recap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.199.12 (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't ya add it to the article then, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.145.136 (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.199.12 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation

http://www.fightingspiritmagazine.co.uk/current.asp

scroll down to the "Star columnists" bit. I would have added myself but am not sure on proper wiki policy relating to this. Dr Rgne (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding use of "the late"

The use of the term late does not look right as it implies that Merle Vincent was dead when the website was created. Although it is difficult to tell as Merle Vincent is not mentioned in the article other than the intro which appears to be a mistake. In nearly all cases the term late is not needed in an encyclopedia which is discussing things that happended during his/her life. The only instance would be for example that the website was set up as a memorial to the late Merle Vincent. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand the term 'the late' to mean that the person being referred to has recently died. As I understand it it does not imply that they were dead when some event also being referred to took place. Thus I believe that the term 'the late' is appropriate here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can the problem not be avoided simply by adding dates, along the lines of - 'who died in...', 'produced a web site in...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Late" is indeed used in reference to those who have recently died (no one says "the late Socrates" or "the late Napoleon" or even "the late JFK"). But for that very reason, the term will date reasonably quickly, and terms that date quickly are discouraged under WP:DATED. I see that there is currently no article for Merle Vincent, and it would be in such an article that we could find out details about his life and death. Because no article exists at present, then the fact that he is "the late" Merle Vincent (along with other details about him) either could be either insufficiently notable to mention at all, or remains to be mentioned in the proper place, namely an article about him. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it look as though Vincent is still alive and well, and currently contributing to wrestlecrap, when in fact he has passed away. The words "the late" therefore do in fact need to be included. 41.245.185.54 (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I support adding "the late." The article would really be clarified with this - it's a bit hard to tell he's dead as it stands. FlyingToaster 07:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a good way to solve this would be to remove "The late" from the lede, and then rewrite the history section to read something like this. Reynolds and Vincent launched the site in April 2000, quickly developing a following among wrestling fans. Vincent passed away on 8 September 2000, and Reynolds continued to run the site by himself for several months. He shut the site down in 2001, claiming the high cost of running the site was responsible. Merle Vincent would never pass WP:N and so there won't be an article about him to state the fact that he's deceased. McJeff (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. As for it being a bit hard to tell that he's dead, the article currently states "(who died in September 2000)". How is that too ambiguous? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone doesn't read the entire article, but rather skims over, they may very well get the impression that he is still alive, as the opening paragraph states simply "Merle Vincent" and gives the clear impression that he is indeed alive and well. It is only if one reads deeper that one discovers that he is in fact dead. Also, what kind of excuse is it for changing an article/removing content because someone has a personal dislike for the way it is phrased? 41.245.172.87 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why some people are against having "the late" in the lede, but they are, and sometimes it's easier just to compromise than to drag a disagreement out. McJeff (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But it's not exactly "compromising" to just let some guy change facts just because he doesn't like them the way they are. The only real reason for removing "the late" is because one or two people say "I don't like having the words 'the late' in the lead paragraph". It's very sad but yes Merle Vincent is dead. Therefore he is the late Merle Vincent. I wish he was still around too, but sadly he's not. Could someone please give an encyclopedic reason, not some personal viewpoint, why the term "the late" should not be included in the lead paragraph? Is it the specific phrasing or the fact that it mentions his death at all? Would something similar to the lead paragraph of the RD Reynolds be acceptable to these people? 41.245.172.87 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Possible addition to the "Death and dying" section. I have no interest in hiding Merle Vincent's death, but the version you want violates Wikipedia policy (WP:DATED). The version proposed above by McJeff is pretty good, although "passed away" needs to be changed to "died" per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Death and dying. Reynolds' article shouldn't mention Vincent in the lead at all, but McJeff's version should be in the prose of the Reynolds article. Vincent's death can be mentioned in the lead of this article, but "the late" isn't encyclopedic. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Additions to Wrestlecrap Radio

This seems to read like kayfabe. Unfortunately as the article is locked, only established users can edit/revert etc. hat do others think of this new addition/inclusion? 41.245.171.28 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody, I think User:GaryColemanFan brought this up on the wrestling project page. It does seem a bit excessive, but better to first discuss it rationally, and then act appropriately. K'Anpo (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another mention

See the article is locked. I were thinking that perhaps a few lines need to be added about how many people have deserted WC since Triple Kelly became the Head Inducter as it were. Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a Reliable Source for that claim? McJEFF ^(talk) 10:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.wrestlecrap.com/newinductions.html

Click on the link above and check any of the new inductions (the stuff that doesn't have Classic Crap above it), and you will see that the new inductions are written by Triple Kelly along with RD Reynolds. COOLRUNNER87 (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I know Triple Kelly writes most of the new inductions. I was asking him to provide some sort of source for his claim that people weren't reading WrestleCrap anymore because of it. McJEFF ^(talk) 14:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

I read the previous deletion attempt and all the keep votes were based on fan site hype. Wikipedia isn't a list of fan sites and other sites like this have been deleted.

One such site that was deleted has twice the alexa page rank as wrestlecrap and serves a global audience on a wide range of subjects.

Is there any reason this website has a wiki page considering pro wrestlers have had their pages deleted/questioned. With that said im not sure why there is a [R._D._Reynolds] page either but im curious to hear anything on either.Woods01 (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm for a new deletion discussion taking place. I don't see how this is notable.--WillC 08:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely notable, and a deletion discussion would be a waste of time. To even suggest that a new discussion should take place based on something that is on the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions shows how unnecessary such a discussion would be. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't see why there needs to be both a RD Reynolds page AND a WrestleCrap page. I think he/it/they is/are notable enough to have one article detailing WrestleCrap, its contributors etc. I actually think there SHOULD be a WrestleCrap page, but NOT a separate RD Reynolds page. The RD Reynolds page should be redirected to this article, and there should be a paragraph or two talking about him on THIS article. Spoke shook (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How would one go about suggesting that either this article or the RD Reynolds article be deleted, or, my preference, they be merged into a single article? The one fellow who states that "it's definitely notable" and that it "would be a waste of time" will obviously oppose such an action, but the guy who started this, as well as WillC would likely agree. There seem to be different ideas however:

1)Delete both WrestleCrap and RD Reynolds as its "based on fan site hype"

2)Keep both pages, as "it's definitely notable"

3)Merge them(my preference)

Any other thoughts? Spoke shook (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

They both should go since other sites like this that have had larger audiences have been deleted. For a fan site to be seen as notable one would assume general wrestling fans would be aware of it. I followed wrestling for several years and never heard of this site or the people behind it.

Since this was nominated once and the decision was to keep it would probably be kept again if re-nominated.Woods01 (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)