Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 11

{{{article_name}}}
{{{article_name}}}
Statistics
Members	Robbie McAllister; Rory McAllister
Name(s)	The Highlanders
Billed heights	6 ft (183 cm) - Robbie ; 6 ft 2 in (188 cm) - Rory
Combined; billed weight	470 lb (34 stone) (213 kg)
Debut	2000

The Midnight Professional Wrestling Group
The Midnight Professional Wrestling Group
	person 1 person 2 person 3
Members	Joe ; Joe 2; Joe 10201;
Past members	Conquistador ; Ding Dong; Big Josh; The Yetti; His Boy Elroy

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

→

Section added to Ring of Honor

I added a section detailing the Code of Honor. Please give it a look and tweak as necessary. Tromboneguy0186 08:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrestler heights

I'm currently seeing edit conflicts on some wrestler bio pages regarding the height of wrestlers. There are generally multiple sources citing different heights, would it be possible to come to some sort of consensus as to which sources are more reliable and should be used? Apologies if this has been raised before, I didn't want to wade through all the archives Sasaki 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of wrestlers who do not have specific and sourced records (ie American Football stats)I would put forward celebheights.com a sa good spurce.(Halbared 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm not convinced celebheights.com should be used as a source at all. The website clearly states [1] the heights can be based on estimates, so it's impossible to tell if any given height is accurate or not. Sasaki 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. I like them trhem because they try and strive for accuracy rathr than accepting possible (and in wrestling usual) inflated heights, but I can understand why others don't like it.(Halbared 12:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

One solution I've thought of could be to use the kayfaybed stats but change the title of height and weight to 'billed height' and 'billed weight' to ensure it's obvious they are kayfabe. In the case of the where they're from, many of the wreslters aren't actually from where they're billed, but the stat is clearly 'billed from'. HamishMacBeth 13:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that solution is that billed from is in addition to the actual location. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jay and Mark Briscoe

I just noticed, based on the info boxes, that we're asserting that they're twins. Yet in ROH in 2002 there was angle that Mark was "too young" to wrestle in the state of Pennsylvania, which I have heard many times was legitimately true. OWW also gives the same birth date for both brothers. So which is it? Tromboneguy0186 13:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Both articles also clearly contradict this, as they state "At the time of the match Jay was 17 and Mark was 16" Sasaki 13:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself Tromboneguy0186 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If the birthdates are accurate, 1984, then the angle was all kayfabe. In 2002 they would've both been 18 and thus legal to wrestle. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard them referred to as twins before, only brothers. I'm inclined to think the birth dates aren't correct Sasaki 13:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OWW is simply incorrect in this, has been for a few years now.

↪Lakes (Talk) 16:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Delirious (wrestler)

Sorry if I'm spamming this page up. There's an anon that seems obsessed with keeping kayfabe or something with respects to Delirious (he has repeatedly deleted info pertaining to the man in real life, as well as the picture associated with the article). I've already left two warnings on his talk page, but I doubt that will do any good. I'm not really sure how to go about getting someone blocked, but I think it will end up being necessary. Tromboneguy0186 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering Delirious wrestles under a mask, your project should consider treating him like any other luchador. Unlike certain US wrestlers (Puma/Pinoy Boy, for example) Delirious is only notable as Delirious. His real name is unimportant, and revealing it is not necessary.--70.181.59.230 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a biography about a person on an encyclopaedia, of course it's important. We do the same for luchadors. Just because he follows kayfabe in real life doesn't mean we should. James Duggan 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you don't reveal the real names of luchadors, from what I've seen. Darren Jowalsen does a good job at separating important information from the unimportant. A biography about a masked wrestler on wikipedia should not reveal his real name unless said wrestler has revealed it on their own. Delirious isn't notable for his life outside of wrestling, and I cannot conceive of a possible reason for revealing it other than for some sort of anti-kayfabery smugness. Furthermore, how is his real name verifiable? As far as I can tell, a user posted the information after reading it on Obsessed With Wrestling, which is hardly a guarantee that it is factual.--70.181.59.230 02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it was my understanding that if that info wasn't revealed here it was because it just wasn't known by any of the editors. James Duggan 02:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at his Obsessed With Wrestling profile. I remember for his real name it used to say "withheld at request of wrestler", now it reveals his real name. That tells me that he no longer minds. James Duggan 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopedia, all information that is known, notable, and verifiable is usually put into articles. Other people haven't wanted their real names revealed (Criss Angel, MC Frontalot), but because they could be verified they were included. Wikipedia has actually had lawsuits about such things (see the page on the hacker named Tron). Kayfabe doesn't count on wikipedia. I don't know anything about this case specifically, but if you object to the name being there on grounds that you don't think it's legit (not that you don't want it there) you can tag it with {{fact}} and if no one can verify it after a while it can be trashed. This project actually had almost this same discussion about Samoa Joe recently. - Bdve 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and will follow up with the "fact" suggestion, but I don't think that Samoa Joe is analogous to Delirious, seeing as Delirious wrestles with his identity obscured while Joe does not.--70.181.59.230 02:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing with Joe was weird, he only publicly acknowledges part of his name. Bdve 03:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note but gerweck.net lists his name as Hunter W. Johnston. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither Samoa Joe or Delirious wrestle under their real names, so the comparison is totally valid. "Identity" and "face" are not the same thing Sasaki 03:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but any wrestling fan of Samoa Joe would recognize Joe Seanoa if they saw him on the street. I can't say the same for Delirious/"Hunter W. Johnston". I won't go so far to say that it's a privacy issue; wikipedia obviously isn't concerned with that. However, I still doubt the legitimacy of gerweck.net and obsessed with wrestling, especially since those sites are both prone to mistakes.70.181.59.230 03:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is "Joe Seanoa" isn't his real name, not fully anyway. That's what we discovered and how the topic came up. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE - Fuck I don't know why I didn't think of this before. Talking about Joe reminded me how we found his name, so I just did a check for the trademark on the Delirious name and what do you know.

Word Mark DELIRIOUS

Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: On-line retail store services featuring professional wrestling related merchandise. FIRST USE: 20011208. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20011208

Owner (APPLICANT) Johnston, William Hunter INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES Cape Girardeau MISSOURI 63703

Proof of his name supplied, it's William Hunter Johnston. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Lid wins. Now just cite it in the article and the case is closed. - Bdve 03:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but at least I win the personal victory reiterating that Obsessed with wrestling & gerweck.net aren't exactly great sources. It'll be interesting to see if Delirious ever gets back in contact with me regarding his opinion on his identity being revealed in a manner other than wingdings and gibberish (I did the good ole fashioned myspace messaging). Good thinking, though.70.181.59.230 03:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I did a search on the USPTO for other wrestlers who trademarked their ring names. Aside from Samoa Joe and Delirious, all I found were Joey Styles, Low Ki and Nigel McGuinness. James Duggan 04:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough I can't find a trademark on Jamie Noble (so I could finally solve the real name debate), even one from WWE. That's odd. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried an owner search on him using both names. Nothing. James Duggan 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix the citation on this article. Click it; it doesn't take you to anything. Tromboneguy0186 05:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's impossible to fix, the trademakrs office automatically times out checking of trademarks on the website so any link will stop working a few hours later. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Then what's the point of having it there? It gives no information. Tromboneguy0186 05:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me, I didn't add it. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking whoever sees the question :P Tromboneguy0186 05:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That was me, I didn't realize those links quickly die. I'm trying to find a better way to cite it, but I'm not sure how. James Duggan 09:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a screen capture of the relevant info? Tromboneguy0186 09:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling Style

I was reading some articles on rappers and found it interesting to see explanations of their rapping style/technique. So I was thinking it would be cool to have a section on wrestlers' articles detailing their wrestling style/technique. However, I don't mean every wrestler, just distinct wrestlers (e.g. Kurt Angle's shoot style; Shawn Michaels' underdog style, Bret Hart's technical style, Sabu's high risk-hardcore style, etc). You could even say how wrestling styles were changed (e.g. Steve Austin's technical-to-brawling; Jushin Liger's technical/high flying-to-technical). I realize it is fictional, but other than personalities, wrestling style is the only other way to distinguish professional wrestlers. Well, just wanted to get your thoughts. Perry 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling styles -Bdve 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You just named styles of wrestling. I'm talking about mentioning a wrestler's style in their article, which most, if not all, don't have. Perry 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be largely POV as far as I can see. Kurt Angle may appear "shoot style" compared to most WWE wrestlers, but he's hardly shoot style when compared to Nobuhiko Takada, Akira Maeda, Kiyoshi Tamura etc. Liger's style is very toned down these days, quite often he's just a down and dirty heel. It would be difficult to accurate reflect this I think. Sasaki 00:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I thought that's what you were looking for. Still, it would be pretty easy and not really POV for most guys. Just because Kurt Angles Shoot Style isn't the same as say Maedas or Steve Austins brawling style is different that Bruiser Brodys doesn't mean they're not obviously doing different variations on the same style. The real problem, and where the POV would come in, is when people start to change their styles and when to note that. Like Eddie Guerreros out and out heel tactics at the end of his life versus the more aerial style in the middle of his career and some of his more grounded stuff when he started. Shawn Michaels went through some similar changes and Ric Flair has wrestled just about any style from out and out brawling to heel tactics to scientific. The question lies in how do you list multiple styles? Does it become a list? Is it put into the body of the bio? I'm actually fairly intrigued by the idea now. - Bdve 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem would be Eddie Guerrero, Chris Jericho and CM Punk as none of them really fit any mold (at least Punk pre-ECW). They're pretty much allrounders with impact moves, aerial moves, submissions, shoot moves so what style would they fit under? Although Punk does say in Joe/Punk shoot "I'm King's Road" but he was probably joking. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We could cop out and call them "Hybrid". Or invent something. Like "Nifty". - Bdve 02:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, you could probably say So-and-so uses a variety of wrestling styles in his matches, including.... If they apply one style as a face and another as a heel, like Eddie Guerrero and Ric Flair, it could easily be worded to reflect that. James Duggan 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, CageMatch.net (their new English site) lists their styles in each profile. James Duggan 02:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The pro-wrestling tag.

Should the {{pro-wrestling}} tag go on move pages (i.e Sharpshooter (professional wrestling), Backbreaker, Professional wrestling attacks, etc)? Some of them have it but some (most?) don't. Just wanted to ask. -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}

Yes-Bdve

we have a shrpshooter article... i didnt know that before looking here --- Paulley

i have since done some clean up on it --- Paulley

Should Matt Striker get a Controversy section added to his bio?

I mean he used his sick days as personal days to wrestle and made fun of Irwin after his death, he seems pretty controversial to me. So if anyone want to expand his article with that, would it be needed?MonkeyKid 03:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I almost did it earlier, but the Irwin comments didn't get any press outside of the wrestling community (as far as I've seen anyway) and the sick days stuff is in his bio. No reason a mention of the Irwin thing can't just be made in the bio as well. - Bdve 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bdve. I say leave it all in the bio. Unless the media picks up on the Steve Irwin comments(which I doubt), nobody will remember this in a couple of weeks. By the way, I think it would be a good idea if someone could dig up one or two of the news stories about the sick days, and add them as footnotes to the Striker article. I would do it myself, but I'm going to bed. -- SHODAN 03:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Captain" Lou Albano

I'm doing a major rewrite on this section. If your interested, let me know on my talk page. Kyros 04:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Up for deletion: Category:Wrestlecrap

While Wrestlecrap itself is notable, a category about it, isn't needed. Put it on a wrestling wiki, not this wiki. RobJ1981 05:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

William Welch aka The Messiah and the relationship of Austin Aries and Lacey (wrestler)

Here's a topic I've been meaning to have but kept forgetting about. A while back on the Messiah's page there was an edit war between JB196 and an IP user who I think was the real life Messiah. The edits were pretty much dedicated to removing the documented history of Messiah's relationship with the XPW porn stars and the assault by two home invaders that left Messiah with no right thumb. I was wondering about as this has long died down should we re-add the information?

The second part of this relates to an incident between myself and an IP user who I think is either Lacey or Aries. This IP was dedicated to removing the relationship of Aries and Lacey as well as the incident that had Aries suspended from TNA, along with personal info on Lacey. It is documented that Aries and Lacey are dating but does that fall under the scope of the articles? Currently it's not listed. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect to Aries and Lacey, OWW used to mention they were dating but now that info has been removed from their profiles there. I also noticed that Lacey's MySpace profile has her listed as single. If they did date, they have since broken up. James Duggan 05:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem there is that they never officially stated they were dating, it was just known they were. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, even if it was assumed, the relationship status on MySpace doesn't reveal who one is dating, so even if they never made it official, she probably would have had her relationship status as "In a relationship". Since she now lists her relationship status as "Single", and OWW took away the reference that they were dating, I bet they broke up, making it pointless to include on their pages. James Duggan 05:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the William Welsh stuff, maybe if we put it in a seperate section it might stick. Sounds like the anon user didn't think it was relevant to his career. Maybe if it was put in a Personal Info section it might stick easier. It being a bio of a person, that stuff should be there. It's not just about his career. James Duggan 05:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nearly every wrestling biography ever and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

It was brought to my attention that this is a wikipedia edict at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death:

Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article. For example, "(12 February 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England–19 April 1882 in Downe, Kent, England)" should be separated to "(12 February 1809–19 April 1882) … He was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England … He died in Downe, Kent, England".

Nearly every wrestling bio uses the wrong formatting and I myself have been guilty of doing it many times. I think this should be added to the to do list as this seems like a rule that I think all of us were unaware existed. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually aware of it and made a few changes to some of the articles. I should probably change the rest of them too. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I might have missed when this was brought up...but what aboot the commas separating ring names in the infoboxes? Is it policy to have them or not, because I see no consistency.Halbared 13:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

They are superfluous and not needed - that is what the linebreaks are for. - Chadbryant 19:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling results pages

Here is yet another fancruft/listcruft of results: WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results. Will people ever learn? Wikipedia simply isn't the place for pages of wrestling results. SNME is notable, but all the results listed here isn't needed. SNME is a supercard of sorts, but I don't think the result page belongs here. I added prod, but AFD will probably be added, since I can bet the prod will get removed. RobJ1981 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

SNME is not a average show, if you want to help delete useless fancruft, then go to the TNA iMPACT! results pages and vote to delete them. TJ Spyke 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The formatting for Matt Hardy's Downfall move.

How should this be done? It's two different moves with the same name, but one is a finisher and the other isn't. To further complicate things, the leg drop version's also called the Hardy Boyz Leg Drop. Setting aside the anon who keeps moving it around all the time and making personal attacks against me, there seem to be two versions (not bothering with wiki links, too tired, sorry):

Downfall (sometimes Downfall 1 or Downfall Leg Drop for no damn reason)/Hardy Boyz Leg Drop (Second-rope diving leg drop)

Downfall (sometimes Downfall 2 or Downfall Elbow Drop for no damn reason) (Second-rope flying elbow smash)

or:

Downfall (sometimes with /Hardy Boyz Leg Drop) (Second-rope diving leg drop or second-rope flying elbow smash)

I'm personally in favor of the former but both versions seem to be getting swapped around all the time and I feel a consensus needs to be reached. -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}

Right now it's listed as "Downfall (Second-rope diving leg drop or second-rope flying elbow smash)". I don't see what's wrong with that. Bdve 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The leg drop is not a finisher. The only time, to my knowledge, that it was used to end a match was at Unforgiven 2005 when it was done off the top of a steel cage. Tromboneguy0186 07:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

World's oldest wrestler

I know we had this discussion but it's been brought to my attention this article; Abe Coleman. Is there anyone older? –– Lid^(Talk) 03:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this really relevant article. Should it not be deleted?Kyros 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

He seems notable enough to me. After all, he invented the dropkick, and was a prominent Jewish athlete in early twentieth-century America, on top of being the oldest living pro-wrestler. I think it adds up to notable.Geoffg 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

More promotions that aren't notable

Plymouth Championship Wrestling: a small Iowa promotion. Pro Wrestling Phoenix: another small Iowa promotion. Each have title pages as well. I put prods just on the promotion pages. I've heard of PWP, but I still don't think it's a notable enough indy fed to be here. RobJ1981 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You better get ready to AFD them, an anon IP will probably delete them before 5 days has passed. TJ Spyke 21:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

William Jones (wrestler)

I have started the article on William Jones(better known as Chilly Willy), but the only information I could include is what I found at OWW. Anybody who knows more about him is welcome to expand it. TJ Spyke 21:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Check your links!

In the past couple of weeks, I've noticed a few links that do not go to their intended location, i.e. "Undertaker" going to the mortician page, "Public Enemy" going to the rap group, and "PG-13" going to the movie rating. Please make sure you check the disambiguation page to make sure there's not more than one article with that name! --Smart Mark Greene 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this in a lot of PPV articles, I fix them when I see them. The problem is that some people(usually anon IP's) will just type in something like [[The Undertaker]] and not check to see if it goes to the correct page. It also bugs me when people move pages and don't bother to fix redirects. TJ Spyke 03:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"SmackDown!" or "SmackDown" ?

It seems to be quite a minor thing but it affects quite a lot of articles. I've just noticed that the WWE Friday Night SmackDown! article has been moved to one without the exclamation mark and I'm wondering if we're going to keep it this way and fix all the other articles affected by this change. It seems that WWE have almost dropped it now (apart from the apron which I believe still shows it) supporting this move. If we do intend to change it, I would suggest that anything preceding 2006 is not affected (e.g. I don't believe we need to move any of the SmackDown! games before SmackDown vs. Raw 2007). --Oakster ^(Talk) 12:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Watching the last episode the exclimation point is still on all kinds of on screen graphics too, but I think they are phasing it out. Is it possible to get a bot to fix the linking?Bdve

For now it should stay with the exclamation point. Even wwe.com is conflicted with some SD logos having an exclamation point and some not. TJ Spyke 20:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WWE is in the process of phasing out the Exlamation Point to coincide with the move to CW. From Not JBL Sept 15, 2006.

Rick Scaia

I'm in a dispute with User:BakerBaker on this article. I reverted his heavily-POV edits to the original (which may also be slightly POV) and he re-reverted. As opposed to me getting into a silly pushing contest, would anyone like to moderate a solution? -Umdunn o 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading your own changes I thought that your change was more POV heavy than his. The content of both are polar opposites but both are POV pushing so neither of them are really valid. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, well I'll just leave it be then. For the record, I didn't create the original, I just reverted to the original text. -Umdunn o 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Samoan Family

Hey guys, I have ordered The Anoai Family article a bit, but what remains unclear is the relationship between Peter Maivia and the family.

Peter's articles states that the Wild Samoans are his sons-in-law, which in turn makes their sons his grandsons, as stated in his article.

The Fatu brothers are also called his grandsons. They are the sons of Vera Anoia. I cannot tell by this name whether Vera is male or female, though the sons' Fatu surname suggest that a Fatu is the father. This Fatu then would have to be Peter's son, if that makes sense according to the Samoan name system.

Maybe someon can chime in on this. TC, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Neff Maiava, the father of Afa and Sika Anoa'i, is not related to Peter Maivia, but the pair were close friends and considered one another to be "blood brothers". Meltzer Afa's website is quite a useful source. Incidentally, the family name is Anoa'i, not Anoai. McPhail 15:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, I have done some reading on these two links and will institute some changes, especially removing the false information from the Peter Maivia page.

Finally, I suggest moving the Anoai family article to something like Samoan wrestling family or so, as not all bear the name Anoai and some are not even blood relatives, e.g. Peter Maivia. They are nevertheless one family and all are Samoan. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This thread is quite informative, though not without contradiction: http://wrestlingclassics.com/cgi-bin/.ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001936;p=

In contrast to above, Neff Maiava is not the father of Afa and Sika and, according to that link, without connection to them. Also, the family article here on WP gives a different name as father. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I had heard that Afa and Sika used to refer to Peter as "Uncle" and he was unofficially adopted as that. It is my understanding that there is no blood relation there at all. James Duggan 21:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That is also my impression. The friendship developed into a quasi-family-tie. Peter is called "uncle" on Afa's website (linked above). I have tried to reflect this unoffical adoption in Peter's article (where before it called practically all the members of the "Headshrinker" generation "grandsons").

What about the renaming suggestion? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would keep it where it is, just correct the spelling of Anoa'i. The Anoa'i's are basically the center of the family and everyone else is extended. James Duggan 21:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem: the family began with Uncle Peter. And I think Samoan is a term more sought after then Anoa'i, especially if the apostrophe is included. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it started with Afa and Sika. --James Duggan 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In a strict sense Peter does not belong to the Anoai family, as he's a Maivia and not in any way related (and neither are The Rock and Jimmy Snuka) - he's even from a different state. But they are all included into the article and IMHO it would be artificial to remove them.

From what I gathered, Afa & Sika were introduced into wrestling through the friendship of their father with Peter, after the two had met in America.

In WP articles I have repeatedly met references (unlinked) to a Samoan wrestling family, which is why I am asking whether we should rename the Anoai article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Captain" Lou Albano

I rewrote the entire the article. I'm still working on correcting grammar and spelling error. Feedback is appreciated. Here is the "Before" and here is the After Kyros 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a list of all the wrestlers he has managed is really needed. It seems like just a long list of clutter. Notable people he managed or something like that, would be much better than just a long list of every wrestler. RobJ1981 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to Tag Teams Managed, since Albano is know for tag team wrestling. Any other feedback, good or bad Kyros 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly looks a lot better than it did! --Smart Mark Greene 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Jay Lethal

I've changed his debut date from December 7, 2002 to just 2002. The article itself states he won the JAPW TV title on September 13, 2002 (confirmed by Solie's Title Histories [2]), so it's pretty clear he didn't debut in December. Does anyone know his actual debut date? Sasaki 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Found the correct debut date, December 7, 2001 [3]. Even Jay Lethal's official site has his debut as 2002, despite it being incorrect. Sasaki 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Galleries on WWE programs

I posted this on the talk page of the article but I didn't get a response, so I'll post it here. Are the galleries of the TV shows and pay-per-views really that nessacery? I had this discussion with Moe Epsilon a few months back about the same thing happening on the professional wrestling in Australia article and we came to the conclusion that they were not needed at all. Normy132 03:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Articles like CNBC have them. TJ Spyke 06:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

They add life to a page of words (which can get boring). professional wrestling in Australia should get them back. From Not JBL

Tag Team Profile Box

Is there a profile box for tag teams and if there isn't should there be one. Kyros 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently there isn't. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a box like this

Kyros 03:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're going with that one, but I think current & past members might make it confusing for teams no longer tagging. And I don't really think we'd need a "years active" either. Heights and combined weights would be good fields for it. - Bdve 03:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's take years out and create a second template box for defunct teams like the nWo that just lists members. Heights and combined weights would get messy. Kyros 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the nWo is a stable, if we're going to do a stable box that should be a whole other animal. Announcing tag teams with a combined weight is pretty customary in wrestling, it can't get that hairy to do it here too. We'd just have to establish how to list the different guys (like in The Highlanders box now). - Bdve

True ... True ... so how about this .... we use the box I have for stables ... The box on The Highlanders page for tag teams, add past members sections for active teams. Kyros 04:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The one on The Highlanders page is just the regular wrestler box. For tag teams we can omit a bunch of stuff like "billed from" and "trained by". - Bdve

I tried to get a template up, but when I try to use it it doesn't come out right. If anyone can figure out what's happening with it I'd appreciate it. Bdve 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done a cleanup on Bdve's template and changed its format to the ones used for bios and events. The infobox should look like this on the right. I've also made it so the only required fields are "current_name" (their current team name as opposed to the field "names", which lists all of their names) and "members". Personally I do think the promotions field would make this infobox a little cluttered but I'll leave it for you guys to decide. --Oakster ^(Talk) 10:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I thank you, but the "former names" section is required on the template now too and I don't think we need it for teams that have only had one name. Bdve 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, got that fixed but does anyone know if it's possible to add image captions to the template? If ever there was a need for it this is it. -- bd (talk to me) 02:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be another problem with it. Skipping "Former names" and trying to add heights makes "former names" show in the box (blank) but not the heights. Anyone? -- bd (talk to me) 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Championship Lineage

I was wondering something concerning the WWE Undisputed Championship. If it's the WWE's position that the title is simply part of the WWE Championship lineage itself, then isn't that what's supposed to be included in the articles? Since the championship is the property of the WWE, then doesn't the WWE have the final say so concerning the 43 year history of their championship? Would it be noncanonical to state otherwise, such as listing them as seperate titles? Odin's Beard 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is just the WWE Championship, I support the merge suggestion that is on both pages since it is not different from the WWE Title. TJ Spyke 02:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One reason why I asked is because there is a user that keeps insisting, McPhair I believe is the editor, continues to maintain that they're seperate championships and continues to list them so under the championships and accomplishments sections in the Triple H article despite me constantly saying that it's the WWE's position that it's the same championship. I just wanted to be sure that I'm not in the wrong here. Odin's Beard 19:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship article. The article differs from WWE.com, as WWE.com does not list champions before 1997. WWE is a corporation which acts in its own interests, not in the interests of factual accuracy. It is the role of Wikipedia to record documented fact, not to blindly mirror WWE.com and its revisionist history. McPhail 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Our "Good" articles

Konnan is listed as a good article, does this mean we should be listing all Finishing/signature maneuvers and managers in tables to give some sort of uniformality to wrestling bios or should we add an "in wrestling"/"wrestling fact" section to his article? - -Bdve

I don't think so, the table part was part of the peer review of the article but it has problems associated with it such as location and some wrestlers with many sig moves could cause the tables to ruin the articles appearance. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Gutierrez (Rey Mysterio)'s height

Here's one for the books, both metaphorically and in the we need to sort this out sense. I've added the story so far to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Numbers and statistics but what has happened is that Rey Mysterio's height is currently listed at 5'4½" with no source at all. Why? Because there are so many conflicting reports on his height that they've made a compromise height between 5'2" and 5'5". Seriously. The day a wrestlers height becomes "let's take all the sources and find the middle" rather than "let's take all the sources and find the accurate ones or list each height as billed" is a sad day indeed. We need to sort this out because this is the most bizarre compromise ever and a detriment to wikipedia. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well this just comes back to the overall continual discussion over stats. Stats are just as important as anything else in a wrestlers biog. I think there are three levels myself. We have wrestlers who have been measured by independent authorities, usually American football stats, but these are primary and cannot be argued with, e.g Andre, Goldberg, Brock Lesnar, Angle etc. Then you have the wrestlers quote on himself, which you have to take as valid. Hulk Hogan, Kane etc. And then there's the majority for whom no independent stats exist, and no quote has been found. So what do we agree on? A list of sites to off, the mean (which I do not think is a lame idea), the most google hits off a height, or just correlation between certain sites we choose? e.g., Obsessed, slam wrestling, IMBD, celebheights, etc.??Halbared 13:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Gonna have to disagree with your second statement "Then you have the wrestlers quote on himself, which you have to take as valid", especially due to the examples. Hulk Hogan has for years overstated his height, and more to the matter with each passing interview his body slamming of Andre seems to have somehow had Andre gained another 100 pounds. Kane's height has changed over the years due to a number of reasons. Originally he was 7', then 7'1", then 6'11", at some points 6'10". He was obviously taller than Undertaker for a time so they ahd to book him as taller due to that Taker was billed as 6'10" when he wasn't.

Sure you can disagree, I don't like it myself actually...however, it is how some pages have been handled, and how the consensus on the discussion pages have gone, therefore I have accepted it, even though, I don't fully agree.Halbared 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As for your comment on the mean not being a lame idea the problem isn't that this is a mathematic equality, it's a statistic of height. When we start saying people are X height because we can't agree on the other ones being correct then we are as just as false by making up numbers and it should be avoided at all costs. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it because height is an exact quality unlike other things, so an average from heights might as well secure a legit height as any for any 'unofficial' or 'official' website. I think though it's not a perfect solution, and I won't push it too much....What I would like is a vote on sources that we go off for the third type of wrestler and let us stick tho them to prevent needless edits in the future.Halbared 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

When we've reached a consensus on this (unlikely, I know...) this article [4] needs editing. Don't see the point in changing it while the discussion is ongoing. Sasaki 14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How aboot this. We have three sites we use and agree on, then we go off those three for wrestlers who have no legit measurements taken?Halbared 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)_

Even though they are kayfabed, the heights/weights listed in WWE profiles should be used on Wikipedia, unless verifiable sources to the contrary exist. (For example, Andre The Giant was a verified 6'10", despite his billing of anywhere between 7'2" and 7'5". Police reports and such would be another verifiable source that would be paramount to a WWE profile.) The same standard should apply for TNA wrestlers as well. - Chadbryant 18:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MySpace profiles in wrestler biographies

I'm of the viewpoint that MySpace profiles are not encyclopedic, and probably shouldn't be included in wrestler biographies. The amount of phony MySpace profiles related to pro wrestlers is also a problem that is best solved by not including any MySpace profiles in bios. - Chadbryant 18:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of removing unofficial fansites as well, thoughts? Sasaki 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

All should be removed in my opinion. Alot of the my space profiles are fakes, and it's not always easy to find out which are actually used by the wrestler or not. RobJ1981 18:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fansites qualify largely as fancruft - or, as I would term it for wrestling-related articles, "markcruft". Most of it is unencyclopedic and is irrelevant to an encyclopedic biography. In fact, I believe WP:PW should devise a "markcruft" policy defining what irrelevant information shouldn't be included in articles. - Chadbryant 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My Space is listed on many articles, but with most others: I believe it's official pages of the actor or artist or whoever. It not being encyclopedic isn't the issue, the issue is it not always an official My Space page of the wrestler. Look at links for other pages, there is fan sites and the such listed, and there is no problem at all (usually). RobJ1981 18:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue in a nutshell: MySpace profiles aren't encyclopedic, and they are much too susceptible to impersonations. Fansites would qualify as "markcruft" and would be discouraged from inclusion in articles. - Chadbryant 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is confirmed a wrestler has a myspace profile then it should be used reason being it is an official site of that person, also if its a problem i know which wrestlers have myspaces and the official links which arent fake. I dont see what the problem is with fansites either, each person is entitled to at least one fansite no more then two, there is no rule saying they shouldn't be allowed Lil crazy thing 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with fansites is quite often they look like this [5]. Also the guidelines on fansites are here [6]. I think they should be avoided, as recommended Sasaki 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

From this policy:

Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.

Nothing in any wrestling article on Wikipedia mandates the inclusion of MySpace profiles. Thus, they should be removed. - Chadbryant 19:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

fine about the myspace profiles then but still i stand by the fansites, and sasaki very few fansites look like that, that are actually included if you look nearly all are very professional sites, if i come across sites like the one you posted i remove it, but the one you posted isnt even included in an article. Also before you go around removing fansites wait till more people give there views, otherwise it is unfair to go ahead a do somethign with just two people backing it Lil crazy thing 19:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying there are any links like the one I used, at present. However some people see a link to a fansite in an article and decide to add their own, I'm sure most editors here will have removed similar links at some point. If you have no links to fansites (which Wikipedia recommends) it helps remove temptation, and also saves editors having to check the suitability of any external links. Sasaki 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If an edit is made with Wikipedia policy properly cited, it does not matter how many people agree with it. Consensus opinion is irrelevant in such cases. - Chadbryant 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair the external links recommendation is a guideline not a policy Sasaki 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It falls under WP:MOS. A guideline is less stringent than a policy, since a guideline can be amended under special circumstances, but it holds as mich weight as a policy. - Chadbryant 20:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you quote guidelines in full in future, rather than leaving out pertinent information? The guideline regarding Myspace ends with "(e.g., an article about a specific author can link to that author's blog)", therefore it is fully in accordance with WP guidelines to link to a Myspace providing it's authenticity can be established. Sasaki 14:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Markcruft

As an extension of the MySpace/fansite debate, I am proposing that a standard be developed and agreed to by WP:PW in regards to "markcruft" (a wrestling version of fancruft) - the irrelevant & unencyclopedic content that seems to creep into wrestling articles on a daily basis. I would propose that the following be considered as markcruft and strongly discouraged (and deleted from current articles):

Comprehensive title histories for individual wrestlers (it bloats articles and is much better suited to a wrestling-specific wiki or site instead of a general encyclopedia - sites like www.onlineworldofwrestling.com already exist for this content)

Fansites as external links (too many issues with quality & relevance to the subject matter)

MySpace profiles as external links (it is existing Wikipedia policy not to include links to social networking profiles unless they are mandated by the article itself)

Show results for non-PPV events, or weekly/semi-regular television shows (this would also be considered listcruft, and would include SNME, non-PPV ECW events, and similar events)

Hypothetical acheivements related to titles ("Double Triple Crown Champion", etc.)

Additions/suggestions are encouraged. A standard for wrestling articles would go a long way towards making the wrestling content here much more encyclopedic. - Chadbryant 20:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with every point made here, especially the too detailed title histories and hypothetical acheivements, which I think it somewhat original research on my part, but I support this all the way. I mean, it's all predetermined, the honor is not as big as it seems. Renosecond 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

i dont agree with the fansite bit, fansites are allowed to be included there is no rule saying they cant, as long as there kept to a min and only the most notable fansites are there not any old fansite. Go to a page of any famous person and there is a fansite. What harm is there to have a link leading to a page where someone can gather more information on the person. who cares if the link isn't encyclopedic, it's only a link to a completely different site. i also suggest you wait and see what people answers are to this before you go around making these changes, also if your going to make these changes do them to every page not just one single page, e.g randy orton Lil crazy thing

I think it's often too difficult to determine which fansite is "most notable". Unless someone can define an objective way to determine that,I think it will lead to listcruft. -- Davetron5000 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Links to fansites are best left to wrestling-specific sites such s www.onlineworldofwrestling.com - they are not relevant to an encyclopedia, which is what we are editing here. - Chadbryant 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with not listing things that aren't PPV's. Things like Clash of the Champions are supercards and are notable to a point, same goes for SNME I suppose. Then there is the important shows for indy feds. They don't have PPV's, so you are basically saying no results for major shows for indy feds (big mistake)? Also, from the sounds of it... you want wrestler articles not to have anything but PPV results? That would make the articles pretty boring. Eventful things happen on Raw, Smackdown, Impact and other non-PPV results, leaving them off is a huge mistake. Names for multi-title holders isn't a big deal. As for title histories: they don't bloat articles much and it's incomplete if all aren't listed (so what if a site like Obsessed with Wrestling is better suited, Wikipedia articles should be complete, not just highlights of the best titles). I don't see a problem with leaving things alone. This whole markcruft thing is just a bit ridiculous. You are basically just trying to remove anything YOU feel isn't right for pro wrestling articles. In the replies, some have agreed with you, but that's certainly not enough to make this happen to all articles. Fansites can go for the most part, but the rest should just be left alone, period. RobJ1981 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll change my stance somewhat, but I do think that most of those proposals are resonable and should be implemented. The "somewhat" major shows have been taken care of (like various ECW ones) and I certainly think that AWA shows can be merged to a degree. The format for title histories really should be trimmed to just say something like "8-time WWF European Champion" or the like, it's a fake sport, and the titles do not need to take that much space, it's not as big of an accomplishment as it seems. The fansites can certainly be trimmed and most myspace profiles can go. And I really don't care for the "triple crown" pages and mentions, I can't remember any acknowledment of this sort of thing on any WWF/E show, and I don't think it is widely used wrestling slang to merit these mentions, it just sounds like someone just made up the rules and guidelines for the "triple crown" and forces it on everyone. If anything, all that stuff needs to go unless more info can be verified. Renosecond 18:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think title reigns are important, but not the achievements. Though I don't think they need to be detailed, just list the title and how many times they held it. I also do not care for fansites being included, mainly because some wrestlers have so many fansites. We should try and stick with official links. --James Duggan 19:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's no need to mention Triple Crown and Grand Slam achievements(except for maybe the first people to do it, like AJ Styles and Shawn Michaels). Title reigns should and WILL stay. Also, why does every single TNA pay-per-view have it's own page? Imagine how many more pages would be created if every single WWE/WCW/ECW PPV had their own page. TJ Spyke 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need a cute name?

Proposed move - G-1 Climax

The correct name of the tournament is G1 Climax, not G-1 Climax. Any objections to it being moved to the correct name? Sasaki 07:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be controversial, so be BOLD. TJ Spyke 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Randy Orton page

this really needs to be said cos i'm personally getting sick of this. At the moment certain users are saying pictures cant be added to the page because of free images rule, fansites cant be on his page because of yet another rule which doesnt actually say they cant be added at all. Yet they say this for just that page they do not go and change them on all the other wrestlers pages. I'm sick and tired of the randy orton page being singled out at the moment, now if you wanna use these stupid rules go ahead and use them on ALL pages not just randy ortons one. Until these so called rules are used on all pages then i wont accept them on just his page. Lil crazy thing 12:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you did generously tell us which page needed a fansite link removing, and as I've said I'll be happy to remove links from any other articles you tell me about. However you refused to give any details, so I can only remove links as I come across them. The consensus is that they should be removed, and this is fully supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Sasaki 12:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

i did not tell you of any link that needs removing so dont be sarcastic to me, you havent ever editted the randy orton page before, till i editted kurt angles page which you didn't like, you are doing this to spite me and its unfair, i dont not need to tell you of any pages because every signle wrestlers page has one same with movie stars popstar etc etc but you wont do nothing at all. Lil crazy thing 12:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a limit on how many fair-use images can be used in an individual article. Images "borrowed" from WWE.com are uploaded here under the fair-use license. Orton's page has been a constant target of markcruft (see above) and his fans wanting to turn his page here into a photo gallery. This is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. - Chadbryant 18:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

thats rubbish and you know it, there has never been more then 5 pictures in that article altogether. But yet john cenas page has loads and you say nothing, a few of the divas have the same amount if not more pictures and you say nothing i can continue so i take it anything posted on other pages other than the randy orton page its acceptable because you do nothing. Randy Ortons fan do not want to turn it into a photo gallery that is a lie and you know it.Lil crazy thing 19:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

John Cena currently uses two fair-use images, one of which is the cover of his album. - Chadbryant 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

at least they have been cut down, but your not doing a good job of remvoing images i've visit 6 pages so far today all of which had more pictures then the randy page, have you done anything no. You continuously single out the randy orton page and use false statements on why you do it and i'm sick of it. Lil crazy thing 06:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:American Wrestling Association shows

Just looking through this cat, there seems to be a few minor shows that aren't even PPVs, I was wondering if we should try to afd some like the various ECW shows as of late. Renosecond 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

They should probably be AFD'ed. - Chadbryant 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Done and done, check the to-do list for a link. And if you vote, please look at the ecw precedent that I posted and don't vote merge, I suggest. Renosecond 01:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

RoughKut Wrestling

I stumbled on a Wikipedia page for an e-fed called RoughKut Wrestling while searching for info on the indy wrestler Cham Pain (I guess he doesn't warrant his own page yet). I'm thinking it's not encyclopediac worthy, but I'm a Wikin00b and I couldn't really understand the whole deletion process. So I figured I'd make more experienced users aware of it and hopefully somebody else could do it. Unright 04:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD with great predjudice, e-feds are never notable. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've nominted it for deletion. TJ Spyke 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling Event template

I have a question about the Infobox Wrestling event template. Does the "Next Event" mean the next one to take place or next to air? This only really applies to "Kollision in Korea"(a 1995 joint PPV between WCW and NJPW). It took place in April 1995 but aired on PPV in August 1995. So would it be listed after Uncensored 1995(which was in March) or after Bash at the Beach 1995(which was in July)? TJ Spyke 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To air, presumably. That appears to be the precedent where television episodes, etc, are concerned. McPhail 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Wrestler

What happened to Template:Infobox Wrestler?Bdve 16:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing wrong with it at the moment though I have experienced a few template problems in the past few days (such as Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD which is now back up) so I'm guessing there was some software problem that's fixed now. --Oakster ^(Talk) 21:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's back. Nevermind, and thanks Oakster.Bdve

The template has the legit height/weight for wrestlers, not 'billed' stats. Has this been voted on? Since I notice that the infoboxes have changed to billed height, yet the template remains the same?Halbared 09:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Six reigns for Moolah

In the Trish/Lita match at Unforgiven, did either commentator make a comment about Moolah having six title reigns, and Trish breaking the tie if she won her seventh? If so, when did WWE suddenly put two more reigns on Moolah (assuming WWE history) or decide to acknowledge (at least a part of) the NWA Women's title history as its own? kelvSYC 04:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Ol' JR did say it. -- bd (talk to me) 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Moolah actually won the title 8 times if you count the NWA reigns. Don't trust WWE for title counts, Flair is actually a 22 time world champ(not 16). TJ Spyke 04:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is actually covered in this week's Wrestling Observer. Dave mentions six definite title reigns, a possible seventh, and he also mentions that it's likely that there are times when Moolah traveled to various territories, dropped the title, then won it back before it got widely reported. For the record, he said that this happened with Betty Boucher in 1966, and Yukiko Tomoe in Japan in 1968 (both of which involved the NWA title) --SHODAN 02:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's the closest to a WWE admission of the Women's championship inheriting the NWA Women's Championship history (and we know WWE would never fully admit it), which would imply that their claim of Moolah having held the title for so long was false. (Of course, this could be covered to Moolah claiming that she was the "only significant champion" during this period, which would put an end to it as it would be clearly in the realm of kayfabe). It also brings up the question of whether a title change was "significant" - we can claim that the discrepant 6 world championship reigns for Flair were not significant enough for WWE consideration, much like how Benoit won the WCW title and quit the next day, leading to winning the WHC "the first time" at WM (but you could claim that Benoit cheated to win the WCW title and that the title change was overturned when he quit, but that's nitpicking here...). kelvSYC 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ross has this to say:

Trish got the emotional send off she deserved and was even fortunate enough to win the Women’s Title for a record 7th time. As I mentioned during the broadcast, wrestling history is a dicey subject and has been “re-written” many times. From the best I can ascertain, the Women’s Title was officially reorganized in 1956 with the Fabulous Moolah as the champion. Moolah essentially owned this title for YEARS and I mean YEARS winning it 6 different times, again according to the records I was able to obtain.

-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 20:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(In Kayfabe)

Am I the only one who finds this notation in wrestling articles unnecessary. Kyros 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It annoys me up the wall! I was reading the article on Vito Lograsso and it just ruined it for me! Normy132 06:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If we don't put it, people complain. -- bd (talk to me) 13:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And if we do, I'll complain more. It's stated that it's a storyline, constant reminders of (kayfabe) are annoying.--Darren Jowalsen 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In Kayfabe needs to stay out, I think it should go on the the To Do List. Kyros 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wresting is fiction, as such we follow the writing about fiction rules. Long ago we considered a few different options (such as quotes) and decided that noting (kayfabe) was the best and easiest option. Wrestling articles are not supposed to read "in universe", even if that does "ruin it for you". -- bd (talk to me) 21:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you mean wrestling storylines and titles are fiction. IMHO, if a section is clearly detectable as presenting the storyline, we need not put Kayfabe notes. If some legit things pop up in between, we might mark these. If a section however is evenly mixed, some notes are in order. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where was it decided that we should interrupt articles with parenthetical comments that disrupt the flow of the sentences? And I never said "ruin it for me." Darren Jowalsen 23:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I simply have no interest in looking through all of the archives to find it, but it was a while ago. -- bd (talk to me) 01:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In the latest discussion, we really didn't agree to anything except better writing to distinguish between fact and fiction. We brought up the kayfabe disclaimer template, but that has since been deleted. --Darren Jowalsen 01:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, maybe it wasn't ecided and it was simply picked up on. Propose something else. -- bd (talk to me) 02:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite the section in question so it is clear it is part of a storyline. Darren Jowalsen 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

McMahonism

How long should it take for one to renominate an article for AfD before its first nomination? I was thinking of nominating McMahonism again (I didn't particularly like it being there in the first place and it's now becoming less notable than before) but I was unsure about the timing for renominations. --Oakster ^(Talk) 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh god kill it... please kill that thing asap. I had forgot that thing was still around.. we did get rid of that stat box thing of "followers of McMahonism" and the article of that same name too right? -- Paulley

I believe that's gone now. I've just renominated the article for deletion now. --Oakster ^(Talk) 18:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Should a tag team bio be made for Burke and Terkay? And KC James and Idol Stevens?

Not sure if Burke and Terkay teamed up before but James and Stevens are in the tag title hunt.MonkeyKid 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Burke is just a manager/sidekick most of the time. I'd hold off on the James/Stevens page because I think it's only a matter of time before they give them an actual name. Though I guess it could always be moved. -- bd (talk to me) 03:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If they aren't given a name by WWE though, then the page should be "KC James and Idol Stevens", I hate how some people have articles with just the last names. Like Cade and Murdoch, when they are always introduced as "Lance Cade and Trevor Murdoch". TJ Spyke 05:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Move 'em, but don't forget to fix links if you do. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 05:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Cade and Murdoch" was how they were origionally announced in the RAW graphic and in their entrance video --- Paulley 10:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Stats

I know it's been discussed before, but still no solution has been found. As I thought it was quite a good idea, and as that's the chosen height on most of the articles already, I recently tried to edit the infobox to change height and weight to billed height and weight, but it didn't work. Anybody better than me at it could probably work it out no problem. BertieBasset 10:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dx reunion tour

Keep an eye on this one. If even I am advocating deletion, you know it's crap. Tromboneguy0186 14:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon removed the prod, I've AFD'd it. Tromboneguy0186 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling news world

I was wondering if this article is about a notable subject. The article is well developed but it's about a wrestling forum. I slapped an importance tag on it but did not go all the way and propose an afd. Most of the content seems trivial. What say you guys? MrMurph101 19:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's basically just an advertisement for the forum, I say put a PROD on it first. If that gets removed(which it probably will), then nominate it for deletetion. TJ Spyke 20:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did that. MrMurph101 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be deleted. -Fonzarelli

The Highlanders (professional wrestling)

I changed Robbie and Rory's pages to redirects to the Highlanders page. Both wrestlers have been in tag wrestling, since they debuted. It's pretty pointless to have solo entries for them, when they have done no major singles wrestling at all. I feel this should also be done to other teams that have no singles experience. RobJ1981 00:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

yea that was already established we had done the same for the the Shane Twins... just one question you did merge any information not found in the tag article --- Paulley

oh the answer to that was no.... if you intend to that that again please make sure you understand the information you are deleting. you have to tranfer over any iformation from these articles into the tag one; real names, single signature moves etc... you also have to remove double redirects to make sure everthing goes to the correct highlanders article and remove and links from the tag article that goes to the singles one. Please think before you make such major edits --- Paulley 09:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

look whos back

do these edits seem familier to any one --- Paulley 09:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

May want to look at the histories of DVDVR and 411mania. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness

Looks like a similar issue to Delirious. There was an edit stating "privacy issue, please respect it." Tromboneguy0186 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if there is a way to find out Nigel doesn't want it listed here, then that's fine. But just some random user saying it, isn't enough to leave it their way. This could simply just be a matter of the user not wanting it here, not Nigel himself. RobJ1981 18:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just like with Delirious, I did a trademark search on the USTPO website and found Nigel's real name that way. If it's there, then it's fair game to use on here. --James Duggan 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, it doesn't matter if he, or his webmaster, want it posted or not. I revert, she reverts, I revert, she reverts. Is this not vandalism?-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want you could take it to WP:RFC, but as always it's irrelevent if the person doesn't want their name to be published, especially in this case where its freely available, because this is an open encyclopedia that needs to be factual. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter even if McGuinness himself said he wanted his name removed. If a person's name is publically available, then it's fair game to be included here. If a user removes it then just put it back. TJ Spyke 03:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

She has also violated WP:NPA, at least on my talk page (and I wouldn't doubt on others). Tromboneguy0186 11:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For some reason it was removed again, this time by an admin clamining some issue on WP:LIVING. I fal to see why it shouldn't be included since his real name is publically available and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform people. TJ Spyke 20:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The admin who removed it(then locked the page) wants other verifiable sites that state McGuinness's real name is <redacted> and said someone representing McGuinness contact Wikiemedia Foundation. TJ Spyke 21:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we would even need a secondary source on it considering what the first one is. Furthermore up to this point she hasen't denied it's his real name, just asked for it not to be there. While I appreciate his commitment to kayfabe, it's not the 70s anymore.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 21:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this admin: User:FCYTravis is spiteful. He just deleted my userpage because I mentione McGuinness's real name on it. If he doesn't give me a damn good reason for doing that then I will report him(something which others have done before based on his talk page). TJ Spyke 21:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Any assurances he won't delete this page? This is fast getting out of hand, and very much needs to be resolved. It's going to be really sad if this falls through. Tromboneguy0186 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Any chance [7] could be of some use? It's the only way I could think of around the dead links problem with that site.

I'm not sure he would listen. He said the matter is being resolved becaus somebody saying they represent Haworth/McGuinness contacted Wikipedia concerning the bio. TJ Spyke 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The entire McGuinness article has now been deleted. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?! Tromboneguy0186 23:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I'm even more confused. I could swear for a second it was gone and there was a redlink on this page. Tromboneguy0186 23:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It was gone. I saw it...or didn't see it...but now it's back and locked all the way down.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 23:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the edit history. All prior page versions that had Steven Haworth in them have been destroyed.

That's it, I quit. Tromboneguy0186 23:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be unprotecting the page in several minutes. Per the WP:BLP concerns, please do not reinsert the name. Sorry guys. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does WP:BLP say we can't include his real name(<redacted>)? It's verifiable and from a reliable source(the US Patent and Trademark website) which means it's also public info. Also, Why did you delete it from my page? I don't see what's wrong with telling people to MSN me if they want his real name or to just check the PTO website. TJ Spyke 00:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel there should be more dialogue on this issue--let's centralize our discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nigel_McGuinness. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to that article's discussion page? James Duggan 10:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for kicks and giggles (since I know it'll be worth NOTHING else) here is an interview with an English professional wrestler training, in the American midwest, under Les Thatcher in the HWA

Soo...for clarification, does this mean that the only difference between the Nigel article and the Delirious one is threatened legal action?--70.181.59.230 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Delirious's name has been in publication (in his college's newspaper).

↪Lakes (Talk) 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A wrestling category now up in CFD

I put Category:Current Stampede Wrestling roster in CFD earlier today. No other roster categories are listed with current in them, so Stampede won't be the exception. From what I know, there is no roster page for Stampede Wrestling... so if the category is renamed, there needs to be one made. A roster category listing just the wrestlers seems a bit pointless (which is what the category is for now). --RobJ1981 18:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What a mess

Professional wrestling promotion should just be a page for information about promotions in general, but it's a huge list of promotions in the world. I noticed on the talk page, a discussion from a few months ago. They were talking about redlinks and wanted to fill them. So it's safe to say: many promotions on the overall list there, aren't completely needed on Wikipedia itself. So we now have a big task of going through the promotions, and checking them. Remember: Wikipedia isn't the place for every promotion ever. As much as some people want it to be, it simply should never be for that. Category:Professional wrestling promotions is also a place to take a look. Subcats are a good start: NWF and OCWF are prime examples of lesser promotions in my opinion. NWF's cat is empty, while OCWF just lists some of it's wrestlers in the cat. RobJ1981 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about this article. There should only be a category for all the promotions that actaully exist on WIkipedia. Maybe we should trim that massive list down to just the notable ones i.e. WWE, WCW, ECW etc. Normy132 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The page is called Professional wrestling promotion, not "List of professional wrestling promotions". If people want a list of all promotions so badly, then make it I suppose. The page now shouldn't be a list page at all. RobJ1981 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Personas of The Undertaker

Is this really needed here? I just noticed it and I think it's alot of fancruft. It's factual: but if it's done for Undertaker... what's to stop people from doing it for other wrestlers? People like Hulk Hogan have had many personas over the years. I haven't put AFD on it just yet, but I plan to soon if people don't justify it enough. Articles like this one, belong on a wrestling Wikipedia, not here. RobJ1981 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a well written article, but i'm not sure if the article should be here. If we had a wrestling wiki then we could transwiki it there. I don't know what to do. TJ Spyke 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually say link it as a "See also" on the Calaway page. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need that much in-depth about personas though? The casual wrestling fan probably could careless about a page about how the Undertaker has changed over the years. This probably should be moved to a wrestling wiki. I remember there was a wrestling wiki, but I'm not sure if it's around anymore. RobJ1981 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be merged with his article. Gimmick changes should really be mentioned in his article. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Trish and the Sharpshooter

At the current moment I have a slight arguement with another user over if the Sharpshooter should be added to Trish Stratus' list of moves, specifically as a finisher. He contends that because Trish used it, even if it was only once, and used it to win a Championship it should be added as a finisher. I contend that Trish only used it once (right?) for a fairytale ending to her career and therefore is not a finisher commonly associated with her so it should not be added. Which of us is correct? Night Bringer 02:15, 23 September 2006 (GMT +10).

You, if we start listing one off finishers everytime they happen the pages would be flooded. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be listed as it was done because 1) She was retiring, and 2) It was in Canada, obviously a reference to the Montreal Screwjob. Shawn Michaels doesn't have the Sharpshooter listed even under regular moves, despite having used it after the Screwjob. Shane McMahon doesn't have it listed, and he defeated HBK with it, and that, too, was a reference to the Screwjob. -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}

WWE Summer Bash Tour

Prodding, please keep an eye on it Tromboneguy0186 16:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

An anon IP with a history of vandalism removed the PROD, so i've nominated it for deletion. TJ Spyke 04:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)