Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Oscar Gutierrez

Gutierezz aka. Rey Mysterio is scheduled to make a special appearance tonight on SmackDown at the tapings. Please try and watch this article tonight and tomorrow as vandals are more than likely to put in spoilers. I've put it on my watchlist. Davnel03 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Valiant Brothers

Just thought I'd say that the page for The Valiant Brothers REALLY needs cleanup. -- Scorpion 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I added it to my watch list, I'll help it out. RobJ1981 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WWE Magazine awards

Someone had started adding awards from WWE magazine to Championships and accomplishments sections. Should we consider these real awards?«»bd(talk stalk) 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, never talked about on TV, hardly never on WWE.com; fancruft. Davnel03 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's the same thing as the PWI or Observer awards. Plus it's from the official WWE publication. --Maestro25 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No, please don't add these. The PWI/Observer awards are different since they don't own a promotion. This is pure fancruft and illegitimate. Booshakla 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
How is an award from the official WWE magazine, considered fancruft? I think the awards should remain. Wrestling Observer, PWI, etc are awards from reliable newsletters and magazines, so WWE awards from the official source aren't "fancruft". It's not like fans run the official WWE magazine or anything like that. Since when are PWI and Observer mentioned on TV? With your arguement: they are fancruft too, because they aren't mentioned on TV. Last I knew: PWI awards are decided by the fans: that's fancruft by logic as well. I think this is a matter of: keep them all, or remove them all. RobJ1981 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know very much about the WWE Magazine awards, don't pay any attention to them. Are they voted on by the fans or are they decided by the WWE themselves? If they're fan voted, then I can understand the reservation on using them because the WWE could manipulate the votes they recieve to have whichever result they desire. However, if they're already decided upon by the company itself, then I see not reason not to include them at least under the the WWE section of an individual wrestler's C&A section along with the WWE Hall Of Fame. The WWE decides who wins their championships and who gets invited to be inducted into their hall of fame. If that's the case with these awards, then I see now reason they should be excluded. Odin's Beard 02:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see a listing of the WWE awards if possible, but I'm thinking they likely should not be included. I don't think we list (trying to avoid WP:BEANS here) Slammys, which would probably be equivalent to this. Booshakla 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
They're not like the Slammy's, they're along the lines of "Tag Team of the Year" / "Wrestler of the Year".«»bd(talk stalk) 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WWE DVD's

I've put most of them up for deletion. The concensus is here. Davnel03 21:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

National Wrestling Alliance

The NWA article is on our "clean up" list, specifically because it contains a lot of lists which we want to avoid. I've gone through it and reformatted a lot of the content there to make it less "listy", in fact the only list left is in the titles section and I dunno how to do anything about that unless we create a category for NWA titles, but then we run into the problem of all the red-linked titles that is currently on the page. These should still be listed even if there is no detailed page for them IMO - which is a problem if we decide to make a category. Any ideas?? MPJ-DK 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I splitted that section into its own article. --Aaru Bui DII 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I like, it works better that way, I'm taking it off the "To Do" list MPJ-DK 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Owen, Monty & Joe

the list of "Articles to cleanup" has had Owen Hart, Monty Brown and Samoa Joe on there for a long time, when I read them I don't see that much that needs to be done - granted Owen's no WWE time could be expanded but other than maybe some section break down I don't know what should be done to the Monty & Joe articles. Before I tackle either of these articles I'd like some input on just how they need to be cleaned up/improved? MPJ-DK 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I added two of the three. It looks like the Owen Hart article has been cleaned up since I added it. The Brown one seems to have a lot of non notable matches throughout the TNA section and it certainly needs the references overhauled.«»bd(talk stalk) 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright that's cool, I may add a bit about Owen's non-WWF career and then take it off the list and then I'll see what to do about the Monty Brown one, condense it so that it's not just a run down of matches he's had but only the important highlights MPJ-DK 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a MAJOR addition to OWen's profile because I felt it focused more on his death and what followed instead of also honoring his long career before the tragedy. So Owen is off the list and Monty's TNA career looked okay to me right now, it covered the highlights and while a bit date heavy I figured that for now it's not that big a deal so they're both off the "Articles to clean up" list MPJ-DK 14:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete Discussions

I've nominated WWE Action Figures by Jakks Pacific for deletion; the discussion is here. Davnel03 21:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also just noticed Early Deaths in Professional Wrestling up for deletion - the discussion is here. Davnel03 21:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Question/comment about signature and finishing moves sections in articles

Why must the signature/finishing moves be so big for some wrestlers? It should be notable finishers and signature moves: not a big list (I've seen plenty of them, John Cena is just one example). One time finishers shouldn't make the list, it just clutters it and is simply un-needed cruft. If lists can't be changed: it should simply be finishing moves, since signature moves clutter it. Pro wrestling bios on Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into finishing/signature moves guides. The same thing needs to apply to taunts as well (none I've seen are massively huge I don't think, but it shouldn't become a mass list either). RobJ1981 06:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article you cite is an excellent example RobJ. Personally I would oppose the removal of signature moves but be very much in favour of limiting to ones that are unique or are occasionally used as finishers.
I will give a couple more examples of wrestlers with non-notable "signature moves" on their article:
  • Randy Orton - standing dropkick. Chinlock (I know the IWC joke about this, but this is a basic resthold).
  • Batista - Strong clothesline (as opposed to a weak-ass clothesline??)
  • William Regal - European uppercut (how many wrestlers use this???)
  • Matt Hardy - bulldog (no comment needed!)
The other side of the coin is, for instance, Jushin Liger who has innovated many of his signature moves. This, to my POV, makes them notable and worthy of inclusion. Suriel1981 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you think, maybe a poll to determine if signature moves should be removed? I know if we just go around cleaning articles, people will revert it most likely. Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to a wrestler's move set in matches, but as of now: alot of articles look that way because of massive cruft adding that hasn't been stopped. RobJ1981 23:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it depends on the move. Steve Austin, for example, used the Lou Thesz Press a lot in his career. TJ Spyke 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever decisions are reached here will take precidence in wrestling articles. This is the governing body. I removed the strong clothesline from Batista's article, as clotheslines are simply too generic. The only person who is supposed to have a version of it other than a flying clothesline it is Mick Foley, since he named the Cactus Clothesline. Anyway, there is a fair history of removing generic signature moves (like the clothesline) from wrestling articles, so I would say that everyone should just use their best judgment, and don't overkill it. 声援 -- The Hybrid 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If a person used the move alot: that's fine and all. But if they used it on the indy circuit a little, it probably should be removed. As well: huge lists of moves should be condensed, in my opinion. Also, just because someone worked for various promotions: doesn't necessarily mean we need move lists for each promotion. RobJ1981 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
We need to come up with some kind of regulation that a move is only to the list if it's the kind of thing a wrestler does/did in a majority of their matches that is truly signature of the wrestler. While this might put back things like Randy Orton's chinlock, it'll keep the lists honest and not have people adding things like John Cena's Rocker Dropper every time it's removed on the basis that "he's done it more than once". I've also seen people splitting the finishing and signature maneuvers sections, which I think is pointless.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Trish Stratus is one example that should be cleaned. RobJ1981 01:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Something along those lines would probably be best, but I wouldn't even know where to begin drafting that regulation. This seems like an individual decision would have to be made in each case. Discretion and discussion seems like the only way to effectively deal with this. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's my personal feeling that "signature taunts" are irrelevant to articles. But I'm not going to touch them unless it's something ridiculous. Hmmmmm. As Hybrid points out, any regulation would be problematic. Wording would be extremely difficult and would in any case rely on some amount of user discretion. I guess we'll have to look at things on an individual basis. Certainly if I was to remove any "signature moves" then I would add a subsection to the article's talk page to fully explain. Suriel1981 11:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In the case of specific character/wrestler based taunts I think they add something. Things like Randy Orton's pose, John Cena "You can't see me" hand thing, and Little Guido's Fangul are fairly integral to their characters, but other things are kinda pointless. «»bd(talk stalk) 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

PPV articles

I realise that there is some inconsistency with whether PPV articles have the promotion in the article name. Any reason for this? Perhaps we can move all pages to names without the promotion should it not already be taken? --Aaru Bui DII 12:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • TNA: All with (4 out of 13 may be moved to a non-prefixed name)
  • ECW: All with (9 out of 13 articles may be moved)
  • WWE: Big Four + some former ones: No; Others: Yes (although most have ambig. names; 5 may be moved)
  • WCW: All without except for Sin, World War 3 and Mayhem (ambig. names)
COnsidering that by your list most fo the WWE & WCW ones can't be moved anyway because they're disambig pages for the "non federation" name they'd have to stay the way they are anyway as for TNA & ECW - if they're already consistently WITH then I say leave it MPJ-DK 12:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Anything for those that can be moved? --Aaru Bui DII 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Other than the WrestleMania articles, none of the pay-per-view articles can be directly linked to, so there is little to be gained by ommitting prefixes. Adding the initials of the promotion as a prefix helps to disambiguate the article, and continuity in naming articles is preferable. McPhail 17:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by directly linked to? --Aaru Bui DII 01:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
In the context of an article, WrestleMania X-Seven can be directly linked to because the article title matches the text that we want to appear in the article we are linking it from. If, however, we wanted to link to SummerSlam (2005), we would probably write this in the form [[SummerSlam (2005)|SummerSlam 2005]] (SummerSlam 2005), because it looks much neater. Direct linking saves a lot of time, but in the case of pay-per-view articles, most of them cannot be directly linked to. We are already unable to directly link to SummerSlam (2005), so there is little to be lost through moving the article to WWE SummerSlam (2005) for the sake of continuity. McPhail 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think initials should only be used when they are needed for disambig reasons (like WWE Armageddon). TJ Spyke 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should request a move for the following? WWE New Year's Revolution, WWE Cyber Sunday, WWF Invasion, WWE Insurrextion, WWE Saturday Night's Main Event, TNA Final Resolution, TNA Destination X, Slammiversary, TNA Hard Justice, ECW Guilty as Charged, ECW Living Dangerously, ECW Wrestlepalooza, ECW Hardcore Heaven, ECW Anarchy Rulz, ECW November to Remember, ECW Massacre on 34th Street, ECW December to Dismember, ECW Ultimate Jeopardy. --Aaru Bui DII 02:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Why? It's their official name. They are written that way with their promotion's initials in press releases and other news articles. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
So is the NFL Super Bowl, but we don't have it there. TJ Spyke 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thats WP:NFL's problem, not ours. I can just as well use the same argument against you and say Super Bowl articles don't say "and emanated from...", despite you continuously using it in all PPV event articles. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have stopped doing that. It's also for other events like PGA golf tournaments, NASCAR races, etc. TJ Spyke 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So it's really two options we have so far? Call for a vote? --Aaru Bui DII 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. The promotion name should not be added to the article name unless it is to disambiguate from other articles with the same name.
  2. The promotion name should always be added as in press releases and news articles.

What would you suggest we do for Bound for Glory? To be consistent with three of the WWE Big Four, we should have the year in brackets but Bound for Glory itself is taken. So should it be Bound for Glory (2005) or TNA Bound for Glory (2005)? --Aaru Bui DII 09:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

TNA Impact!

A few days ago, a editor went ahead and move all the pages with TNA Impact! in their name to TNA Impact!. Their had been a move request (which he supported) and it failed, but he moved them anyways and then edited the redirect pages (so non-admins can't move them back). Is anybody familiar enough with a RFC and willing to file one here? Maybe someone can request the pages to be moved back: TNA Impact!, TNA Impact! Zone, and TNA Global iMPACT!. TJ Spyke 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with it but I followed the instructions and created an RFC: Talk:TNA Impact! --Aaru Bui DII 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, whoever moved them was right. Wikipedia says not to use odd capitalization techniques regardless of what the company does. That is why RAW got moved to Raw. Cheers, 声援 -- The Hybrid 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Some aren't convinced so I guess we have to go through a debate. --Aaru Bui DII 02:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A comment concerning articles that are huge lists of results

Clash of the Champions and WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results both probably could use a better formatting. Clash is the weaker of the articles, as most of it is just the result (and not who pinned who in tag matches and so on). I don't think each event should get in article, but perhaps list 10 of them on a page, and another 10, and so on. There has been 33 SNME so far at least (it's possible more could happen), and 35 Clashes (none will happen again probably). 3 articles for each would do them more justice in my opinion. Mass results on one page seems like a huge cluttered list to me at least. The same thing applies to Starrcade: there is 18 of them listed on a page. Then there is In Your House, which has 28 event results on one page. The Great American Bash: 17 event results on one page. I would imagine there is some huge results pages I missed. What does everyone else think about this? RobJ1981 06:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you named most of the pages with loads of results - WWE has SNME & IYH and WCW have quite a few more than that with several of their PPVs being joint listed. The problem is what should be done? I mean arbitrarily split the 35 clashes into 3 pages? why? makes linking harder and there is no logical way to divide them. Same with SNME, splitting them in "classic" and "new" is one thing but that's a minior thing. I think what needs to be done is to improve the content on the pages as they are - bring them up to the same detail level as most PPV pages. It's easy to do IMO as the results & recaps are plentiful on the net. In fact I'm willing to make it my special project to increase the useful information on each of these lists. After all isn't that their biggest problem? Formatting and content more so than splitting the list - unless the general concensus is that all PPVs should have individual pages? MPJ-DK 07:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is a general agreement that all PPVs should have articles (not that I know of at least). But one long list still looks like clutter. Adding to the results and so on is a good start, but not the entire fix. RobJ1981 08:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
the problem is, what is the fix then? splitting the clashes in NWA and WCW clashes? that doesn't make much sense as it just 3 letters that were replaced. Also by having them in one list people may get a better sense of chronology - since they're not in the PPV chronolgy linkage. I'll start to add details, if it's decided to split them up or whatever the details are still helpful, so that can be done while we figure out how to handle the huge lists of results. MPJ-DK 08:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the point in having results of pay-per-view matches anyway? --Aaru Bui DII 11:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The point? Seriously?? Well first of all they're used extensively in various wrestler articles as references for when important events took place, beyond that they are significant events in each company's history that help tell the story of each federation and the titles of that federation. As long as they stay factual and not a review of the event they have encyclopedic value IMO MPJ-DK 15:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me an example of how it helps tell the story of each federation and the titles of that federation? --Aaru Bui DII 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well how about the fact that it tends to give a little bit of information about just how the title changes take place and what not - not something that's found on the championship listings pages. It's an account of who the federation is pushing towards the main events, showing how say a guy like Shawn Michaels was built up from breaking up the Rockers to winning the World title a few years later. the PPVs are the main shows of WWE, WCW & TNA thus the history of the PPVs and what happens on the PPVs help shape the history of each federation MPJ-DK 23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've got a suggestion for the GAB and StarrCade articles and that's to do the same thing as what we did with WrestleMania, SummerSlam, the Rumble and Survivor Series. And that is to split them up into their own article by year. The two PPVs were by far WCW's biggest shows and they are probably notable enough to have their own article. But for Clash and SNME I have no idea. Normy132 05:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not split the GAB article into only two? Have one be WWE The Great American Bash (with all the info on WWE's version of the PPV) and the other be just The Great American Bash (with info on the original JCP/WCW PPV)? -- bulletproof 3:16 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet that is not the best way to achieve this. You might as well have very brief yearly summaries of storylines and happenings in the promotions. You have what's written in the articles of wrestlers for in-depth details. That should cover how title changes take place and we have the match types articles for the wrestling side. --Aaru Bui DII 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the WWE page does not have annual summaries of storylines etc something would have to be created which would also then read as a Raw/Smackdown recap in addition to the PPVs. I don't understand what your argument here is? delete them all? that doesn't make a lick of sense at all MPJ-DK 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The reasons you have given for those results being there appear to be so loosely connected to what actually is in the results. They appear to be more along the lines of results of sporting events and nothing near the telling of the story of each federation. Then how does the content of PPV pages differ from the deleted pages of weekly show results? --Aaru Bui DII 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

One outstanding issue that keeps PPV pages being a list of results (which is borderline keep based on what the event implies in terms of individual careers) is the lack of reportage showing the storylines that culminate in the event, or the storylines that are caused by the event - for example, why the 2005 Survivor Series had the Team Raw vs Team SmackDown match, Bischoff-Long, or Cena-Angle, and the consequences of Bischoff not meeting any of his three "goals" in the event, or how RVD chose ECW One Night Stand to cash in his MITB in '06. This will make the articles on PPVs much better and perhaps worth splitting into articles on individual years. kelvSYC 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would love it if the show listings had more information on various matches such as what led to it and what effects it had afterwards, it's a big undertaking but if this project as a group decide to do it it'd be great I'd definitly do my share MPJ-DK 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind that, but week by week events is something I wouldn't want, just a brief explanation on how the match came together. Davnel03 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, just a general "How did this match come about" thing, if the buildup went more than 1 PPV then just go back to what happened between PPVs since the last PPV should explain the previous build up. MPJ-DK 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kent Jones

This may not be wrestling-related, but I think you should keep a look at the Kent Jones article. This "Kent Jones" is the self-proclaimed "YouTube Shooter" who keeps on rambling on how great TNA is and how bad the WWE is. In short, he was looked down by several wrestling fans (including yours truly), due to the fact that he's making us wrestling fans look like idiots. Recently, his original account has been suspended. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't see one reference made about YouTube. On a previous version, there was a reference saying the article was not about the person on YouTube. Ignore it. Davnel03 20:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Just take a look at the history section prior to my edits, mainly the ones by the anon contribs. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Was he the guy that Kevin Steen challenged to a fight at a show once?Suriel1981 05:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Titling and context naming conventions.

I just like to point out that some people have been not following context conventions. For example WWE.com will use RAW in a title, but in context it will use Raw. Same goes for WWE Heat. I have seen a few people using doing Sunday Night HEAT in context when he should be Heat, same with Raw! Thanks for listening. Govvy 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

They only recently changed it from HEAT to Heat. So you should only list it as Heat if it is about the last few months. TJ Spyke 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

They have used Heat when in context since wwe.com started know! Govvy 09:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

NWA Georgia Tag Team Championship

I've noticed that the article for this particular championship has been deleted earlier today and I was just wondering why. Odin's Beard 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The deletion log for the page [2], says "no real content". If you disagree, contact the admin who deleted it. TJ Spyke 01:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion?

I've come across this article List of real names of professional wrestlers. Not only does it appear to me like pointless listcruft (being as the real names are on every single wrestler article) but as the article itself says, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. It certainly doesn't help the article's cause that different gimmick names are listed seperately so the article is un-crossreferencable (is that a word? it is now!)Suriel1981 14:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to nominate it for deletion then? Govvy 14:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's now nominated Suriel1981 15:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I've been trying to bring wrestler bio infoboxes in line with other biographies on Wikipedia by adding the flagicon template, the Birth date and age, and using separate links for towns and states/provinces/whatevers, but every time I get reverted, so I'm bringing it here to get actual opinions. Does anyone have any actual problems with any of this stuff being done, and if so what is the issue? All three of these things are being applied to more and more articles.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem, one thing know, for the flag icon's, that should be next to the main name above the picture in the infobox. Govvy 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the flag icon, but the birth date and year (which produces makes their age appear) is useless and just clutters up the infobox with something that isn't needed. There is also no requirement for it to be included (including on other bios). TJ Spyke 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Good. I agree with the proposed changes. Just wait for a few more opinions and you can add it to the style guide on the main page. Normy132 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the flag, that's cool and I've got no problems linking towns, states etc MPJ-DK 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There isn't really any point in making 2 seperate links for city/state though. It would be like, for example, writing Nintendo Nintendo GameCube with one link for Nintendo and the other for Nintendo GameCube. If you are writing about Dallas, Texas, you you just link that rather than linking to both Dallas and to Texas. It's overlinking. TJ Spyke 08:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the last point. However I feel we should try to be in-line with WPBIO as much as possible. I've asked their opinion on their homepage as to what their current general consensus on the matter is because their biogs are inconsistant and their guidelines don't appear to specify. Suriel1981 09:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what they think so far: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Infobox_questionSuriel1981 10:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is what it would look like: René_Goguen... Suriel1981 12:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the objection to the birth date and year template? It's a useful tool that generates fairly key information. The flag icon looks sloppy and is contingent upon the reader recognising the flag in question; a nationality field would make far more sense. McPhail 20:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
All the birthdate template does is produce their age, which is something anyone with at least a third grade education can figure out themselves. TJ Spyke 21:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I forgot about this discussion, which I started. So it seems there's two main objections, possible overlinking and not knowing what the flag is. The flag thing is easy, hovering over it gives the name. As for overlinking and possibly cluttering the infoboxes with the age template, those are both clearly matters of personal taste. In some instances it would abolutley be correct to link both Nintendo and Nintendo GameCube separately, and in the case of infoboxes it seems to me that having a direct link to the state instead of having to go through the city first wouldn't hurt anything, and may help. «»bd(talk stalk) 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few nationality flag icon's into the info box as how they do it on the biography project, which is at the top next to the name. I was just thinking that it would be a good idea to show a demo info box on the main project page also. Or copy from one of the best wrestler bio article to the page. Govvy 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This user loves putting little flags on wrestler infoboxes!

Suriel1981 13:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

heh, you can stick it on my profile if you wish, btw I am British. :P Govvy 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm British too... Guess I'm just pandering to the lowest common denominator... Suriel1981 14:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (no offence intended my American colleagues!)
No offense...you're just the lowest common denominator. Anyway, I haven't seen the flags next to the name anywhere else.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added flags to 3 that I keep a close eye on and placed the flagicon next to the place-of-birth, this seems to be the norm for WP:WPBIO (e.g. Pelé or Michael Jordan. Suriel1981 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add (| nationality = USA) in the wrestling infobox menu like on Michael Jordan's page. Govvy 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. We'd just need to think of a way round dual-nationality ppl, like El Vampiro and Rey Mysterio Jr. Suriel1981 15:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for "nationality" when we have "born in". For people with dual citizenship that can be mentioned in the article like it is in the Bret and Owen Hart articles.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the Owen Hart one is a good basis. Suriel1981 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Professional Wrestling Champions

What do people think of this article? --Aaru Bui DII 11:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay! More lists! Suriel1981 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Not only a list but one that EACH FEDERATION already has on their own page, I can see a deletion request coming and I wouldn't oppose it either. MPJ-DK 12:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A name like "Professional Wrestling Champions" doesn't seem to be appropriate if it applies only to American promotions. Damn, I'm coming up with reasons to vote for a deletion without even thinking about it. Suriel1981 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of good enough reasons to nominate it for deletion and yet I think it should go. --Aaru Bui DII 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Apologies to whoever created it - I've just nominated it for deletion and I'm quite sure it'll be a unaminous decision. Davnel03 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Other WikiProjects

I'm a member of WP Motorsport, which has several sub-projects, Formula One, A1 Grand Prix just a few.

It made me wonder whether we could have sub-projects for this, I mean for instance:

  • WikiProject WWE
  • WikiProject TNA
  • WikiProject Professional Wrestling Japan
  • WikiProject Professional Wrestling UK

It might sound stupid, but I just wondered whether we could actually have these, just an idea. Davnel03 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for subprojects, atleast not yet. There isn't really that much traffic in this talk page to warrant splitting it up.
↪Lakes (Talk) 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but I just think it would be better like this so TNA can help with their bulk of the articles and WWE fans can do the same with WWE articles. Not everyone likes all types of wrestling, do they? Davnel03 16:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You people aware of there already being one for TNA (Wikipedia:Wikiproject TNA)? --Aaru Bui DII 22:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the people on here know about more than one, so I don't see the purpose in dividing it up. In fact, I think that this project should absorb Wikiproject TNA. 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like that Wikiporject is dead anyways (only 5 members, and the last post was in December). TJ Spyke 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. Shall I just redirect it? 声援 -- The Hybrid 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I put the inactive tag on it. RobJ1981 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Have I angered The Hybrid? —Semper Fi, Darkest Hour 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
What? 声援 -- The Hybrid 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't really see that there's much point dividing up. I think it's up to the individual member if they want to focus on a particular area. I have a healthy hatred for WWE but have no problems with doing constructive stuff on their WP pages.Suriel1981 10:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess most of you think it's not really a good idea?? Davnel03 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling Society X

About ten superstars are nominated for deletion. Look in the info box at the top of the page. Davnel03 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling stubs

Category:Professional wrestling biography stubs has 483 articles in it now. Category:Professional wrestling stubs has 198 articles in it now. While it's not that bad (compared to some stub categories), it's still a high amount. I've been working on some articles and making them better, but more work is needed. This also should be the time to go through stubs, and prod/AFD many of the crufty/non-notable articles. RobJ1981 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been expending quite a few stubs myself and I intent to remove as many as I can, maybe we need to really highlight some of these stubs where you sit and go "there must be like a hundred people who could expand this" since they're pretty well known subjects MPJ-DK 10:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a few examples of articles needing attention:

All 3 of these need photos and alot more on their careers in (and outside of wrestling). RobJ1981 23:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I mean, call attention to a few stubs on the "to do" list (as well as the links to the stubs naturally) and then slowly but surely get them improved. MPJ-DK 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nitro Girl Naughty-A

Does anybody else feel this should be deleted? Kris Classic 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've put a prod on the article (which means that if no one removes it, it willbe deleted in 5 days). You should watch the article though, and if someone removes it you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. TJ Spyke 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Full Impact Pro

I was told by a moderator that FIP would be restored if there was a good third party source. I searched, but I can't find one. Does anybody else know of one? Kris Classic 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[3] is one. TJ Spyke 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I looked, and didn't find any. Is the promotion really that notable? I've read the results and information about the promotion itself: they are apparently the "sister" promotion of Ring of Honor and so on. But how accurate is that? Look at many TNA and Ring of Honor wrestlers: they work lots of indy promotions. Having indy promotions on here, due to them being linked to a well known company doesn't seem that reliable. If I'm missing important information (which is possible), point me to some proof they are notable enough for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 01:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
ROH does usually feature FIP title matches at their events. TJ Spyke 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other 3rd Party FIP articles? I already gave him that one, and the admin still needs one more. Kris Classic 02:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding them. Ring of Honor lists ROH DVD's in their online store (although they also list TNA and WWE DVDs as well). TJ Spyke 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I say if it has to be deleted, argue like crazy to merge it with the ROH article. I'm certain it's a sister promotion of WWE on a lower scale, sort of like the ECW brand of WWE. Normy132 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No way. FIP may be a "sister" company due to Gabe Sapolsky and Dave Prazak's involvement but it should not be merged with RoH. It is a different promotion in a different state. Suriel1981 11:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.asp?id=20704&p=1 is a FIP DVD review by PW Insider, and here PW Torch does an arena report of a FIP event. Both are considered fairly large and notible Professional Wrestling news websites. Vladamire Steelwolf 09:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This stems from an incident with TJ Spyke at the Halloween Havoc article. He insists on redlinking non-notable teams (very likely to never have an article here worth keeping) such as Dynamic Dudes. They were a short lived team that didn't do much. Working for WCW isn't a notable accomplishment by itself (Ding Dongs and other short lived teams are examples of that). Is there any policy on this at all? Some other redlinks in that article (very likely to never become notable for Wikipedia): Reno Riggins (jobber that didn't do anything notable in his career or outside of wrestling) and The Creatures (short lived team). I think redlinks aren't needed, if the article will never exist. As well: it encourages people to make cruft articles. People do see redlinks and make them into articles (which do end up in AFD at times). I'm not saying this happens everytime: but it still happens. Not linking everything isn't a big deal. According to TJ's edit summary: Maybe they should have an article (see WP:RED)). Wikipedia isn't a guide to cruft and it's not a guide to every wrestler and team ever. Why have redlinks if it's very clear the article doesn't need to exist, and most likely never will? The article won't be harmed by not linking a few things. Just making an article for the sake of filling the redlink isn't how Wikipedia works either. Wikipedia is about notable content: not cruft to make one less redlink in the article. RobJ1981 05:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question, not EVERYTHING needs to be linked to an article - we can't indiscriminately link to every Reno Riggns, George Wells and "Masked doufus A" that exists. Regarding the Creatures should not have a specific article (Any more than the Ding Dongs should), the Dynamic Dudes is at best a section in Johnny Ace & Shane Douglas' profiles nothing more. "Maybe the should have" isn't a good enough reason IMO, think about it - could you create a page on whatever you link to and add more information than just stub information? No? then don't redlink it, if you want a page created then add it to the project's "to do" list. MPJ-DK 08:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You make a couple of good points Rob. Some things you may want to consider when linking/de-linking an article that doesn't exist are:

  1. Has the article previously existed (i.e. check for an AFD on it).
  2. Is the subject/place/thing notable to the point to where you could potentially create an article for it (i.e. Google hits).
  3. The structure of the article (i.e. check to see if red-links are used despite the subject/place/thing not having an article)

In the case of professional wrestling, see the WWE roster for a good example. While some wrestlers that are in OVW/DSW have the potential to become notable, we red-link them just in case articles have been created to make sure that non-notable, sloppy, or poorly written articles are not linked to the WWE roster. While clearly red-links are a potential welcoming invite to users to create non-notable stubs, you must also take into account the good things it could do (Hey, I started out on Wikipedia just creating stubs on people like Lashley and now look at it :P). There are exceptions to what should be linked though, see WWE roster again for this example. People like the Chairmen, producers and writers for WWE will never have any major articles that will be frequently updated, nor will the ever do anything literally notable while in WWE. That is when you un-link them. Those articles about the unknown jobbers/jobber tag teams could be linked for the purpose of filling in redirects. I remember when I created a page when I was starting out on Wikipedia and I didn't know who the jobber were when I was typing it out, so I linked them and they redirected to their more notable gimmick or real name. On the other hand, red-links could be used to detect articles that have been recently created that are non-notable or a copyright violation and need to be deleted. Really, it depends on a lot of things and if an article should/could be created.. — Moe 01:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Backyarder alert

A link added to DDT (professional wrestling) tipped me off to a little circle of articles relating to a backyard wrestler. I turned into redirects to more general move articles. I've put most up for deletion:

I'd appreciate it if folks could take a look at these articles and weigh in on the deletion discussions.

I turned two less creatively named moves (Modified crucifix powerbomb and Shoulder carry spinning DDT) into redirects to the appropriate general move articles. Also, User:Skaterpunk216 has several edits to other wrestling-related articles—some of these may bear scrutiny. — Gwalla | Talk 06:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vanity to me so I put the remaining ones up for speedy deletion. Obvious pages like this should be tagged with Template:db.
↪Lakes (Talk) 09:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Related to this the article JT Hogg and derivitive articles should be deleted. –– Lid(Talk) 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals again

170.161.69.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps removing infolines from Kenta Kobayashi and Jimmy Rave, I'm at revert 3 so if someone could take over once again. He's vandalized other pages too, and has been blocked for short periods. ↪Lakes (Talk) 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch him Suriel1981 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I final-warned him and he seems to have not done anything in an hour. I'm heading out to the pub but I've made a note of his IP. I'll have a look at him again tomorrow. I think admin would ban him for a quite a while on his history but then it's a case of catching him vandalising fairly shortly after a final warning. Suriel1981 19:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Lakes, you can revert blatant vandalism more than 3 times without having to worry about WP:3RR. If you need to have him blocked after he continues, visit WP:AIV and report it there. — Moe 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Not so Moe, i've been banned for reverting blatant vandalism before. TJ Spyke 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Content disputes (more times than not) don't make you safe from violating 3RR. Report the vandals instead of just edit/revert warring with them. There is a line between vandalism, and content disputes. Wars don't solve anything either way, and end with blocks alot of the time. Be patient: the admins will block them if the final warning is up (and they have enough proof to justify it). Fixing the article everytime isn't always the answer, in my opinion. It will get fixed: but revert warring with vandals isn't the solution. RobJ1981 09:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If it isn't blatantly obvious (like when a picture is pornography :p), then the admins are useless. For example, User talk:The Damaja. They won't call it vandalism, but look at his freakin' talk page! However TJ, while not all of your 3RR bans are deserved, there are a couple that could have gone either way, and the last one was a content dispute. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 13:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As someone on the Admin Intervention talkpage put it: "The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Unless you wait a short period of time in which case you can do what you want" Suriel1981 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sign Guy

Look at the WWE.com homepage. Yes, that's right the person called Sign Guy has made the front page of WWE.com. That leads to a question. This guy doesn't have an article. Does he deserve one. Personally, I think he should.

Yes, he is not in any way affilliated with WWE and is just a fan, but many wrestling websites recognize the guy, and today, even WWE.com has several pictures and an article on him. It even has his real name. I would go and create the article, but I think that it would quickly get deleted. Shall I create a article on Sign Guy or not. By the way, Sign Guy at the moment redirects to someone else. Davnel03 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything notable, thus he doesn't meet WP:N. — Moe 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
He has too done notable things. He has appeared in nearly every WWE event in the last five years, appeared on a game show (Deal or No Deal), profiled on WWE Confidential, and has appeared, and was profiled in WWE magazine, they also make at several references to him through out the issues. I would give the go ahead, and say he definetly deserves an article. Kris Classic 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Big Dick Johnson is more notable, and he doesn't have an article. TJ Spyke 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he deserves to have an article? I really do think both of these men deserve articles, and I would like to hear other's opinions on this. Kris Classic 02:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
He's notable because he appeared on a game show? I don't think so.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind either having an article, unfortunately the consensus is that BDJ doesn't need an article. Maybe Sign Guy could just get a mention in the WWE article, the same way some of those regular ECW fans have a mention in the ECW article? TJ Spyke 02:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
He's not the original Sign Guy (see ECW). And I don't think the original Sign Guy deserves an article either. If we're not careful we could see Green Lantern Fan with his own Wikipedia page... and that would not be a good thing. Suriel1981 08:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, BDJ deserves an article, just because he isn't a regular on WWE TV it doesn't mean he shouldn't have a article, does it? Davnel03 16:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that this "Sign Guy" is just a fan and I can't see anyone being vaguely interested in an article about him. Appearing on a game show is something countless members of the public have done. He would fail notability. I honestly think the article would fail a "speed delete" so I hope nobody puts hours into creating it. Suriel1981 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The existing PW articles should be cleaned up (or just deleted, if they are completely worthless) before people go off and start creating even more bad articles about non-notable wrestling subjects. Manager Of Champions 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No way, most people known as "fans" should not have their own articles, except maybe that Rainbow Head guy. I agree with Manager of Champions in that we should really focus on cleaning up the important articles rather than create new ones for people that are "flashes in the pan". The crying wrestling fan had his page deleted, and he is far more notable and verifiable than this "sign guy". If you create an article for him, might as well create one for that husband/wife duo who shows up on Ohio area WWE shows with pink and neon green jumpsuits. Booshakla 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. This man has not just appeared as fans, but has been profiled on WWE television and WWE magazine. Kris Classic 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not ridiculous at all. This would fail on so many levels. And I doubt that an article in the WWE magazine can be considered a reliable, independent source. Those magazines are often written in a very kayfabe/fictional style, much of it. Not every single person mentioned by WWE should have an article. Like I've said, there are tons of important articles on notable subjects in terrible shape, let's fix those instead of creating more crap that no one cares about. Booshakla 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobody cares about it? That is obviously why several people want this article to be made. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that nobody else does. Since you really don't care, how is this in any way hurting you? Also, WWE Magazine is not in any way written in a Kayfabe style, this version doesn't blantally break kayfabe, but it is pretty close. Kris Classic 03:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
WWE Magazine is not written in a kayfabe style, hahaha. Maybe you should read the kayfabe article. TJ Spyke 03:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I am curious if you have even read WWE Magazine, since it has been revamped? Sure, they never say wrestling is scripted, but then again they don't seem to be acting very hard to protect it, if even trying at all. In the magazine wrestlers talk about their gimmicks, backstage happenings, etc. Kris Classic 03:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I do read the mag on ocassion. I know it has changed over the years, but it's still written in an in-universe, kayfabe style and it's role as a RS is questionable. And I don't think I am the only one who feels an article like this should be created. We should focus on improving the articles of known notable subjects to high quality rather than try to make articles on those clearly not notable. And you need, multiple, independent resources anyway, and I don't think that can be proven at this point, or ever. Booshakla 07:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Screwjob - first pro wrestling related featured article

Thanks in large part to the user and admin Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) the article on the Montreal screwjob has been promoted to FA status, the first wrestling article to be successfully promoted. Well that hurdle has finally been jumped over. –– Lid(Talk) 07:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My thanks and congratulations to Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) and everyone else who has contributed to that article and making it one in a thousand! That's quite a milestone to have achieved. Suriel1981 08:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
THat's awesome, congratulations guys MPJ-DK 21:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, especially Rama's Arrow. My hat's off to you. --  oakster  TALK  23:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Outstanding job - even Wikipedia can be worked by a professional wrestling angle. Manager Of Champions 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Good work to those involved, its nice to finally see an outstanding featured pro wrestling article. --- Paulley

Only just read this. Wow yeh, well done and congrats to all who had a hand in it:o)Halbared 22:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RD Reynolds for deleteion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RD Reynolds ---SilentRAGE! 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional info lines in finishing and signature maneuvers sections

Whatever happened to the proposal to add detail lines to finishing and signature maneuver sections? Consensus seemed to be to add it, or at least no one objected, but it was never added to the style guide or anything. Can I bring it back up and maybe get it added?«»bd(talk stalk) 02:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It was left at the point where people were asked to submit for the guidelines for information inclusion. I started putting the infolines in peoples pages as a test, and they seem to be fine, although some non-registered people try to remove them. You can go ahead and add the guidelines based on the discussions, I'm sure if someone objects or has something to add can start a new discussion here.
↪Lakes (Talk) 10:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That being the link you posted an the followup.
↪Lakes (Talk) 10:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Lashley

Why is Donald Trump listed as Lashley's manager?.. i know he will be ringside for the one match but is it really necessary for that section... i dont think we are gonna add Vince to Umaga's manager list are we? --- Paulley

Someone did, I took it out. They really shouldn't be counted as managers.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It's back again!! heh. Govvy 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Added an editors note, not that people pay attention to them.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus found regarding iMPACT! and RAW

At Talk:TNA Impact! a consensus has finally been established; the result of the conversation being that Wikipedia guidelines will be followed with regards to the capitalization. This means that iMPACT! will be spelled Impact! in the article title, and in the body of the article itself. RAW will also be spelled Raw in the article title, as well as the article itself. Seeing as Wikipedia guidelines support this, and consensus has been found to follow the guidelines, any edits that go against this consensus are vandalism. Seeing as this affects more than one wrestling article it was decided that this should be mentioned here. However, the discussion has already taken place, and this is the final decision. Peace, -- The Hybrid 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is not a consenus, since there are only 3 people discussing the issue and an agreement has not been made. The accepted compromise (before a user named Cyrus kept complainint) was that the title would TNA Impact!, but in the article it would be TNA Impact! (similar to the situation with RAW). TJ Spyke 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I count 8 people. -- The Hybrid 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You may need to go back and learn how to count Hybrid. There is no consensus to use Impact. TJ Spyke 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I went back and counted, and got 10. There are way more than 3. -- The Hybrid 00:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought you meant those who were active in the discussion. Yes there are 10 people, 5 supporting iMPACT and 5 supporting Impact, hardly consensus. TJ Spyke 00:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If I remember rightly I ceased discussing after the "Impact" supporters put forth an irrefutable case. How about anyone else? Suriel1981 11:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Verdict ... again ...

I know a few guys here have had problems with Verdict before but he's going at it again quite badly with an account or two a day being created and I'm getting tired of it. All I'm asking is if someone could please me keep an eye on the Minnesota Stretching Crew and Shelton Benjamin articles among others for any sockpuppets of Verdict as he tends to edit there frequently. There's an admin (User:Yamla) who's sorting out the blocking of any accounts if you need to report them. --  oakster  TALK  19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve Austin v The Rock at WrestleMania 17

On the talk page for WrestleMania 17 I've been debating the merits of including Steve Austin's heel turn and subsequent alliance with Vince McMahon in the article, either in the trivia section, but more specifically in the match result description. The reason for this is two-fold. 1) It was Vince who handed Austin the chair, and he was in the ring when the finish took place. 2) Because of the history between the two men, the fact that they aligned at this event deserves some recognition. What do the rest of you think?--HDC7777 23:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be included in the specific match results, it was part of how the match was won and what took place immediately afterwards so it's relevant - it'd be different if it had happened on Raw the next night but it happened on the night, during the match MPJ-DK 08:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added the part about Vince giving the steel chair, but I disagree about the heel turn. TJ Spyke 09:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
why leave that out? Vince just "mysteriously" handed him a chair? a comment like that needs some sort of explanation since it was so out of character for both Vince & Austin. what better place than to make the comment than on the article of the event where it happened. It also helps expand the article to go beyond just being a "list of results", which is good thing. MPJ-DK 10:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ECW Originals / New Breed (ECW)

So, these articles were merged when an admin closes an AFD saying the results was merge (even though it was clear the decision was keep). Since I don't want to just undo the merger without getting some input, I thought I would see what the rest of you thought (I posted this on the both talk pages last night, but no replies except from the closing admin). TJ Spyke 03:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that overstepping the boundaries of the AfD? AfDs don't govern merges. -- The Hybrid 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought it be better to merge them simple because it's ECW Originals vs New Breed. They are only going to fight each other more or less. Also I proposed a merge because after that conflict is done and dusted they wont be very big articles separately. I think it's a better article the way it is. Could do with a name fix know. Govvy 11:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The ECW Originals covers all wrestlers who were part of the original ECW. There is no telling what will happen when the feud ends, that would be crystalballing. TJ Spyke
As it is now there's nothing to say about non-stable originals in the article. As for what the future holds, if they actually become notable separately they can be split then. Before the merger they were almost the exact same article and didn't need to be two.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Point of view: Professional wrestling as a competitive sport

The Mick Foley article (and maybe others, I haven't checked yet) seems to be written from the point of view that professional wrestling is a competitive sport. At least, it's not easy to tell from the article what was fictitious and what really happened.

For instance, it states "Race won the match for Vader by using a cattle prod on Cactus, knocking him out for over 10 seconds. The level of violence involved in this feud caused WCW to refuse to ever again book Cactus Jack against Vader on a PPV." Is it saying that the cattle prod was a surprise to the organisers? If so, we may need cites of people saying that was the case.

I think in an encyclopaedia we shouldn't be protecting any fictions. If that's what the article is doing. How widespread is this style?

It's also possible that I'm just not picking up enough jargon to understand the article. Maybe "feud" should be a link?

David Bofinger 04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WCW did do stuff like that. Dustin Rhodes and Bunkhouse Buck were suspended after they bled during one of their matches. TJ Spyke 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:WAF, fiction should be written about from an "out-of-universe" perspective. For professional wrestling, my take is that it means we should not uphold kayfabe. In other words, if WCW booked the cattle prod as part of that match, the article should not be written in a way that leads the reader to think that its appearance was completely due to the wrestler's spontaneous creativity. - Geoffg 07:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Link "Feud", "Storyline" and "Angle" but otherwise keep it the way it is - because technically he did win the match that way. I mean Star Wars articles don't have "Anakin's hand was cut off (only in the movie, Hayden's hand never left his body)" either, so it's fine the way it is. And btw. no that's not what the article says, it said the 'feud was violent, not so much the finish of their match - Foley's book supports the brutality of the Vader/Cactus feud, a brutality that went beyond the usual wrestling levels. MPJ-DK 08:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It should always be clear when an article is talking about a kayfabe plot point or a real-life event. When it isn't clear, as in this case, something is wrong. — Gwalla | Talk 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What you have to realise is that Vader and Cactus Jack would go beyond the bounds of what WCW and Turner Broadcasting considered acceptable for broadcast. That isn't "kayfabe". Mick Foley's book describes an incident of WCW heavily editing an entire match between him and Leon due to his bleeding. Ask for citations if ya willlllllll but it should be left in. Maybe a note making clear it was a legit situation. Suriel1981 11:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

NWA World/Tag Team Titles

People here might want to watch NWA World Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Tag Team Championship. There are rumors floating around that NWA and TNA are negotiating for TNA to give NWA their titles back this Sunday. As we all know, anon IP's (and some misguided regular editors) tend to put these rumors in articles. So be on the watch and be prepared to watch these, maybe Total Nonstop Action Wrestling as well. TJ Spyke 09:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ECW Tag Team Championship

might want to watch that belt also because there are report's of the belt returning at WrestleMania. Some people say it's returning at December to Dismember. But I am pretty sure the belts will be returning to ECW. Govvy 11:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been having trouble with the possible teams in the division too. I've removed the rumor from the Vito page a bunch of times.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Israeli Pro Wrestling Association?

I did a google search: with results such as OWW (fansite that lists almost every promotion, even if they are notable or not), YouTube (anyone can post videos there) and so on. Anyone have proof this promotion is notable? Then there is the article for an event by IPWA: IPWA Election Day Anarchy that needs to be checked as well. Also: Nadev Rozenfield, an article for an IPWA wrestler. RobJ1981 12:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just looks like a very small wrestling organisation trying to establish a foot hold on the internet. Certainly not wikipedia material to me. Govvy 12:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

the article stated it was featured on "The Wrestling Channel", can anyone confirm this? that could go some way towards "Notability", even if it's just a small step. MPJ-DK 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
They may have been featured in the past but they're certainly not regularly scheduled on TWC. I guess this article is fairly notable to anyone who lives in Israel though. Suriel1981 14:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I will give it a few days then prod the 3 articles. Maybe someone can find proof it was on the wrestling channel and other notable sources. The reason I found it, was because I was looking through Category:Professional wrestlers by nationality. I've added popcat (populate category) tag to several of the cats in that main category. Several are small and probably could be merged into another. Small categories just for the sake of a few articles isn't helping much in my opinion. RobJ1981 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have checked the archive of TWC, no IPO has been on the channel! Govvy 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the roster it seems the most notable competitor for them has been everyone's favourite sheep-loving Israeli midget Aviv Maayan... I guess the flip side is that if they're Israel's only established promotion then that would (in my eyes certainly) make their presence on Wikipedia worthwhile. Suriel1981 11:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Taglines for wrestling events and matches

I think some sort of consensus should be made about them. Seeing as how when I read a PPV article: tagline/taglines are mentioned for the event, but not the matches always. It should be either: both or none at all, not just one. Here are some examples, in case people don't know about taglines (I'm sure these is some at least). Examples of match taglines: "legend vs icon" (Hogan vs Michaels), "battle of the billionaires" (Trump vs McMahon). Event taglines: "Where It All Begins... Again" (WrestleMania 20), "All Grown Up" (WrestleMania 23). What does everyone else think? In my opinion: they should be listed, as they are an important part of the match and event. RobJ1981 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but per WrestleMania 23's talk page survey, the consensus is that match taglines are not notable. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I just stopped remobing BFTB because I didn't feel like getting into an edit war again and getting blocked or causing the article to get fully protected. TJ Spyke 01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That was one survey: not a general consensus against all match taglines. If event taglines are notable and remain, then match ones should as well. Considering WWE mentions the tagline for a while before the event, during the event and so on: it's notable. One survey doesn't control every article. RobJ1981 15:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually Rob ALL user who voted agreed that the consensus should be the same for all event articles under WP:PW. Just clear that up for you. -- bulletproof 3:16 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Match names really aren't that notable. After WM23 airs and the result has been revealed, the tag line will likely be considered clutter and removed. PPV taglines on the other hand should be noted. -- Scorpion 15:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Keeping one and not that another isn't helping the article. Event taglines are mentioned only a little more than match taglines. RobJ1981 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I checked the discussion: Talk:WrestleMania 23/Archive 1#VOTE: Battle of the Billionaires (pretty sure that's what you are in reference to). I see only a handful of people voted in that: that certainly doesn't dominate what the Pro Wrestling project decides. And where exactly is this consensus of "all match" taglines you speak of? Trying to change what people said isn't going to work, when the proof is in what was posted. I guess I will have to have a RFC here, because a few editors certainly isn't a consensus, and certainly does NOT control how the wrestling project handles articles. RobJ1981 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The RFC is here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Taglines for wrestling events and matches. Feel free to comment there, I'm hoping to get more comments at an RFC, rather than here... because I know only a handful of people reply here. RobJ1981 03:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan

This is so close to being another featured article for the wrestling project, I think we should do a drive on it. Add a reference section and fill it up. If we can do that, should be FA in no time. :) Govvy 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Sortable tables for List of Champion Pages

I set it up with the List of TNA X Division Champions article. I think it looks good. We can also add it to the "reigns by length" articles. Or, as this just came to me, add a "reign length" to the main article and completely eliminate the reigns by length pages, since someone who wants to see that could simply click that sortable heading. Opinions? Mshake3 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it have to be sortable on ALL columns?? stuff like "Notes" could be excluded, but is that technically possible? adding a column with length of reign would remove a lot of list pages which is a good thing. MPJ-DK 22:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason the lengths need to be combined into the list of champions, it would just make a very cluttered table and is not needed. Getting rid of the notes section would be a bad idea too. TJ Spyke 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason for it to be sortable at all, it's a chronological list. I'd much rather see it brought in line with the IC title list and have vacations on separate lines.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Example of the merged table:

Wrestler: Reign: Date: Length: Location: Notes:
A.J. Styles 1 2002-06-19June 19 2002 49 Huntsville, AL Defeated Jerry Lynn, Low-Ki, and Psicosis in a Four-Way Double Elimination match.
Low Ki 1 2002-08-07August 7 2002 14 Nashville, TN Defeated Jerry Lynn and A.J. Styles in a Triple Threat match.
Jerry Lynn 1 2002-08-21August 21 2002 49 Nashville, TN Defeated Low-Ki and A.J. Styles in a Triple Threat Ladder match. Vacated on October 9, 2002 after Jerry Lynn suffered an injury and could no longer compete.
Syxx-Pac 1 2002-10-09October 9 2002 14 Nashville, TN Won in a seven-man ladder match that included Tony Mamaluke, Jose Maximo, Joel Maximo, Kid Kash, Ace Steel, and A.J. Styles.
A.J. Styles 2 2002-10-23October 23 2002 14 Nashville, TN Won in a no-disqualification match.
Jerry Lynn 2 2002-11-06November 6 2002 35 Nashville, TN
Sonny Siaki 1 2002-12-11December 11 2002 63 Nashville, TN

You can't select which tables are sortable and which aren't, and problems do occur with cells that stretch over more than one row or column, so I'll keep looking into that. Of course, why would an article visitor want to sort the table by the notes section? However, it can be a nice way to look at several things in the history of a championship, such as how everyone's first reign went, the title changes in each city, etc.

Also, the reign by length table is very redundant. We're displaying the names, date victory, and date loss twice. Not necessary. Mshake3 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not redundant, and that table makes it difficult to see exactly when they won and lost the title. TJ Spyke 01:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not redundant to have two lists with the same names and title victories? Why is that? However, you're right that this list doesn't make it clear when one loses the title, and adding the loss date would make it a bit too clutered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
One is a chronological list of champions, the other is a list of champions by length. TJ Spyke 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
And why are both necessary? Mshake3 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just made the date column sortable. So we get an idea of how messy it is to do so. If there's a template for this, please tell me. --Aaru Bui DII 10:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly did you do? The table becomes sortable with the class="wikitable sortable" tag at the beginning of the table (as opposed to class="wikitable"), and right now you can't do individual columns. Mshake3 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a MediaWiki extension that allows columns in data tables to be sorted. There are a few limitations, such as no "only for certain columns", complete crapout when it comes to colspans, and the like. If this can be used so that the "by reign length" article can be deleted, we'd have to add a "date lost" as well as a ParserFunction deal that computes the difference between dates for reign length. The issue of cluttering has also come up, and there are several ways out: a (large) list of footnotes (replacing the notes column - but what if a title is solely contested in triple threat matches...?), or some kind of custom CSS overflow (otherwise known as "fake frames"). kelvSYC 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I said "date" column. Go look at the code to see what I did. --Aaru Bui DII 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Referees

I've come across quite a few articles on referees - most of them stubs, honestly do we need a seperate page on every guy who's ever been a referee for WWE, WCW or TNA? A few referees have made names for themselves but to have an article just because "He's WWE Referee assigned to the ECW Brand" isn't really notable. A joint page? getting rid of a lot of the stubbed non-notable referees?? MPJ-DK 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC) If you're looking for examples then just check out about half the names in Category:Professional wrestling referees, there is even an OWV referee on there MPJ-DK 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say! DELETE THEM ALL, hehe! Govvy 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think only the very notable ones should remain: Earl Hebner, Charles Robinson, Nick Patrick and so on. The rest could just be listed on a referees list page of some sort (with minor descriptions of them, where they worked, etc). RobJ1981 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Refs, IMO, are not normally notable - they are only notable if they get involved in a storyline (either as a ref or as some other authority). The Hebners are notable. Charles Robinson is notable (but moreso because of his involvement with Flair or being the only ref to cross the picket line in that ref strike angle). Nick Patrick is notable. Mickie Henson (he's the head ECW ref, right?) is on the borderline (I can't recall any WWE storyline involving him, at least). Theodore Long (as a former ref) is notable. And so on. kelvSYC 19:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was Jim Korderis who crossed the picketline. The ref strike storyline was in 1999, so Robinson was still in WCW. TJ Spyke 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
My thought are, why shouldn't all the refs be notable? From what i'ved seen, people who have played in only 1 MLB/NFL/NBA/etc. game are considered notable enough for an article. When I was looking at random articles, I cam across someone who was a replacement pitcher in only 2 games (during World War II). So why is someone who plays in as little as 1 game more notable than a referee who appears on international TV every week? TJ Spyke 02:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
that's too flimsy a reason IMO - at best they could have a single page unless they do something to really stand out from every other referee out there. MPJ-DK 08:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Brian Hebner for instance, who's only semblance of notability comes from being Earl's offspring and doing a 'human beatbox' in an (admittedly hilarious) segment with John Cena and Spanky. I don't really think he's worthy of a page. Suriel1981 09:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I think seperate AFD's should be on referee pages (since mass AFD listings fail most of the time from what I've seen). One list page of the most notable referees (and maybe some others that have done a few things) is all that is really needed in this case. The only referees that need articles are: Nick Patrick (long time referee, and was a part of NWO), Earl Hebner (for his involvement in Survivor Series, plus TNA appearances), Theodore Long (obviously, since he has been manager, general manager and so on in his career as well) and possibly a few others. Generally: if they have done enough outside of being a referee: their bio article should remain. To TJ's comment of So why is someone who plays in as little as 1 game more notable than a referee who appears on international TV every week?. Prod or AFD the articles then: I doubt people that played in 1 game are notable enough (unless they did alot outside of sports). There needs to be a line somewhere, Wikipedia doesn't need articles for referees (or other staff) with small articles that likely aren't going to be expanded much. It's a form of cruft in my opinion. A list page works better in this case. RobJ1981 10:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. I'd say guys like Brian Hildebrand, Dave Hebner and Bill Alfonso have done enough to warrant pages, the others not so much. I don't really like the idea of a general list of referees however. I'd say that any mention of them could be on the promotion's own page. Suriel1981 10:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I say we should have an articles with WWE Referees, another with TNA Referees and the final one being WCW Referees. Davnel03 21:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that a simple list of current referees would get a deletion nomination as listcruft, especially WCW referees as that organisation is no longer in existance. Suriel1981 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WWE Backlash

Hi, I've just seen this poster on a wrestling-news related website: Image:Backlash07.jpg Looks real, doesn't it? I put the poster on the article, only for it to be removed by TJ Spyke. He goes along by saying that the poster is not real. The poster will probably be on the section of WWE.com straight at WrestleMania 23. Just because it hasn't been officially confirmed as a poster, why can't it go into the article? By the way, the poster is on www.pwmania.com. Davnel03 16:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It lacks the basic information PPV posters tend to have; date, arena, time, etcetera. Wait until it's confirmed as real before readding it, and when you do add the required copyright information.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
We also tend to only use the official info. Even if it looked real, it wouldn't be added unless it was on a WWE site. TJ Spyke 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
"Looks real"? http://www.indemand.com/viewProduct.jsp?prodId=61754 --Aaru Bui DII 14:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Now can I call the damn image real and insert it onto the Backlash page?? Davnel03 15:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if you did, it won't be long until we replace it with a more detailed poster. --Aaru Bui DII 16:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an official teaser poster. Seems reasonable to add it to the article. Suriel1981 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Backyard Wrestling

Guys we have another Backyard fan creating pages for wrestlers and from a backyard promotion... it only came to my attention as the same editor began spaming wrestling pages with a myspace link to the promotion.. if anyone has time can they check out his edits and remove this backyard crap.. gtg later --- Paulley

Thanks for the heads-up on that. I've put all his articles up for speedy deletion and issued him a level 3 warning for repeated vandalism/spamming on a town article. Suriel1981 13:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian's Coalition

Could somebody who is more familiar with wrting wrestling bio articles help with this? I did some bare basics just to get it started. TJ Spyke 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it even need an article? «»bd(talk stalk) 14:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Tis an official stable, with the heel champion of TNA, so yes. Mshake3 00:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Just use the Rated-RKO article as a comparison and work from there. Govvy 11:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Bam bam Bigelow page

Some idiot created a page called bam bam bigelow 2. Can someone nominate it for speedy deletion, as it simply repeats the same informaiton and says opinions as if they are facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.59.114 (talk • contribs)

I've put a speedy delete tag on it. BTW, new topics go at the bottom of the page. TJ Spyke 02:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Headhunters pages

I have just seen the individual pages for Headhunter A and Headhunter B and they're completly the same except for the name, could we merge the two into a page called just "the Headhunters" because EVERYTHING they've done is as a team. MPJ-DK 07:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've merged them now. --  oakster  TALK  14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OwW

Recently, as I'm sure anyone who has tried to revert a page has found, Obsessed with Wrestling has been put on the spam blacklist. The reson given is that the former JB196 is/was spamlinking it to his article to give himself credit for pages he's "written". TJ Spyke has contacted the OwW webmaster about JB196s actions, and the wiki folk about getting OwW unblacklisted.

Anyway, until it's all cleared up, and I'm by no means an authority, I'm requesting that people don't remove the links just because it'll be a pain to try to put them all back and it really is a good reference for wins and losses. When possible please just re-edit sections instead of reverting whole pages, then the blacklist doesn't kick up a fuss.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay will do. I usually only add a OWW link, if I can't find anything else at the moment anyway. It's still a fansite: they do have some reliable information, but it's not 100 percent accurate and is certainly not a sole source for articles. In my opinion: if an article has much better links, OWW shouldn't even be listed. RobJ1981 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. They certainly excel at listing the more obscure signature moves but I've seen more than one profile to get the D-O-B completely wrong despite having a link to the subject's personal website. Suriel1981 11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw this as a problem before but didn't say anything, hopefully it will be unlisted. Govvy 12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup on List of professional wrestling match types

Right now, PWMT will never make a good article by WP standards. What I propose to clean it up is to establish one basic criteria that I hope all of us can live with:

  • The article should be about match types that occur in some degree of frequency, but which are not notable in its own right. (Triple Threat, Bra and Panties, etc)
  • Common gimmick matches get their own article, and its inclusion in PWMT should be limited to one list item - no sections as it clutters up the page. (King of the Mountain, Elimination Chamber, Hell in a Cell are all in their own articles right now)
  • Significant one-time matches are merged with the article about the event it appeared in. (King of the Road should be merged in Uncensored, Punjabi Prison Match should be merged in The Great American Bash, etc.) Certain exceptions (I can only think of WrestleCrap entries right now) may arise, but in those cases they are in matches on their own.
  • If it's a minor variation of a match, or a match under a different appearance (including name), it's a match of that type. "Rage in a Cage" is a Steel cage match with a round cage and pinfall-only. I can't see what's different about it that makes it different from a steel cage match.

The criteria should slim down the size of our article (too much extreme-deathmatch-cruft). In particular:

  • Read the leading paragraph - when it says "The following is a list of common or otherwise notable match types", we should enforce it - in particular...
  • A match type is not notable just because it has occured once. A lot of anons have added matches into the article just because it has occured once, inflating our article size. But this doesn't mean anything if I don't say this.
  • A match type is not notable just because it has occured on a few isolated occasions. Why are steel cage matches or ladder matches notable over your average "Taipei death match"? It's because they happen regularly - like a "seasonal attraction" at an amusement park. They are common enough to be notable, but rare enough to be a novelty. Still, we also have...
  • A match type is not notable just because it has been employed by a major wrestling promotion. People will forget about the "Kennel from Hell" over time. Period. Still...
  • A match type is not notable just because it has been employed by an indy promotion: "It's not notable because it's only appeared in a promotion that's non-notable", "if it was notable, then the promotion is notable for having this notable match", and so forth.

Based on this alone, I've reduced the current revision (at 68K) to a 44K revision at User:kelvSYC/Professional wrestling match types. I can envision that with a good rewrite of certain parts, we can get this to be of better quality and get it to about 30-40K.

Any comments? kelvSYC 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The only part I don't agree with are merging some match types into PPV articles (BTW, the Punjabi Prison match is listed in the Steel cage article since it's basically a varitian of a steel cage match). Some matches don't need to be added if they just have minor tweaks, the Kennel from Hell match just links to the Hell in a Cell match (or Steel Cage, I forget) and includes a note beneath the match about dogs being in between the cages. TJ Spyke 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I probably chose bad examples for types (as the PPM was like a steel-cage match with a bamboo cage and a "bamboo HIAC" if you really thought about it), but the point still remains: the PPM, the Kennel from Hell, those have only been used once. If the PPM was used again, I would move the information to the article on the steel cage match. If the PPM happens to become a yearly event, it may even deserve its own article. But for now, we don't need a description of a one-time match type outside its only occurence. kelvSYC 07:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I like this proposal, including the merging of one-time matches into the events' articles. — Gwalla | Talk 06:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, if everyone can agree on it, I'd like to propose that we somehow integrate my edited version into the real version - my edited version is far from finished (and I'd like the project members to work on it a little). It would be the only way for this article to be better than "plain old list of cruft". And it really seems like this article could be AFD'ed any time due to overwhelming amounts of cruft. kelvSYC 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Valiant

Does anybody know any of Johnny Valiant's moves, as they are blank? It could use a fillin' in. Kris Classic 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done a search (including keywords on Google) and found nada... I guess old-school wrestling didn't rely on signature moves as much as now. He was a bit before my time as a competitor so I have no clue! Suriel1981 12:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyway. Kris Classic 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_17&oldid=1190100460"