Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Verdict

If any user has had any problems with Verdict or know any particular socks, feel free to add anything on his long term abuse page. Davnel03 17:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The End of the World

Oh this'll be fun. Mshake3 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

*facepalm* Not good...Gavyn Sykes 22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What's funny is the thing he's complaining about: the $25 application fee. All this does is limit the number of non-notable wrestler profiles. It has nothing to do with whether or not the profiles themselves are reliable. If a profile is not on there, then you simply have to use a different source. Mshake3 23:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Burntsauce (nor the replying admins, in this case) is thinking this all the way through. Why does (s)he have it out for this project? Gavyn Sykes 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no wish to get into it over there, but has OwW ever been used (here) for anything other than it's archiving of who beat who on what show? So long as the results are verifiable by anyone willing to dig through tapes or otherwise do the legwork, how can it possibly be non reliable?«»bd(talk stalk) 23:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Great :( This is not what is needed right now. OWW is an incredible source and extremely accurate. I don't know Burntsauce from Adam and can't comment on them personally but over the months/years or however long I've edited wrestling articles on Wikipedia, there seems to have been (and still is) an agenda by many people who look down on Pro Wrestling and carry their personal thoughts and feelings about the "sport" in general to Wikipedia and stuff like this crops up and all it does is hinder the progress of the articles. I don't know how to fight it without people (in a nutshell) constantly telling me/us that since I'm a fan, my opinion of wrestling sites (or anything to do with wrestling as it relates to Wikipedia) doesn't count, that fans of wrestling (who happen to also enjoy Wikipedia editing) can't be relied on to accurately portray it on Wikipedia because "we are biased."


Yet at the same time Wikipedia wants "experts" on a given subject to contribute more to articles about subjects they are "experts" on. We are the ones contributing the information because we know the business and many of us have been around long enough to be able to make accurate decisions about the content of websites and their reliability. We've seen and read so much that we know whats good and what isn't. We make it our job to know this because before many of us ever edited Wikipedia, we strove to find accurate information for our own personal knowledge. I can't simplify it more than that. If never missing an episode of certain wrestling programs in several years (including pay-per-views), reading every magazine, book, and website I can get my hands on, attending live events and everything else under the sun doesn't make me (and many many of our other fine pro wrestling editors) as close to an "expert" as possible without actually being employed in the business, I don't know what does and I don't know what to tell these people who seem to have it in for Pro Wrestling's presence on Wikipedia.


I'm all for balance of power or checks and balances or whatever you want to call it. But so many times those concepts get blown out of proportion on Wikipedia.


I know my rant went way off on a tangent but its the point :( --Naha|(talk) 00:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've only been on Wikipedia (and been a wrestling fan) for about six months and even I've noticed that certain users have an agenda against professional wrestling. There was a user a while back who nominated vital articles for deletion on the basis of them being unsourced. But without said articles ,every other wrestling article would have had to have been re-written. Many users seem to think that all wrestling fans are kayfabe believing marks and that we're all idiots. It's annoying...

But I digress, you're right, this is not what this project needs right now. Hopefully some others can provide backup. Gavyn Sykes 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken I think it is the same user doing this. --67.68.155.97 01:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you are. I thought the other user's name was "One Night in ___" I can't recall where. Gavyn Sykes 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hackney??? yeah its kind of hard to recall him since he used his right to vanish. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I remember his now. I thought you were talking about the other user in question trying to BLP in past deletion debates. --67.68.155.97 01:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it was Hackney. After nominating all those things for deletion, I read his talk page and saw a lovely discussion between him another user. It went something like this: "I dislike these pro wrestling fans. They are rather like the video game fans, touch their precious articles and they go berserk, despite being 100%, poorly sourced cruft."

In any case, we're getting a bit off-topic here. Gavyn Sykes 01:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OWW articles

Will someone please make a list of all articles where OWW is the primary source so we can start looking for other sources? It seems to me after that discussion that OWW is unlikely to get blacklisted, but just in case anything did happen, we can't be 100% reliable on OWW for our sources. A list of articles which list OWW as the only, or close to all of, the sources, needs to be made. — Moe ε 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, blacklisted or not - having OWW as the ONLY source isn't good at all. It'd help the standing of the project if we make sure we're not soly reliant on OWW as article sources. MPJ-DK 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh definitely, having it as the "only" source isn't ideal, I was mainly worried about it getting canned as a source all together :( --Naha|(talk) 13:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
OWW is not a great source, although it is certainly comprehensive. Where possible, legitimate news sources should be used instead of fansites, although I appreciate this is often difficult. McPhail 14:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. --Naha|(talk) 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Well it's one of the best non-promotional sites for professional wrestling no doubt. News sources should be used just, unless your looking for Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, The Rock or Hulk Hogan, your not going to get many news outlets picking up on professional wrestlers. OWW is the last decent source we have left thats reliable. I'll get started on a list of articles sometime soon. — Moe ε 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's not ideal but it is an exhaustive supply of information, that other sources don't seem to have or remember.Halbared 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Normally, if I see a article with no sources (or hardly none); I normally just put on OWW sources for the results to start it off. It's one of the only reliable results website we have for wrestling (apart from AngelFire); WWE.com results don't go back that far. As Moe said it's one of the only sources possible. In Rob Van Dam's article, I was going to put a few sources from wrestling related websites in stating why he left WWE and what led to it, but knowing some people they would remove the info. But yeah, OWW is deadly important to this project. Davnel03 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know of a way to get a list of articles that cite OWW? that way we can go through and list the names with only OWW sources listed. MPJ-DK 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Carly Colón Style discussion

I would like all members of WP:PW to add input to the current discussions on Talk:Carly Colón concerning the way the article is written. We have made some progress and the current agreement is a step in the right direction but we need more of a general consensus. Please, if possible (for the time being) keep it to a discussion and save the major article editing for now. Thanks! --Naha|(talk) 01:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Carribean H.Q. is currently changing the article per our agreement so if you want to see what all the fuss was about, you will have to go back several versions to before I started editing the article today :P Thanks!--Naha|(talk) 01:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reckless Youth

This article, like Miss Hyatt's got deleted a few months ago (deletion discussion from then here. Seeing as he was one of the most well-known independent wrestlers of the 1990s, should a page be recreated? Davnel03 18:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Another vandal question

I have another question/concern about vandals. Recently, User:BIGCANDICEFAN was blocked indefinitely as a vandal account. Now s/he is making edits as an IP. For example, is this recent edit. They even signed it under their old name. Which of the trillions of Wikipedia noticeboards should I take this to, or should I wait until they edit something other than a talk page? Nikki311 01:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. It has been taken care of. Nikki311 02:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
For future reference of an event like this, I think sockpuppets of already blocked users are reported to admins. At least that's my knowledge from banned users like Verdict and JB196. - Deep Shadow 02:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New user to be watched

Special:Contributions/Kungfoofighting1. Cheers, The Hybrid 22:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Hybrid. Let's not be paranoid here. Talk to the user, post a warning on his (or her) talk page if you must...but "watching" is going a bit too far at this point. I see lots of edits to the Terry Gerin article by him: and that's it. Don't get in a petty edit (or revert war) over it, it's not worth it. If push becomes shove: then report it to a notice board. RobJ1981 22:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned him because Burntsauce has given this user his "blessing". However, I have no intentions of pursuing this further. The Hybrid 00:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Eaton - Good article

With the invaluable help of a lot of people I've managed to bring the Bobby Eaton article to GA status. Thank you to everyone who contributed, even if it was just a simple copyedit to improve one or two things it's all been invaluable help to get this article passed. Awesome work. MPJ-DK 07:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thaks, hopefully the current GAC's can become GA's! Anyway there only one way we are heading with Eaton's article and that's straight to FA (bypassing Peer Review too)!! Davnel03 08:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
that's my plan eventually - I got to get some info together on Eaton's son and Eaton's work for the WWE, add that and eventually get it to FA since it's already have some awesome input during it's two GA nominations. I also want to use what I've learned from the GA reviews to help other articles so I've left a few notes on HHH and HBK that I hope helps both articles improve to GA status. MPJ-DK 10:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I'll look at both articles now and see what I can improve from the comments. Thanks! :) Davnel03 11:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

New list created

Similar to List of current champions in WWE, I've created List of current champions in TNA. And since there are only four championships (one unofficial) and only one champion, I was wondering if you would please help me expand it and please comment on the page here. Thank you. Kip Smithers 12:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I would say remove the IWGP title; championships being defended in outside promotions is not an uncommon thing, and it doesn't mean that the outside promotion in question is responsible for the title. It would be like listing the ROH World Championship as a Pro Wrestling NOAH title because it was defended there once. Anyway, I would support a push to getting this and the other three TNA title lists featured, though length might be a problem in two of them. --MarcK 14:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Taker, Angle & Lesnar

These three articles are fully protected but in my mission to replace as many OWW links with sources that are definitly reliable I actually need to edit them to replace onlineworldofwrestling links with other references - how would be the best way to go about getting these changes implemented? I don't care if they stay protected or whatnot but it'd be great to eliminate the long list of OWW links on these three pages MPJ-DK 14:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy-paste the article into your sandbox and ask it to be changed to your new version. If you went and asked it to be unprotected, one certain user named Verdict would vandalise it. Davnel03 15:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
MPJ-DK, you should Angle now, I can and I'm only a normal editor. Davnel03 20:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, that took a huge chunk out of the OWW PPV related links MPJ-DK 20:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
And taker just went to semi-protected so I updated him too. I've managed to shave 600 OOW references off by using books & magazines (non-WWE published) to replace them. MPJ-DK 11:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That's partly one of the reason why I suggested that we created a professional wrestling library so that we can replace OWW references with book references. Davnel03 14:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The big problem is the Raw & Smackdown references, no books I know off have detailed results of each show, I got magazine with highlights that'll deal with some of the citations but far from all of them. The best we could do is find a way to get a source with wrestling results approved as "reliable" in regards to TV Show results and then generally use that one because no magazine can replace an online source for sheer detailMPJ-DK, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
I've got a 2003 yearbook, which recaps all of 2002, so I'm putting them sources in in place of OWW sources. Otherwise, there's WWE.com, but that only goes back to 2005. There's this website, which has pretty detailed recap of results. Davnel03 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And good point about the library, I've just added the PWI Almanac with a chapter overview. I'll also add my large collection of Power Slams to it as well. MPJ-DK 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The History of WWE has an extensive list of ring results in WWF history. Mshake3 15:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's on a free website (Angelfire), and although its reliable, in a few months, if we replaced every OWW source with ones from that website, Burntsauce will just try and get it blacklisted. Davnel03 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to get technical then the non-Angelfire link works as well ;)MPJ-DK 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Good. :) I think we should always use the non-Angelfire links. Davnel03 18:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Should this be deleted?

Image:Molly holly.jpg I think it should. He says it's his image, when its copyright of WWE. Davnel03 15:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes. Nikki311 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Project 161

Should this be possibly followed up on? Mr Richardson 14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea what you were talking about so I had to look it up. From what I can tell (which isn't much)by doing a Google search, no one knows for sure exactly what it is or who it involves or whether or not its a hoax. So, no. If there is official documentation released from RoH or whatever wrestling promotion, please feel free to link it here. --Naha|(talk) 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is Project 161? For the benefit of all us Wiki'ites that aren't in on it. --SteelersFan UK06 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I read several different web pages that talked about it and I still don't know what it is. --Naha|(talk) 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It was confirmed at Ring of Honor's annual Death Before Disnhonor weekend that this is infact a real angle, but an article should probably not be made until after we know exactly who is involved in it.--Andy duke 23:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so it's an ROH angle, but do we know anything more than that? This section isn't making much sense. The Hybrid 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Really we don't know much. They have been leaving very haunting blogs at their blog, and really haunting pictures and messages at www.project161.com(click the source number after this[2], which also has a hidden link to their blog. So far, what it looks like is that it is a faction of disgruntled ROH employess or ex-employees. Really, the only ones who know anything about it are those within ROH directly involved, but they are keeping pretty tight lipped about it, for obvious reasons. But tonight there is a show in Hartford, Connecticut(Caged Rage) and tomorrow night a show in Manhattan(Manhattan Mayhem II), and it looks like something major will happen during at least one of these shows. But I think its probably best until we find out who is spear-heading this and why before we make an article for it, as there really isn't much info, just speculation. But once the article is started myself, and many people at the wrestling community I am involved in would love to contribute, as it is a major discussion topic there.--Andy duke 17:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, Andy ..as we were very confused! Anyone is, of course, welcome to edit any article on Wikipedia - just make sure they know that the information will need to be correctly referenced with valid/reliable sources! --Naha|(talk) 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that will be a problem at all. There are about 5 or so people, myself included, who are very very into this angle. I think some people even have the photo's from the website photos archived. So, should the article on this wait until after this plays out a little more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy duke (talk • contribs) 19:01, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Yes I think it should wait a bit longer, specifically till the angle has been played up significantly during some shows, like (hopefully) the two you have mentioned above, but who knows how long they will drag it out before everyone offically knows whats up. --Naha|(talk) 19:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the longest we'll have to wait before we have enough clear-cut info will be in September, I believe. Thats when I believe the 161st show takes place(hence the name 161). Its a PPV-taping, and takes place in Chicago. The website and blog both have made mentions of "The Second City"(Chicago's nickname). Hopefully enough will happen this weekend though to at least get a start.--Andy duke 20:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

John Cena

I've probably took a bit of a risk in doing this, but I have nominated him for FA status. Feel free to comment on the article here. Davnel03 16:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, Super Crazy is being peer reviewed. Davnel03 15:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Undisputed Championship Showdown!

I've had an on and off edit war over the use of the term Undisputed Championship in select PPV articles. It was proposed that the argument be brought to the project, and here I am.

The case in hand involves the following articles: Royal Rumble (2002), WWE No Way Out#2002, WrestleMania X8 and WWE Backlash#2002. My case is that for those four PPVs, the official naming of the WWF's top title was the Undisputed WWF Championship. And here's my reasoning:

1. The use of my term in various official parts of the program. This includes the match preview graphic, the chyron entrance graphic, and the words spoken by ring announcers Howard Finkel and Lillian Garcia. This was even applied after the event, as the term was used on the event's video release box art, as well as the DVD menus. And let's not forget that Mr. McMahon helped refered to the championship that way on Smackdown! in April for the buildup to Backlash (as seen in the Backlash DVD). In addition, after the WWE name change, when they builded the title with the more traditional naming style (WWE Undisputed Championship), that wording was used for the next four PPVs in the same manners I listed above. In fact, if you watch the last WWF Smackdown, then the first WWE Raw, you'll clearly notice this change in the build for Hogan/Undertaker at Judgment Day.

2. I've been shown a few counterpoints. For example, WrestleMania X8 used the opposite wording for it's match preview. And there's the full screen graphic showing that it's a championship match. In those situations, it was done that way as it was graphically pleasing. Move the WWF logo to a different location in those screens, and it wouldn't look as good. But perhaps most importantly, the one two uses of that wording does not override the five or six uses of the other.

3. Having part of the championship's name before the company's initials is not unusual. Consider the term undisputed. It was added to the championship name when wrestling's top two championships where unified. All that time it was the same championship as it was 30+ years before, and the six years since. Further proof was that the former WWE Undisputed Championship article was merged into WWE Championship after a vote with no complaints.

4. Printed material from WWE.com and other official WWE merchandise released in the last few years, when looking back at that era, are simply unreliable. They aren't going to use both names at the same time as there's no reason to. Of course, just because WWE wants to be inaccurate, doesn't mean this site has to be too. Articles should reflect how it was done at the time, and not how it's promoted five years later.

And that's about it. Your move bullet. Mshake3 01:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category up for deletion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_17#Category:New_World_Order_wrestlers. I want to point this out, so it gets some discussion instead of being inactive then closed with no consensus. RobJ1981 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Featured Article Guide

With the exception of the Montreal Screwjob, few wrestling articles have earned the status of a true Featured Article. Editors struggle to perfect their pages, scrambling their brains to rethink and reconquer their facts. Instead of looking into themselves and their writing, they journey aimlessly through the world of worthless loser sites on the net, feverishly looking for validated information. Those days of endless googling are over. Because now, I have a guide to help people edit and make articles, even Featured ones, improve tremendously. I have a link here that will make the project reach FA status like never before. It is complete with info, exercises, and outlines the issues that editors--like the ones right here--have in making articles interesting, readable, and of course, featured..

So, before you scoff away my advice and find yourself on another aimless search for information, hoping to accomplish something for your Featured Article-in-progress, take my advice and give this page a look. It might just change the way you think.

User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a

--Screwball23 talk 02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look through that and will probably look at it more extensively later. On the subject on FA, John Cena is currently a FA candidate, and is in desperate need of comments otherwise it will probably be failed (discussion here. Davnel03 09:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You make it out to be just a matter of writing (which is a huge part) but on the same hand dismiss the search for validated information, the article cannot become "GA" without sources just as much as it can't become "GA" without attention to the writing, so yes the information is a HUGE help, but it's only half the battle so to speak —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 15:31:00, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Source Questions

Can anyone tell me any sources regarding the following things as an input into GA candidate:

If anyone has any references or anything to add, please do, the HHH early career section currently has a "expansion" tag. Davnel03 08:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD nominations

Juts letting you know. The prod for the second article was removed so you will need to take that article to AFD unless you believe there is a valid reason for speedy deletion. --65.95.17.37 01:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I just put it up for AfD, just letting everyone know. Nikki311 03:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 in professional wrestling

I was just looking round Wikipedia and noticed that several sports had these types of article (2007 in [sport name]), and wondered whether we could create a 2007 in professional wrestling articles. Opinions please. Davnel03 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. I think those lifts are really crufty. Plus, since wrestling is pre-determined, it isn't quite the same. If someone wins a championship for the first time or sets some kind of record, it really isn't as important, I guess. (I'm trying to think of a good way to word this, but that's all that I could come up with). Nikki311 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cowboycaleb1

I haven't got much time right now, but just a quick note that this user has been constantly over the past few hours reverting mine and Nikki311's edits on Ashley Massaro and World Wrestling Entertainment roster. I've handed him a warning, but its been ignored. Davnel03 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all the Ashley Massaro page was fixed after talking to other users. Second i kept the World Wrestling Entertainment roster correct to this date. some one was trying to make it not correst. User:Cowboycaleb1

Come again?-- bulletproof 3:16 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks 3bulletproof16 for backing me up. Davnel03 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

New sock

I just came across User:Kungfoofighting1. While looking through some of his edits, I noticed that he was reported as a possible sock puppet of Burntsauce. After looking through his edits, I noticed similarities to that JB guy that was causing so much trouble awhile back. He hasn't been around in awhile, so it seems that he is due for a new puppet. Anyway, this new user likes to remove information from the wrestling articles, citing that there are no sources or that a particular sentence has been unsourced since such-and-such a time...which, as I recall, is also how JB's sockpuppets editing. I'm thinking primarily of User:La Parka Your Car as that was the last one I remember. Could someone with more experience fighting sockpuppetry look into this? Or could we all keep an eye on this guy for the time being? Nikki311 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Already mentioned. And man this one is so obvious. Even though I agree with some of the edits, it's still a sock. Mshake3 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but what about this? Burntsauce congratulating him?!! Davnel03 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

IMDB as a source

I know there have been two topics started on here about new user Kungfoofighting1, however I will start a new topic to discuss one specific thing. Among his many edits to Alex Shelley, he removed Shelley's real name (Patrick Martin) saying it was not sourced. When another editor re added it saying that Shelley's IMDB profile states his real name is Patrick Martin, Kungfoofighting1 removed it saying "sorry but as has been agreed IMDB is not a trustworthy source because the information can be sent in by anyone and changed, I am going by previous concensus" in the edit summery. Now, I have been away the past couple of weeks, but when I left I do not recall IMDB being considered a non-reliable source. In fact, the only people I recall who had a problem with it are Burntsauce and I believe One Night In Hackney. So, was a decision reached that IMDB was unreliable in the four plus weeks I have been gone, or is this simply a "consensus" of KungFooFighting1 and Burntsauce? Nenog 02:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that pretty much is consensus. IMDB is not reliable (like they said, anyone can edit it) and really shouldn't be used at all. Nikki311 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It would be like using an article in Wikipedia as a source for another article here.-- bulletproof 3:16 02:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Taglines

Is there anything notable about listing taglines in PPV articles, in which the only use is appearing in small print in posters (as they're never mentioned at all on air)? Mshake3 03:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we should take them OUT, really, but if the tagline is on the promotional poster that is shown in the article anyway, then maybe they can be removed. I don't see the point either way though.--76.104.252.229 04:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Undertaker YET AGAIN delisted from GA

I do not believe this I've only just noticed it. Seems like we've got to improve it AGAIN. Heres the review. Davnel03 14:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree with the delisting. I never thought it was ready to be put forth as a Good Article in the first place. In any event, I am willing to help improve it. Nikki311 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree either, the first comment made was basically that input from the first delisting wasn't incorporated just put up for GA again and passed by an inexperienced user I think. The whole "He needs to articles" debate isn't one to reopen at all but there are definitly improvements to be made to this article, most of all the "in universe" aspects of them. MPJ-DK 19:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I must have psychic powers, I warned about this before on talk:Carly Colón but nobody did nothing to improve it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
technically everybody did nothing ;) MPJ-DK 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
or...nobody did anything Nikki311 03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, Randy Orton's currently a GA candidate, and is being reviewed by LaraLove. Let's all try and improve the article, per the comments she makes on the talkpage. Davnel03 19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Orton image concern

Check out this image. It says permission was given from a fan site. I'm looking at the site, and it gives no information about the image, such as who took it, or where it came from. Since we want the article to be a GA, I just want to make sure everything checks outs. Thoughts? Mshake3 05:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The talkpage of the image has a copy of the e-mail, so I guess its OK. Davnel03 10:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean shit, however. Basically, the image looks too professional to simply be available in the public domain. Mshake3 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about that, but an image can't be used if it's just been released to Wikipedia.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Move!

Move requested here!!! Davnel03 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY take a swipe at us

I don't exactly consider this "serious", but it seems like another project are keeping a close eye at what we are doing, see here. Maybe is shows that we put in our effort to get articles to GA status, or the lack of work they do. Nethertheless, I hope our six GA candidates do pass and also hope that John Cena goes through FA, but that needs a few more comments otherwise there won't be a consensus! Davnel03 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Work on some British wrestlers?«»bd(talk stalk) 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
To be fair The Rambling Man is more than a FOOTY (hehe, footy...) member, he is actually one of the users that are constantly competing for GA reviewer of the week, wich means he is familiar with what goes on on WP:GAC, actually after reading that I am inclined to think that it was more of a wake up call for FOOTY(...) than a shot at this project. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it wasn't really a swipe, just a comparison. WP:PW doesn't even have that many GAs, we at WP:SIMPSONS have around 40 and WP:TROP has an unbelievable 124 GAs, about 1/9 of all of their tagged articles. -- Scorpion0422 22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but comparing WP:TROP with any other project is unfair, there you have a somewhat ancient project with articles that are extremely easy to take to GA (hurricanes and tropical storms never comeback or produce any new information after they disappear so its basically a matter of research) now what I see missing in this project is focus for instance while we at WP:PUR are working on a project that would produce a minimum of 30 GAs per semester the folk at this project are knee deep dealing with another of JBs socks. Wrestling is a extremely popular sport/entertainment and it can attract fans of several nationalities, if focused the project can produce at least two GAs per month, now lets also leave clear that there are a few other issues working aganist this project besides this for instance reviewers aren't willing to give the articles the respect they give to any other sports related articles because "wrestling is fake" and the GACs are left there for weeks unattended, another issue is the reliability of the reference on the articles mostly caused by WWE's obsesive copyrighthing and last but not less important this project has users constantly blanking content while blindly quoting policy. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Frequent good article nominations

I'm a bit concerned by how frequently WP:PW-based articles are being nominated for GA status. Although it is one of my personal goals to make all articles of this project reach GA, nominating so often means that we have many articles to work on simultaneously in a set amount of time. I also don't think that reviewers like to see a large amount of wrestler nominations either, but that's just my opinion. WP:PW isn't exactly a lot of people's favourite project, so frequent good article nominations could be considered annoying. - Deep Shadow 12:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is a little too much, I mean, in the sports section, there's 13 up for GA nomination, and six of them are ours (+1 in the other section). To be honest, there is a backlog in the GA nomination proceedure at the moment. Saying that, it's not like they've all been nominated at one go, here's when they were nominated:

It's not like as if there all being nominated at one go, there's a lack of reviewers. Talking of that, Orton is under review by LaraLove. Unfortunately, she's gone AWOL for the time being. Davnel03 13:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So the comment is that it's a bad thing to nominate articles for GA? Or are you advocating spreading them out more? recently a dedicated drive towards making articles GA has taken place which naturally results in more articles being put forward for GA, it comes in waves, peaks and valleys, right now it's a peak but it'll even out. I don't see how it could be annoying unless the GA nominations as a rule fail blatantly 90% of the time and that's not the general impression. Some like the Undertaker does seem to suffer from premature proposals but if an experienced editor feels it's ready I see no problems with it - annoyance only comes if it's substandard nominations. MPJ-DK 16:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I want articles to pass GA review, I'm just concerned by the frequency in which they are nominated. Also, articles should be worked on in preparation of being put through the process, not after. I'm not saying that's the case with all of the current candidates, but I have noticed that there have been some recent premature nominations. Dave Bautista was not prepared in advance and it quick failed. The same case with The Undertaker (although it did pass, and many editors considered it a miracle, it was delisted). Looking at the Eddie Fatu article, I believe it will follow the same fate as Dave Bautista. - Deep Shadow 16:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Deep Shadow. This is something I consider a problem and have actually been thinking of bringing it up myself. There is, however, an underlying problem: Poor overall communication among participants of WikiProject Pro Wrestling. I'll talk about this later as I am still organizing my thoughts on it, but I want everyone to be thinking about what they and we can do to remedy this situation.
Regarding Good Article candidates: Yes, we have too many of them. The main problem I have with this is premature nomination. Before someone even nominates an article for GA status, I believe WP:PW should be notified at least 1 week in advance, so that we may internally attempt to properly prep the article and see how much we can fix ourselves first. I've been working on 2 GA candidate articles (Carly Colón and Randy Orton), both of which had an extraordinary amount of obvious problems at the time they were first nominated for GA status...stuff that should easily be seen by an editor that feels they are experienced enough to even nominate an article for GA status (Just regarding Randy Orton: Sentences with no end punctuation ..4 or 5 of those I fixed, a HUGE amount of information that was not referenced, odd sentence structure in several places, severe lack of wikification..I could go on). "We can't just be [nominating articles] all willy nilly!" (Cedric the Entertainer anyone? ..anyway). I believe this makes WP:PW look bad, something we really can't afford as so many Wiki users already seem to snub this project (and PW articles in general) because of their personal feelings towards Pro Wrestling.
We need to come up with many policies so that we may streamline processes within the project, one of these needs to be how we deal with GA and FA nominations. My thoughts (just suggestions):
  • Announce all GA and FA candidates 1 week prior to nomination on the WP:PW talk page (as already mentioned)
  • Before the article can be nominated, have no less than 3 current WP:PW editors sign up to thoroughly run through all the GA/FA criteria (via checklist method on that article's talk page or separate /GA candidate /FA candidate subpage) and fix the article to the best of their ability - formally asking other specific editors to help in areas they have a hard time with)
  • ALL GA/FA nominations should be listed on WP:PW main page as soon as they are nominated.
*No more than 2 nominations per month, with a possible voting process to choose the candidates (please don't bite my head off for this one people, step back ..breathe and really think about it)
  • I'm sure there is much more...
...We basically need to bring the project together and all be working towards the same goals. I know each of us have our "pet articles" that we want to see achieve GA/FA status NOW NOW NOW ..but that is not realistic. If we can combine our efforts I believe we will be much more effective at getting GA/FA articles passed and actually have more articles passed more quickly overtime as we get good at it.
It is a great sign that we have enough editors enthusiastic enough about Pro Wrestling and the articles about Pro Wrestling that we would actually have so many articles up for GA status at the same time...but I believe this to be too ambitious a task at the current time; Ideally, all editors would want to work on GA/FA candidates as much as possible to improve the article but with this many articles nominated, we are spread too thin and I for see most of the articles failing because we can not all spend the time that is needed.
Please take all of this as constructive criticism as it was intended :) Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 17:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's not "too many GA Noms" that'd be the problem but "too many premature GA noms", I've nominated two myself both with extensive work done before hand and with Bobby Eaton even more done during, which taught me tons before I did the next candidate. Also I've decided to be part of the solution instead of the problem - I'm going to take up reviewing Wrestling related articles where I've had either no involvement or cursory involvement at best, that's why I've taken upon myself to do the Eddie Fatu review. I mean why not? I know the subject, I know the criterias well. I'm in no way involved with the article and I want WP:PW to produce quality work, not just slap GA stickers on articles - it'll be tough but fair and no "Oh it's so fake" implications. And I'm 100% in support of people announcing their intentions to nominate a week or so before, hopefully people will then listen if there are problems with the articles (Batista, Taker and the first Carlito noms are good cases of "ask first"). MPJ-DK 18:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am oposed to a limit however, if they're good enough I see no reason to not put them up for nominations because the "quota" is used up. If we set a "Pre nomination criteria" of some sort then the numbers game will work itself out without imposing an unenforcable limit. MPJ-DK 18:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Pre-nomination criteria, that is good too. --Naha|(talk) 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree with the limit per month, but I'm on board with a lot of the other suggestions. I can't tell you how many times I looked at our list of nominated articles and thought WHAT?!!? THAT'S NOT READY YET! I think the biggest problem with most of the articles is diversity of sources, copy editing, and taking things "out of universe". The latter two I am really good at fixing, as I did with several of our current Good Articles. I guess the point of my post is that I really like the one week notification idea. That way I, and others as well, can go through and fix/clean up and article before we pre-maturely nominate it. I think that'll be best for the overall project. Nikki311 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with some of Naha's points. I think if someone comes to this talkpage saying they were going to nominate an article for GA, we should come to a consensus about the article. If people say, yes, head to GA, then do just that. But if people think, no, that article will fail hands on, we must then come up with a plan on the talkpage - on ways to improve the articles, whether its through peer review, other WP:PW readers or whatever. However - if you have been working on the article for several months and no one else has really been taking notice (MPJ-DK's tag article (Fabulous Kangaroos for instance), why should they come here if they are the only one working on it? Davnel03 19:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
So someone can read over it and copy edit anything you might have missed. Another alternative is to ask another person to read over it first instead of posting here. Nikki311 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can. I'll start looking at it this evening, not sure how long it will take. Its probably not good to make an offical request like this amid another conversation (even though we were talking about it) because I almost missed it. When requesting a peer review (or whatever you want to call it) from a WP:PW member, its probably best to start a new section on this page with the offical request, so it will be easily noticed :) --Naha|(talk) 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Um...I think you misread what I wrote (or perhaps I wrote it unclearly). I wasn't asking anyone to peer review anything. I was replying to Davnel, who said "if you have been working on the article for several months and no one else has really been taking notice (MPJ-DK's tag article (Fabulous Kangaroos for instance), why should they come here if they are the only one working on it?" My point was that more than one person needs to look at an article, because if only one person works on it, they can miss things. Don't feel you have to go peer review the article, because I wasn't asking you to. Nikki311 02:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry yes I misread, but I will do it as I've already started doing it and I've found a lot of what I consider to be odd sentence structure and lots of extra words and what not, I think I can streamline things a bit. I don't mind ..its what we are all here for anyway! --Naha|(talk) 03:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok lets scrap my idea of a limit and from now on discuss the idea of a 1-week (or whatever length of time) notification since meveryone so far seems to like that idea.
Re comment about MPJ and the Kangaroos article - well, if you LIST the article here and state that you have been working on it, and that you feel it is getting close to GA/FA nom and ask for help, people WILL take notice and have that 1-week time period to further help you check over the article to actually make sure it is, in fact, as ready for re-view as we can possibly make it :) The other reason to come here and list it is simple curteosy. Everyone involved in editing wrestling articles has a right to know how many articles from the Wrestling category are up for nomination so that we don't flood them with nominations and get turned down for the annoyance factor. Lets make it as easy as possible for everyone to know what is going on with wrestling articles. This whole project needs to be more about communication, "and thats the bottom line, cause Naha said so!" :P
Davne - (my feelings) Unless there is an overwhelming consensus (by x number of editors witin a 48 hour period or something) that an article is indeed "ready now" to be nominated for GA/Fa, I think the 1-week (or however long time period) would need to remain. May of us take wikibreaks or are gone from wiki for short periods of 24 hours or so, and we need time to be able to notice the proposed nomination and further time to check over it ourselves to make sure we either agree with the nom, or be able to point out what we feel needs to be fixed. Say there are 20 regular editors for this project and 2 of them agree that an article is ready 5 minutes after the proposed nomination occurs, should not mean go ahead and nominate it RIGHT THEN. People need to be given a reasonable amount of time for comment. Please remember I am making these sugestions in an effort to try to get more Wrestling articles to pass GA/FA, not to hold them back --Naha|(talk) 20:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Milena Leticia Roucka

The article was nominated for deletion several days ago, and I don't think the nominator notified this project. The deletion discussion is here. Davnel03 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fabulous Kangaroos

I've just finished my copyediting of The Fabulous Kangaroos (I'm sure it could be better but I made a lot of progress) and have posted some comments and questions about the article on its talk page. Please read the talk page when you have time, and answer my question if you can. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 05:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Two AFD's

I recently prodded two articles, but they were both removed. I've put them up now for AFD. The discussions are here and here. Davnel03 13:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Kungfoofighting1

see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kungfoofighting1

This editor is a sockpuppet of JB196, who is banned, and is therefore not allowed to edit. Feel free to revert any edits you like from this editor or any sockpuppet account found on this request for checkuser. — Moe ε 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! The Hybrid 06:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I think I've reverted just about everything he did. Some of it I sourced and some of it I haven't gotten to yet, but it should all be back to the original articles by now. Eggy49er 20:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Donna Adamo

I've been doing a lot of work in trying to improve this article, taking it from this stub like version to the current version. I really want to try and improve the article further, possibly taking it to GA, but realise their is a lot of work to be done on the article. However, I am having real bad trouble trying to find reliable sources that I can use in the article. Has anyone got any book sources, or even website links for Adamo aka. Elektra. Thanks in advance. Davnel03 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've checked my sources, honestly I got nothing. Good luck improving the article, it really needs it. MPJ-DK 16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering how short-lived and minor her mainstream contributions were, it's going to be hard to make this a big article. It's slightly better at this point, but the glut of web junk used as references (Gerweck, TV.com, IMDB, etc.) is not doing any favors. Dannycali 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. IMDB and TV.com (I'm not familiar enough with Gerweck to judge) are not reliable and should not be used. Nikki311 23:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to leave the references in. If I find more reliable references than the current ones then I will replace them. Davnel03 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You need to focus over quality over quantity. Having refs to tv.com and IMDB are hurting the article, not helping. Dannycali 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I know, but when there aren't that many sources available on how, it's hard to. I'll try and keep improving it, though. Davnel03 18:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Pre-tapes, spoilers, kayfabe and crystal balling

It's time we have an official project stance on pre-taped shows. I'll respect other peoples right to avoid SmackDown! spoilers and simply say something undeniably notable happened at the show's tapings Tuesday which a number of editors would like to update the effected articles to reflect. Of course, others immediately undo and revert these changes with the reasoning "has not aired yet no spoilers" or "future event".

Obviously this whole thing would fall under the rather large umbrella of WP:Crystal, but one could (and, in fact, I am) argue that since it has already happened, been recorded, and was a major event as part of one a rather important storyline on the brand, it's very unlikely that it will be "undone in post". In fact, even minor things are rarely cut from SmackDown! tapings if you bother to check "spoilers" against broadcast results.

I don't know if we need to set up some kind of project poll or what, but we certainly need to decide this officially to stop the edit wars that come up nearly every week.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In playing Devil's Advocate (sp?), in 2001, Bradshaw Christian won the European Championship at a Smackdown taping. But it was cut from the broadcast, and not mentioned until the following Raw. Mshake3 18:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
which means that 1 time in all the Smackdown tapings it's been changed - that's pretty good odds given the hundres of tapings that's taken place. I say if it's TRULY important put it in, it's not "crystalball", it's already happened - whether it'll be shown on TV or not does not change the fact that it happened. And in the case that it doesn't make the TV broadcast, well then that's an interesting note to add - makes a nice break from the general rundown of results most wrestling articles are. I say with title changes it's fine, returns and that sort of thing. MPJ-DK 18:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source for taping results that haven't aired that is actually considered reliable (ie not a dirtsheet site)? I'm not sure there is, and if there isn't, this whole thing can be quashed per WP:RS Koberulz 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Define "Not dirtsheet sites" in wrestling terms - PW Torch? 411? 1Wrestling? MPJ-DK 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh and has anyone who cites WP:crystalball actually read it? it deals with future events that have not happened, not stuff that hasn't been televised, big difference. Honestly WP:Crystal doesn't apply if you read the definitions. MPJ-DK 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is my feeling on the whole situation: I have currently have two hobbies that are in conflict with each other, because right now, participating in one of them means my enjoyment of the other is completely ruined. The two hobbies I am referring to are (1) Editing Wikipedia (mostly in the area of professional wrestling) and (2) watching Friday Night SmackDown! (in addtion to RAW and ECW but those air live where I am so they don't matter ..ANYWAY...) I was extremely upset last night when I saw an edit summary pop up on my watchlist that completely ruined (what I'm sure is) the biggest highlight of the most recent SmackDown! taping (filmed Tuesday, last night, but will not air in my area till Friday).
Outside Wikipedia, between Tuesday night and Friday night, I take extreme caution to not visit wwe.com or any other fan sites/news sites that do not use spoiler warnings.
Basically what it boils down to is I refuse to give up either of these hobbies or the enjoyment I currently receive from both of them because people can't wait 72 hours to update articles about an ENTERTAINMENT program. If it was a simple matter of not editing (or having on my watch list) *one or two* particular articles (that remained the same each week), that would be fine ..but which articles the spoiler information is added to depends on what happened on that particular episode of SmackDown! (who had notable matches that night, who had titles change hands, etc). The list of articles that a person in my situation would have to take off my watch list include all 39 SmackDown! Superstar pages (which are technically subject to change at any time as people are moved around on rosters), all articles that have to do with lists of championships and title reigns etc, and some other articles I'm probably not thinking of. That is too much. I, like many of you, keep an eye on hundreds of pages to watch out for vandalism and a myriad of other things and I really don't want to remove them.
As a side note, as noted above, no one should be using a WP:Crystal argument in this discussion because the events have, in fact, already occurred. To me, this is about respecting the editors that contribute to Pro Wrestling related Wikipedia articles. The main reason WE contribute to these articles are because we are the ones who know a lot about professional wrestling because we watch it on TV (some of us for years), read about it in books and online, go to shows and what not... we are passionate about it and as such enjoy working on related articles. Wikipedia should take a stand to encourage such editors, not scare them away. However, as we currently have no firm policy regarding spoilers, (which makes it much more likely that I will come across one and ruin my SmackDown! programing for the week before someone reverts it), that is exactly what is happening ..I'm being scared away from editing any article that has to do with SmackDown! and feel as though I am unable to look at my watchlist. This is unfortunate, because it severely limits my navigation of Wikipedia, and my ability to contribute most constructively. Thank you, --Naha|(talk) 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I agree in theory. I rarely if ever want to know what happened on pre-taped shows, but as long as wikipedia is open to non-registered members the problem is going to persist.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand and accept that the problem will always persist to a certain degree, but if there is a general agreement by all members of this project (some of which do not care about seeing spoilers) to (1) not add spoiler info themselves, and (2) to revert all such spoilers on sight, there will be much less of a chance that editors like me (who want to avoid seeing spoilers), will actually come across them because more people have committed to the task of removing them.
I have a theory that many users (including myself on occasion) see this (or other possibly innapropriate) types of information in articles, but are unsure of what to do. Do I revert it? Do I leave it alone? Do I ask someone first? Are other WP:PW members going to jump down my throat? (You guys are all actually pretty good, but you all know that discussions can get heated around Wikipedia). Sometimes being bold comes back to bite you in the ass, and because we don't want to step on toes ..we just leave the problem as is and hope someone else, perhaps more knowledgable, comes along and fixes it.
While we can't control what every Wikipedia user does, we can attempt to reach a consensus and set up a policy regarding how to deal with constant spoiler additions, including, but not limited to creating a notice explaining why we don't add spoilers which can be added to the talk pages of user's who put this type of info into articles. We'd have to be very proactive about it and make sure new WP:PW members have seen and understand the policy. This may or may not be somewhat effective, but we won't know unless we try. --Naha|(talk) 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

While I would personally like to see spoilers banned entirely from wrestling articles, I'm going to propose a compromise.

  1. All registered users should avoid putting the spoiler itself in the edit summary of the inserting edit out of respect for their peers. While listing the spoiler in the summary isn't a policy violation, we should respect each other's wishes so the project doesn't become angry and divided.
  2. We follow the Wikipedia:Spoiler guideline with spoilers in articles, meaning we use the spoiler tags.
  3. The spoiler must be inserted with a reliable source backing it up, such as WrestlingObserver.com. Not inserting it with a reliable source means that it can be removed on sight.

So, are these terms acceptable to everyone? The Hybrid 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I'm not ready to conceed all that yet. This proposal means I straight up know there are 40+ articles I basically won't ever be able to edit again, because rather than discouraging spoilers, it is giving our blessing to put them in the articles. If this is the consensus by the time this discussion plays out, then fine... but I'd like all of our regular WP:PW members to come out of the woodwork and spitball some more ideas first. In my eyes, we aren't ready for a vote yet because not enough people have chimed in. --Naha|(talk) 02:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Good, actually, because there is some important stuff that I forgot to put in, but since you bring up a good point of this not yet being a wide enough discussion, I will withdraw my proposal since I'm on your side. I don't want spoilers. However, I get the feeling that we are going to have to compromise eventually. The Hybrid 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool :) --Naha|(talk) 02:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have never been a fan of spoilers myself, but I can see a problem here: what are we going to do when someone comes in and points that Wikipedia isn't censored?, I think we need to develop a guideline within the project so we can quote something. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thats what I've been trying to say here, we need a guideline. I know its not censored, but there still has to be something we can do. More ideas people ..keep them coming please... --Naha|(talk) 03:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I know this isn't a proposal, but just to let you guys know that all three shows will be on delay next week as SmackDown/ECW are being taped Saturday with Raw being taped Sunday. Davnel03 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So...spoilers with tags then? For America based companies (WWE/TNA) until they run in America (Friday for SmackDown!, Thursday for iMPACT!)?«»bd(talk stalk) 15:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the sound of that. Since most of the spoilers in question are title changes, adding a spoiler tag would indiciate "there's going to be a title change involving this guy," basically spoiling it. Mshake3 16:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
bd, Thats just what Hybrid said, which I again, don't like. Are there any new or different suggestions? Also, yes, putting up a spoiler tag basically says in most cases "hey look a title change" and defeats the purpose of said tag. --Naha|(talk) 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Could mean a significant injury to someone, or a major storyline advance (e.g. when Orton RKO'd Cena on a chair a few weeks ago which was taped). Davnel03 16:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely it's the same with movies. The plots there, so theres spoiler tags. In fact, theres spoiler tags on some movie pages even after they have been released. Anyway, I really wouldn't mind with spoiler tags as I have stated in the past. Davnel03 16:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not feel this is the same as with movies. Movies have a myriad of different possible outcomes and a spoiler tag isn't going to almost always mean the same thing happened as it would in a wrestling article. --Naha|(talk) 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Then we're going to have to either leave the tags on some pages all the time, or add the information without them. There's no reason anyone can point to, other than personal choice, to not have the information.«»bd(talk stalk) 16:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
By that statement, you appear to be assuming that spoiler tags are the only way to go. The simple addition of spoiler tags do not solve the problem, period (not that anything will completely, but this doesn't even really address the reality of problem as I see it). As for my own suggestions, I didn't outline them in bullet form or anything but they did appear thoughout some of my above posts on this thread and would like to recieve comments about them. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 16:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one important thing that I left out of my withdrawn proposal:

  • No information that amounts to week-by-week information, such as the RKO onto the chair since it didn't take him out of action in kayfabe or reality, nor did it lead to him loosing his title. We already have a project policy on this matter.

Therefore, since that is fairly non-negotiable under Wikipedia's notability policy, using spoilers would pretty much guarantee a title change. While giving away a title change isn't a policy violation, it would lead several users to stop editing since it would wreck SD and TNA for them. Therefore, if a consensus could be established against using spoilers on the grounds that they hinder the ability of the community to improve articles by driving members of it away for all but Saturday-Monday, then that would be perfectly acceptable within Wikipedia's policies. The Hybrid 22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is great as far as these use of spoiler tags is concerned and I like it agree with it. However, unless I'm misreading something, that still doesn't keep the spoiler information itself from being added to articles, right? --Naha|(talk) 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It does, actually, since it's the use of spoilers pushing people away, not the spoiler tags. Cheers, The Hybrid 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping I was missing something :) --Naha|(talk) 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, we haven't won yet. We still have to establish the consensus, The Hybrid 23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I know, but at least we have a foot to stand on :) --Naha|(talk) 23:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So we're saying no spoilers? And how are we going to enforce that?«»bd(talk stalk) 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
By having people like me who are willing to have SD and TNA "spoiled" for them revert the people who insert the spoilers. The Hybrid 22:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you read the entire discussion here, you will note that we realise there is no way to completely keep spoilers from getting added. It just isn't going to happen. But if we can get all the members of WP:PW on the same page, get them to not add spoilers themselves (I don't know if any of us do or not), to boldly inforce the policy by always reverting on sight, to make sure <!--"No spoilers here please"--!> tags stay in articles, and to possibly add notices to the talk pages of users who continually add spoilers, explaining to them the circumstances, we feel we can greatly reduce the presence of spoilers and the chance that people will revert them before most people accidently happen upon them and ruin their SmackDown!, TNA, or other programming. That is the best we can do. --Naha|(talk) 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports)

Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I am interested to see your proposal. --Naha|(talk) 00:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Turn (professional wrestling)

I started cleaning this page up a bit back in July and am wondering exactly what should be done with it. It's a huge magnet for POV/OR and crufty lists. Certainly some examples like Hogan should be listed but I'm not sure where to draw the line. I think it's gotten over-categorized and out of control. What should go/stay? DrWarpMind 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe you should take it to AfD. Only a few sentences describing the meaning are really necessary (maybe one example). Once it is deleted, you could add a redirect to List of professional wrestling slang#T, which defines the word and is sourced. That way, nobody can undo the redirect, which happened on a few other pages I redirected to the list awhile back. The word/concept of turn, by itself, is not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia, but adding it to the list fixes that problem. For all of the different types of turns, different additions to the list could be made. Nikki311 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Nikki has proposed. --Naha|(talk) 00:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll do it. Nikki311 23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreamer's Signature Objects?

I'm having a bit a revert battle with some dope who is also a member of this wikiproject over Tommy Dreamer's 'signature' objects (which included, amongst other things, a blueberry pie). I don't think signature objects should apply to Dreamer. Because unlike for example, the Sandman or Finlay, he never walked to the ring carrying these items on a continuous basis. If the arguement is made that his page should include 'signature objects' where would it end? You could add folding chair to 3 out of every 5 wrestlers and everything that isn't bolted down to someone like New Jack's page. Any insight would be most appreciated. --Endlessdan 19:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle? I reverted it once, then you maturely started name calling. A wrestler isn't connected to an object unless they actually bring it to the ring? Really? What does that do to the Dudleys and their tables?«»bd(talk stalk) 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There are obvious exceptions. Maybe our beef if the definition of 'signature'. By your definition, we should start adding every single object ever used by a wrestler. --Endlessdan 19:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Endlessdan, name calling will not put you in the good graces of any Wikipedian. Second of all, you are using a faulty argument for "what constitues a signature object." Its not a matter of how an object gets to the ring, its a matter of whether or not a particular object has been repeatedly used by a particular wrestler for a prolonged period of time throughout their wrestling career. For example, Triple H has used a sledge hammer for a long time, but he does not carry this object to the ring, he pulls it out from under the ring at some point during or after his matches. The fact that he has been known to do this dozens of times makes it notable and classifies it as a "signature object." By contrast, Finlay does carry his shillelagh with him to the ring upon his intrance from backstage. Again, however, its not considered a signature item because Finlay brings it with him, but rather because he has used the shillelagh repeatedly for a long period of time.
One or two appearances of an object does not make it a "signature item." Have the objects in question appeared countless times throughout Tommy Dreamer's carrer? If so, list them. If not, they doesn't belong on the list. If there is a disagreement about this, then whoever claims the objects need to be added to the signature list has the burden of proof put upon them and must be able to source the claim. Unsourced information may be removed from articles. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you tell me how many times a wrestler has to use an item before it becomes signature? Do they have to use it so many times within so many months? Is it automatically signature if they use it in more than one company? What if they only use it a handful of times, but each time it's part of a spectacular spot? If they bring it to the ring, but only use it sometimes, does that count? The whole thing is subjective. There was a time in ECW where every Dreamer match involved some form of street sign, usually a stop sign, almost always pulled from the crowd. I'd call that signature. There was also a time when The Sandman was constantly using a rolled up spool of barbed wire and Big Show used a kitchen sink in just about every hardcore match he was ever in, I'd call those signature too. Obviously someone disagrees with me, to the point where they feel the need to call me a putz instead of trying to discuss it. I guess that means we need to continue the overciteing of wrestling articles, so be it.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Look at what I said and then use common sense to decide which objects you feel deserve to be listed. Reference them if you can. That is all you can do. --Naha|(talk) 02:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I attempted to use my common sense as to what I believed were signature objects in this case (Tommy Dreamer), it wasn't agreed with. To hell with it.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
:( --Naha|(talk) 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Get ready for RevertMania

According to WWE:

Wellness Policy Suspensions, August 30, 2007 - Based on independent information received from investigators from the Albany County, NY D.A.’s office, WWE has today, under the penalty provisions of its wellness policy, issued suspension notices to 10 of its performers for violations. It has been WWE’s practice not to release the names of those who have been suspended, but notice has been sent to all WWE performers that names of anyone who is suspended under the Wellness Policy as of November 1 will be made public.

Another similar story has broken today as well (Please see www.nydailynews.com - Top WWE Names Emerge in Doping Scandal) but people are not reading the entire news article and are jumping to the conclusion that the wrestlesr named in this article, are the same ones who have been suspended by WWE. Currently, there is no proof of this, nor does the article say they are the same wrestlers. The www.nydailynews.com article states:

In a list obtained exclusively by the Daily News, top wrestlers Randy Orton, Charles Haas, Jr., Adam "Edge" Copeland, Robert "Booker T" Huffman, Shane Helms, Mike Bucci, Anthony Carelli, John "Johnny Nitro" Hennigan, Darren "William Regal" Matthews, Ken "Mr. Kennedy" Anderson, Eddie "Umaga" Fatu, Shoichi Funaki and Chavo Guerrero were all identified as clients of Signature Pharmacy in Orlando, the site raided by Albany County and Florida law enforcement agencies in February for distributing steroids and other prescription drugs to clients who had not been examined by doctors. The investigation is part of a probe into illegal Internet drug distribution by Albany D.A. David Soares.
It is unclear at this time which of these wrestlers will be suspended by the WWE.

I have already reverted additions to 2 articles stating that "wrestler x" has been suspended because of steriods. Until WWE makes it clear which, if any of these wrestlers were the ones that have been suspended, we need to revert additions like this to WWE-related articles because it is potentially harmful information. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted a third. We should all put those pages on our watchlists. Gavyn Sykes 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just got 8 more, one user went through and added it to all 10 or 11 articles. --Naha|(talk) 00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted two more myself. All the above pages are now on my watchlist, so I'll keep my eyes open. Gavyn Sykes 00:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That list is ridiculous, there is no way WWE is going to suspend Booker, Umaga, Orton and Kennedy they are people that are getting a push (super-push in Orton's case) in the company's flagship brand not to mention Morrison who is champ, not that I would mind Marella getting suspended (or fired for that matter) though, well anyways enlist me on the revert train. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you read the information clearly, no one said any of those people are the ones who are being suspended. That is the entire reason for my original post about it, misunderstanding.--Naha|(talk) 02:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
User:64.128.110.125 is going through the articles now and adding a note to said articles. This is much appreciated!
''<!--- Please do not add the Aug. 30, 2007, steroid suspension rumor. There's no verifiable proof that this wrestler is one of those suspended, as the names of the offenders have not been announced yet. --->'' Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 02:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh! the irony :) - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hehehe --Naha|(talk) 02:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated last night written a article last night, which is here and ESPN's article here. The list of wrestlers seems to be the same. I also consider SI and ESPN "reliable soruces" so why can't we add it in the article until November 1? Davnel03 10:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

None of them say anything about who was suspended, they say which names were on the list of a company under investigation, that doesn't mean these guys are all under investigation or that they're all guilty of anything illegal or what not. If a reference is to be made it shouldn't be beyond "on August 30th a list of names of clients for "This company under investigation" revealed that "Wrestler X" was on it's clientel list. At present no wrongdoing by "Wrestler X" has been proven nor has it been confirmed if "Wrestler X" is one of the wrestlers suspended by the WWE for "Wellness violations" That's what the sources can cover and that's really all that should be said on the page. That is all, that's as far as it should go until the names have been revealed by an official source IMO. MPJ-DK 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If this gets really big, with the rumour that NFL stars could be announced in this to, would a subpage possibly have to be started? Davnel03 10:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
A subpage where, and for what purpose? --Naha|(talk) 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2007 World Wrestling Entertainment drugs scandal my initial idea (seeing asm any wrestlers have been suspended), or even, possibly better extend this to cover the possible suspensions. I think the latter is a better idea. Davnel03 13:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears ten superstars were just suspended by WWE for a violation of the Talent Wellness program. Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, and Brian Adams, who are all dead, also were found out. Sylvain Grenier was also found out, but he is released.[3]

Try to pay attention of these more considered WP:BLP could be involved with these wrestlers more so now. — Moe ε 11:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You could of joined it with the topic two up! But yeah, they are going to have to be fully sources now. Davnel03 11:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
*Slap heads* — Moe ε 11:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears people are STILL not reading the articles correctly. Nowhere does This Sports Illustrated article say ANY of the superstars mentioned have been suspended, it only says they have been prescribed steriods in the past:
As the WWE is embattled by charges that its wrestlers die early and unexpectedly with alarming frequency, it must now counter evidence that the culture is awash in illicit drug use. That cause wasn't helped on Thursday, when, based on information provided to the WWE by the Albany District Attorney's office, the organization suspended 10 wrestlers for violating the company's drug policy.
While the WWE declined to release the names of the suspended athletes, SI has learned that a dozen professional wrestlers have received steroids and/or human growth hormone through the drug network. The WWE would not confirm which, if any, of the following wrestlers are among those suspended
I completely agree that it is highly likely that these are the superstars who have been suspended, however, until it has been announced by WWE, we cannot add this information to Wikipedia articles as it is considered libel. We must also remember that just because someone has been prescribed a drug, that it does not mean it was misused or abused. Steriods have many perfectly legal uses and are not just for "bulking up." Basically, lets wait for the WWE annoucement, on www.wwe.com it says they will release the informatoin Nov. 1, tomorrow. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 12:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So what do we do? Sit back and wait? Why can't we just add the info to articles? It's not like we don't have sources to back it up is it, hey? If we don't put it in, what are we going to do to stop the vandals. Fully protect the 15 or so articles until November 1st? Davnel03 12:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There is not reason to put the information in the articles. Do you understand that just because they took steriods doesn't mean they were abused, nor does it mean they were suspended? Please actually read, Slander and libel Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The Star confirmed reports that ten superstars were suspended, but it gave some names without confirmation. CNN has given ten names with specific drugs given. That is enough confirmation for me, it's not that hard to put two and two together. — Moe ε 13:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree. I've combined the two conversations as they are both on the same matter. Davnel03 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Who needs "The Star" (or any other news source) to confirm reports that 10 superstars were suspended when WWE.com itself says 10 superstars were suspended? There is no confirmation needed by outside sources that the suspension exists, what is needed is proof of who those 10 superstars are, something that NO SOURCE has provided yet. Again, while I agree that it is highly likely that the superstars named are the ones who are suspended, until confirmation of the suspended names comes from WWE we CANNOT add this information to articles. It is not our job to "put two and two together." It is our job to report verifiable information, of which this is not. This is an assumption. --Naha|(talk) 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
WWE.com NEVER goes out of kayfabe. I can't see them announcing it on there official website. Did they do that, with Jeff Hardy's suspension? Davnel03 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
WWE.com is a primary source as well. (see WP:NOR for definitions) Only secondary sources are permitted for content like this. The fact is WWE doesn't need to chime in anyways, it would be removed as a primary source of information. That doesn't mean it's unreliable, but that secondary sources are prefered. If WWE releases names, it will be covered by news outlets, which more reliable than the primary source of the commentary. — Moe ε 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all I never said the information had to come from WWE.com, I said the information had to come from WWE. Whether it is actually published on WWE.com or in an interview on CNN.com (or some other reliable news site), quoting WWE officals, I don't care. WWE.com currently has a notice saying "10 superstars have been suspended," so it is likely that they will continue that story on their own webite. Second, WWE.com never goes out of kayfabe? How long have you been reading that website? Its gone out of kayfabe several times just in the last couple of years. Randy Orton's previous suspension comes to mind. I'm not going to get into an argument about what WWE.com may or may not report, the fact of the matter is, until the 10 (or however many) superstars have been offically named, we cannot say they have been "suspended" in the articles, period. --Naha|(talk) 13:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine you big baby, I'll change it to say they weren't suspended. See you in 24 hours here when WWE just confirms it. — Moe ε 13:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Name calling is completely uncalled for. I've been civil and upheld Wikipedia policy in my conversation. In addition, I've already said I agree with you that the names listed are more than likely the same people who have been suspended (so I'm not sure what you feel you have to "prove" to me "in 24 hours"), but your opinion nor mine counts, only verifiable information, period. I ask you to carefully read your sources in the future before incorreclty citing them, and to also not misrepresent the policy on no original research which you have also done. --Naha|(talk) 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't misinterprete no original research, nor did I cite it, I was giving you a link to what primary, secondary and tetritary sources were considered. — Moe ε 14:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You linked WP:NOR above and the definitions given do not apply to this situation as long as they are correctly used. The incorrect citing of sources referred to you using the SI.com article in Wikipedia articles to say that specific people had been suspended, which it does not say. --Naha|(talk) 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't tell me what I meant and what I didn't mean to say. You can stop putting words in my mouth now. — Moe ε 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What? I haven't done that anywhere, I've only commented on what has actually been done and said. --Naha|(talk) 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Will you two please stop moaning, and look at WP:CIVIL. Here's the description for both Primary and Secondary seeing as there is obvious misunderstanding:
  • Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
  • Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources.

Davnel03 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Exactly. WWE is a primary source. News sources are a secondary source. That was all I was saying in my post. Don't go around shoving words in my mouth and saying I'm incivil, I don't give a crap anymore. — Moe ε 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Davne, I am well aware of what the policy states, hence my previous comments and concern. It also says further down that section:
An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
Using WWE.com in this instance does not go against the policy "for content like this" as has been previously stated. While it is obviously a source very close to the situation being written about, primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them So, if WWE.com did publish a list of names of wrestlers that they had suspended, simply citing their article and saying "WWE suspended wrestler x for violation of the wellness policy" would not be considered a violation of the Primary Source policy. Moe, no one has put a single word in your mouth throughout this entire conversation. If someone makes a statement that I believe is false, I feel an obligation to research it and call them on it so that the situation may move forward in a productive manner that complies with Wikipedia policy. That is all. --Naha|(talk) 14:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This discussions over. — Moe ε 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Infact we'll begin to find out who it is if people are kept off the tapings Saturday + Sunday. If NFL people are involved, I'll be interested to know what stance WP:NFL are taking on this. Davnel03 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(2 edit conflicts) So what is this "reports" are not allowed into articles. When things like this break, conflicting reports happen. It happened with the Virginia Tech massacre. It happened with Nick Hogan's car crash. It happened with 9/11. Anyway, I think a subpage is needed as I stated above. 2007 World Wrestling Entertainment drugs scandal my initial idea (seeing asm any wrestlers have been suspended), or even, possibly better extend this to cover the possible suspensions. I think the latter is a better idea. Davnel03 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Correct, Wikipedia is not a news site, we don't go placing reports all over the place. --Naha|(talk) 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Alright calmness left and right if you weeel and we'll all get through this unscathed. First of all yes we can report when things break - but only what the newstorys actually say not speculations. In this case the stories linked so far basically supports the addition of the following statement to the wrestlers listed

"on August 30th a list of names of clients for "This company under investigation" revealed that "Wrestler X" was on it's clientel list. At present no wrongdoing by "Wrestler X" has been indicated nor has it been confirmed if "Wrestler X" is one of the wrestlers suspended by the WWE for "Wellness violations"

That is all we can say now because that's all that's known and that's all the sources support. Anything beyond that without sources (primary, secondary, tertiary, quartiary or mortuary it doesn't matter) is original research and speculations. Even the mere fact that some people do not appear on the tapings isn't enough to indicate that they're the people suspended (appearing though does prove that they're not currently suspended - absense could be for many reasons). Now if we can all take a nice long breath and calm down. Relax, you'll all live longer. MPJ-DK 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So (without heading into an argument), what is wrong with putting a statement like that into all of the related articles? Davnel03 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing Davne, my earlier comment was meant to be in regards to speculation reports. I was not clear on that fact and I appologize. As long as the above suggested statement is all that is inserted into the articles, I am completely ok with that, as it upholds all Wikipedia policies currently known to me. Thanks--Naha|(talk) 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, as long as it doesn't turn into an edit war like something just has. Davnel03 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I'm honestly not trying to be a stick in the mud here, sometimes we just have to remember that as much as we know in our minds and/or hearts that something is true, doesn't mean its ok to add it to Wikipedia articles unless it has been confirmed. It is exciting to be the first person to update an article with particular information, and sometimes that excitement causes us to not completely read things or think through things. I am guility of doing this in the past and it came back to bite me in the ass really hard, thats why I've been so hard-nosed in this conversation, so other people don't get ahead of themselves and make the same mistakes. If my tone during any part of this conversation seemed uncivil, I appologize for that as well. I have the best intentions at heart.
Moe, if you want to take charge in adding the above proposed statement to all the appropriate articles, that would be outstanding. If not, I'm sure someone else will jump in and take care of it. Whoever does it, please just remember that in addition to not accusing the people of being suspended, we also can't accuse them of being in violation of the wellness policy either - yet. Tomorrow's news will hopefully provide us with all of this information. So its probably best to stick to the above proposed statement or a close variation of it.
Let's refocus on some other tasks; we need more comments about the above suggestion for the GA/GL/FA proposal that MPJ linked in an above thread on this page. We'd really like to get that going and need some more folks to get on board. --Naha|(talk) 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've just put the statements in the related articles. I now just hope that WWE doesn't pull the title off Morrison at tommorrows ECW tapings because of this, otherwise we head from one dispute straight into another (that's regarding are good friend called Spoiler....) Also, I'm going to start writing a article in my sandbox called 2007 World Wrestling Entertainment drug scandals, which will cover all drug related events of 2007 (hoefully) article here! Davnel03 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That would probably be best as a subsection in the main WWE article, which sorely needs a section on the "Wellness policy" anyway.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Before I left to watch SmackDown! earlier, I went ahead and used MPJ's proposed statement and put it in all 10 articles since no one had objected to it. I just glanced at my watch list and think some of those insertions may have been changed back to accusations though, so we might want to keep an eye on those pages till tomorrow (or whenever the names come out ..should be tomorrow according to the WWE statement). --Naha|(talk) 02:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the Washington Post citation to the article, which confirms ten superstars including Orton and Chavo were suspended. I will update this thread when more information is available. — Moe ε 03:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Mike Bucci has been released, according to several wrestling related websites. Davnel03 07:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I just recently had time to sit down at my computer about 20 minute ago for the first time today, and as such haven't read any news or anything yet. Do we have any official WWE statements yet, either on their corporate site or elsewhere in the news? I'll be browsing some news sites myself, but if anyone has a particularly good article, please share! Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
WrestleView I find one of the most reliable news wrestling websites. Mike Bucci's release is mentioned on the website here. According to this, which is linked from a WrestleView headline, a 11th un-named superstar has been suspended. I can't see WWE making an announcement on who/who hasn't been suspended yet. However, WWE are taping SD!/ECW tonight, so watch out for any potentional spoilers (same with Raw as that is being taped tomorrow night). Davnel03 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I am awaiting a new WWE statement is that in their own previous statement on wwe.com, which has now been moved to corporate.wwe.com, they said: It has been WWE’s practice not to release the names of those who have been suspended, but notice has been sent to all WWE performers that names of anyone who is suspended under the Wellness Policy as of November 1 will be made public. Given that we are well into Nov. 1 now, where are the names, dangit..especially that 11th one :P --Naha|(talk) 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Most sites I visit say November 1, 2007, which is a couple of months from now :) — Moe ε 21:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Uhm. Ok. Yeah. I'm REALLY retarded because I don't even know what month it currently is. Ignore me. Move along. There is nothing to see here. *hides in corner* --Naha|(talk) 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
*pats on head* It's alright, it happens.. :) — Moe ε 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Two Users

I know this isn't a messageboard, but two updates on two different users:

  • Hornetman16 has been indef. blocked by the community, see here. Watch out for possible socks.
  • Also, several users are currently in discussion about whether TJ Spyke should be unblocked. One or two users feel he should remain blocked. The general opinion is that it shall reviewed again in two months. The current discussion is still ongoing, and is here. Taken to CSN, see here Davnel03 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

John Cena

The article has failed FA. I'm pretty surprised that we weren't given longer to improve it, but meh. The reasons why it failed are here. Davnel03 18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I personally have been working on 2 or 3 other articles, trying to help prep them for GA status and didn't have any more time to devote to Cena. --Naha|(talk) 22:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot II

On a rather trivial note, would anyone like me to set up User:MiszaBot II to archive this talk page? If so, how many days should it wait to archive something? Peace, The Hybrid 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, I'm weary of this. Probably because I've recently had more than one conversation cut short because a bot autoarchived it before we were done. I personally don't have any problem archiving stuff manually, but if we go with the auto-archive bot, I'd say no less than 10 days old or 10 days with no thread activity. --Naha|(talk) 20:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like many people care, so I just won't do it. No need for unnecessary annoyance. Cheers, The Hybrid 05:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke

User:TJ Spyke has just been unblocked following a discussion at WP:CSN. He has been placed on an indefinite editing parole which states that he has to adhere to a 1 Revert Rule, and cannot have more than one account for any reason. If you see him violate the 1RR on anything but blatant vandalism, then report him to WP:AN, or WP:ANI immediately stating that he was on a revert parole. If you suspect that he may have a sockpuppet, then you may file a WP:SSP or WP:CHECKUSER case, or you may contact me or Moe Epsilon to deal with the situation if you feel uncomfortable doing so. The Hybrid 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

John Hennigan

Having a bit of trouble keeping spoilers out of this article at the moment, if anyone wants to jump in and help, I can't do much more without breaking the 3RR rule. Please note this conversation higher up on this talk page. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 04:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I has been announced at WWE.com, so it doesn't count as a spoiler. The Hybrid 04:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
How does its annoucement on another website make it not a spoiler? Its a spoiler to people who avoid as much contact as possible to anything WWE-related until the program actually airs. --Naha|(talk) 04:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
By Wikipedia standards it isn't a spoiler. Once the actual company makes an announcement stating the information, then the information is considered current and not only worthy of being in an article, but necessary to the article. The Hybrid 04:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm ok, can you please link me to exactly where it says that? This is something I'm apparently unfamiliar with. --Naha|(talk) 04:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, thats how things have been handled so far, and it seems to have worked.--ProtoWolf 04:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by it "seems to have worked." I just had a major event in an episode of a TV show that has not aired yet ruined by reading a spoiler in an article. This deters me from wanting to stay on Wikipedia and contribute for fear of accidently coming across more spoilers so it seems counterproductive. So if you could please elaborate on that statement, I'm really interested in what you mean. --Naha|(talk) 04:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

While I don't believe that it constitutes a spoiler because the company stated it, my reasoning behind that would take longer to explain than what I will actually say. The goal of any WikiProject is to have all of it's articles featured. The first criterion listed at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria states that the article must be comprehensive, and goes on to say that comprehensive means that "The article does not neglect any major facts." A title change is a major fact, and it is verifiable with a source from the actual company. We are required a as project to put this information into the article due to the company announcing it. Not neglecting any major verifiable facts trumps any consensus. The Hybrid 04:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't mean to delete your comment and not sure how it happened. While I see where you are coming from I still don't agree with it in cases like this, especially after what we were talking about in the previous thread about spoilers. What you just said makes that entire other conversation obselete, because this information completely overrides it. If this is truely the case then I'm not quite sure what to do and may have to restrict my use of Wikipedia from Tuesday till Thursday and any other time (like this weekend) shows I care about are pre-taped, at least every time WWE gets a whim to put the spoiler on their own website, which I wouldn't technically know unless it had already been spoiled for me by inadvertenly visiting the site. This is unfortunate. --Naha|(talk) 05:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't trump the other conversation. If I didn't know how to counter this statement for every case but the ones where the company announces the results ahead of time, then I wouldn't have been against spoilers in that conversation. A spoiler is a spoiler unless the company itself announces the results ahead of time. That only happens on the special weeks of Thursday Night RAW, or during the very rare events such as a house show title change. I guarantee this is the exception, not the rule. The previous consensus trumps everything but this situation. For something to not be considered a spoiler, the company itself has to announce the results. The Hybrid 05:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I kind of noted the "rare" thing in my last post. I still don't agree with it but at this point I guess it doesn't matter, if that is an offical policy thats how it is. I'm not about to spend all my waking moments on Wikipedia arguing to change all the "official Wikipedia-wide policies" that I disagree with..it might send me to an early grave from stress overload :) --Naha|(talk) 05:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, playing lawyer gets annoying after a while. I've only been (active) here 13 months, and I've taken 4 Wikibreaks, one of them an attempted retirement. *Sigh* - but you do make really good friends on here, so I consider it worth it. Cheers, The Hybrid 05:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Definitely! --Naha|(talk) 05:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a bit pre-emptive but WWE.com is hyping a Intercontinental Championship match between Jeff Hardy and Umaga. IF a title change occures (after all Umaga is one person getting suspended) BUT is not announced on WWE.com, do we remove spoilers from the articles? Davnel03 07:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Remove them on sight. Cheers, The Hybrid 07:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming PPV's

I think we should have a good, non-objectable criteria about naming the PPV's and TV shows, not leaving to how everyone thinks should be name. I think that should be the criteria:

When a PPV or TV show is organized by only one promotion, we should name it: [Initial of the promotion] [Name of the PPV or TV show]. E.g. WWE Raw, TNA Bound for Glory, ROH Respect is Earned.

When a PPV or TV show is or has been organized at any time by two or more promotions, simultaneously or by one promotion first and later by another, there has to go only the name of the PPV or TV show. E.g. The Great American Bash (organized by WCW and NWA, later only by WCW)

I don't know what to do in the cases of the WWE Big Four PPV's (Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series), who doesn't have the WWE prefix. I think we should leave it that way, but it's open to discussion.

So, those are my two cents. What do you think about that, people? Xbox6 16:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to check the July archives as this has been brought up before, the general feeling was minor WWE PPVs are WWE No Way Out (etc, esp as they are mainly just single words or well known phrases, like Backlash or Judgment Day). The big four do not need WWE as they are sorted by year, and in the case of WrestleMania and SummerSlam they are trademarked words, and unlikely to ever be used in any other sense. I'm not sure what you mean by "not leaving to how everyone thinks should be name", as it stands there are only two ways to name PPVs and the whole PPV naming thing has been agreed by consensus for a while, what exactly are you proposing? Darrenhusted 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Help needed for a dispute

Hello everybody. I'm having a dispute with User:Enhanceddownloadbird, who insists on removing the "in-universe" tag from The Undertaker's article, even though the article is primarily "in-universe". If anybody wants to help me out with this, or even if you disagree with me totally, you can air your thoughts on the situation at Talk:The Undertaker#Cleanup/in-universe. I'm having a hard time explaining my reasoning behind the tag. Perhaps someone more well-spoken or mre knowledgeable than myself can explain the situation. Nikki311 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you two resolved this yourselves :) --Naha|(talk) 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT!

Attention everyone! The List of professional wrestling slang has been put up for AfD. This could be a tremendous set back for the project as it helps take articles "out of universe". Also, it defines terms that almost every wrestling article uses, which keeps us from having to define them in every article. You can get to the AfD HERE. Nikki311 00:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind! The result of the discussion was keep. MITB LS (t·c) 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE Roster Name Change

Someone has gone and changed the name of the page "World Wrestling Entertainment Roster" to "HAGGER???????"

I'm unsure how to revert this. Could someone handle it? Gavyn Sykes 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been fixed. Gavyn Sykes 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New Sources

How would you guys feel if maybe we started a list of other sites that we can use to source stuff so that we can stop relying on OWW so much? Eggy49er 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The History of WWE. I've mainly been using it for title changes on taped shows, but it will be quite useful for results. Mshake3 22:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FMW, a major promotion??

Hi, I was wondering if someone out there could help me out. I am having an editing war with someone over Template:Professional wrestling in Japan. He keeps reverting FMW to the major promotions portion of the template and has not responded to the talk page. I attended school in Japan for 3 years and had the privlage to see several promotions over there, including FMW. FMW was never considered a major promotion as evidenced by the lack of coverage by any newspaper and the way it was covered by Fight magazine - as an indy. Can someone help me out with this matter? Thanks --Endlessdan 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FMW is certainly notable, but it was far from on par with NJPW, AJPW and the like. Not major. --MarcK 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! How does somebody lock a template? There really shouldn't be anything edited on the template (unless a new Japanese promotion springs up overnight). --Endlessdan 13:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is Universal Fighting Organization listed on a template of professional wrestling promotions? UFO is an MMA promotion that has housed fighters like Royce Gracie, Matt Serra, etc. I am going to remove it from that template unless someone can give a valid reason not to. Mr. C.C. 05:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Good Article nomination suggestion

If you look further up this page you’ll see discussions about GA nominations and concerns about WP:PW flooding the GA nomination board with nominees, especially some that are substandard. Well working on the suggestions given there and some of our own input Naha and myself have put together a suggestion on a WP:PW pre-GA/FA/FL "pre nomination procedure" which means that we as a project go in and do a bit of quality assurance on articles before they’re nominated for GA/FA/FL. The idea is that the better then articles are before nomination the easier they pass, the less they annoy the reviwers and the better we as a project look. So please check it out and then vote here if it’s something that you’d participate in and something you thing WP:PW should adopt as official policy (maybe it can replace the dead "Collaboration of the week" section and actually do some good). Check out the suggestion: User:MPJ-DK/Update 3 and let us know what you think. MPJ-DK 06:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. Maybe we could make that actual PW policy, and hopefully it won't go down the drain. Davnel03 09:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If we adopt it as official policy then I'll do my best to see this actually work, I know that 1 or 2 others have already indicated that they're onboard with this idea. If this works it could be a real boost to the project so I encourage everyone to chime in with their opinion (and with time also their attention). MPJ-DK 09:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Aye, I am all for this and am willing to help make sure it actually gets used if approved by members.--Naha|(talk) 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Should we program a bot to run a notification to all of the project members? because someone just added Shane O'Mac as a GAC and it seems he/she wasn't notified of this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Can't inform anyone untill people have said "Okay" to this, until then it's not official in any way and he didn't actually do anything wrong beyond having three articles up for GA at the same time. It's just a shame that not that many people chime in. "Approval by silence" doesn't work here, we need to know if you're pro or con here please. MPJ-DK 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
He certainly didn't, when I say "notification" I don't mean a desicion notification but a notification that lets them know this discussion is happening. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think we need to send out a message to all active members of WP:PW asking them to please come "vote" on this because we REALLY need to get it going and SOON. There are a handful of us who work together and keep each other notified of certain things, simply becuase we have collaborated in the past on various articles/issues, and while no one HAS to "join" a wikiproject to work on certain articles, it seems that being an acitive member would benifit them, the Project, and Wikipedia as a whole because in the end, its all about communication. So anyway yes yes yes ..lets send out a notice to everyone to come read this new proposed policy and state whether they agree with it or not. What is the best way to go about sending out the notification? --Naha|(talk) 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a way to directly send a message to everyone but we could put something big and obvious at the top of the talk (or project) page. That would attract the attention of the active members anyway. DrWarpMind 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it wouldn't hurt, but attracting *active* members is like preaching to the choir. I'm more concerned with the people who aren't coming here much, if at all currently. I see other Wiki Projects and/or other Wiki organizations "send out news letters" (in mass) to people's talk pages. So I'm wondering if there is an automated way to do this with a bot or some other means? --Naha|(talk) 20:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Question

For wrestlers such as Brock Lesnar and Ken Shamrock, would they receive a wrestling infobox or a MMA infobox. Or is there a way to combine the two since they have different information? Eggy49er 01:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooh good question, and I don't have any idea, but am now waiting intently for someone else to answer. Will be good information to have if this crops up again with other articles. --Naha|(talk) 03:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There should definitely be either an MMA extension for the wrestler infobox or a full MMA fighter/wrestler infobox for guys like Lesnar and Shamrock, Minoru Suzuki, Kazuyuki Fujita, etc. --MarcK 08:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_27&oldid=1190107577"