Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

MY RANT

I've been on Wikipedia for a while; believe me, I know my edits carry weight by now. What concerns me is that now that many of the wrestling articles are struggling for featured articleship, many editors are coming to the realization that they have been working to dead ends: Let me help in striving not FA, but pefection:

I copy-n-pasted the criteria for FAship here:

1- fills a gap; search for existing or related articles on the topic first. How many wrestling articles are like that? Most pages are just collaborations based on very little reading or research. This is especially so for history of wrestling articles. Read Bishoff's book. Read Foley's book. Read some of the WWF histories out there. They are loaded with real facts for a wikipedian to put out there.

The main gap I see is with critical opinion. Think about it. Most of the forums, blogs, and personal sites talking about wrestlers are going to disappear in mere months. Why not preserve important criticisms? Wikipedians are too afraid to put their own opinions and cite reviews. Wrestling fans are very savvy researchers; they know what is going on with their fav wrestlers, and they have plenty to write. Why shouldn't it be that many of the criticisms or feelings towards a wrestler be expressed? Let's say John Cena's in-ring skills were under question. Shouldn't that be added? What about a push? Or an absence? Chris Masters' article is perfect with facts, for instance. It does not have anything newsworthy in that respect. It just has to be consensus-based online.


2- starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail. This is hands down, the biggest problem wrestling editors have. Look at the # of times you'll see a minor feud or simple main event being put into excessive detail. Think about the pains someone takes to say something like "Randy Orton def. John Cena in a no-DQ match on the Jan 24th Edition of RAW after he RKO'ed Cena through a table." Who cares? Wrestling people are really, really obsessive on facts. Don't be. Half the time, the results on RAW and Smackdown won't really matter much, anyway. A feud is far more important, especially if it is based on a storyline of some sort.

3- is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject This is why no article, not even the Montreal Screwjob, could be considered for the FA of the day. Think about how in-universe the language is whenever you write. Just writing about PPVs, for example, is a few steps away from what the average reader wants to know.

Just think about how in-universe a pay-per-view is: A pay-per-view is a wrestling event consisting of several matches, usually promoted and built-upon from weeks and months of creative planning. Feuds have been established months in advance, and pay-per-views are often used to systematically present key transformations in many storylines. Pay-per-views achieve highs in viewership and revenue, making them among the finest of a wrestling federation's shows. That is all stuff every wrestling fan knows. Most non-wrestling fans don't know all this background, let alone the series of pay-per-views, or the ridiculous types of specialty matches.


4- is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles. In-links suck. Balls. Believe me, I can tell you that wrestling articles are the hardest to read because of the intense links and citations. Focus on the article, not how to make an article link most effectively or what to link. Let the big-time losers provide wikilinks for you. Chances are, you will have put enough effort and time into the article itself, you won't see any reason for reading, let alone linking, other articles.

5- branches out; it contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and external information that add meaning to the subject. and branches in; editors have found and edited other significant wiki pages which make mention of the topic and link them to the article. Tell this to the fool who bothered to link the $ sign in the Chris Masters article.

6- acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject. is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views. Check Vince McMahon. It will NEVER, EVER reach FA. Not a chance in Hell. Why? Because for all his actions, for every single one of the books written about him, for all the documentaries, interviews, achievements, and failures, little controversy or opinion is presented. Think of all the people he fired over the years. All the bad storylines. Who he has hired. Who has sued him. his business practices. Not one bit of controversy is ever expressed, yet every single forum online spews his name nonstop.

7- is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain, clear prose; it is free of redundant language. Check some of the older pay-per-views, especially In Your House 1 and you'll see how unclear the storylines are. It's difficult to see any wrestling article without this problem.

8- is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone. LAST, but CERTAINLY NOT LEAST. This sums up the reason the wrestling project is doomed. When someone adds boring, ridiculous links, and unbelievably obsessive details, they make us look bad. The project is shameful. For someone who bothers to read biographies to edit articles, when they see Hulk Hogan's article, they run into complete garbage. Think about how much is on Kurt Angle's page or how many are categorized by "RAW" "SMACKDOWN" RAW-2nd RUN, SMACKDOWN. Think about this. Think about how many people are going to read and understand what you read.

You can have influence, and make FAs if you try. Aim for some perfection, and you'll see. I brought all this up because this is what our project should be arguing about, not all the dumb little facts. This rant might give some people the BIG PICTURE they were looking for.

--Screwball23 talk 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but get the holy by god fuck off your goddamned high horse. "My edits carry a lot of weight" Yeah, I'm sure they're "pefection." If you're so "pefect" why don't you do some work yourself instead of POINTLESSLY BITCHING IN ALL CAPS and big scary bold text at people who are doing good work. You're accomplishing nothing but riling people up. If we're so "shameful" then why even bother with us? If you care that much, get your own ass in gear. God damn it, I am so angry right now.` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tromboneguy0186 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to read that, and the parts I can make out do bring up some great points. But you did a terrible copy and paste. Where'd you copy this from anyway? Mshake3 (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't even know where to start. But then I wouldn't know when to finish. So I'll just point out this...--EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"If I wasn't there, it never happened" Mshake3 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing this was because of my comments on your talkpage, Screwball. All I wanted was a copy-edit, I didn't really ask for a rant to come with it. All I'm trying to do is try and get In Your House 1 to FA status, and it seems like you've just gone off on one. Davnel03 08:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There are actually some good points in there, shame they get lost in the attitude/tone of the whole piece which means that most people will probably just pass it on by. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, your right. What suprises me is that the user doesn't actually attempt to help us improving articles, and instead has to rant despite not being very active.... (somehow, I doubt Screwball will actually look at this topic ever again) Davnel03 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I fixed the bold tags for better readability MPJ-DK (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversies? On a living person? ARE YOU MAD? Mshake3 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I did not understand the above comment. Is it an inside joke? Lex T/C Guest Book 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. I believe it was established, citing WP:BLP, that no name be dragged through the mud, or something like that. Then again, the user who was enforcing that, quite posting here with a loud "FUCK THIS PLACE", so who cares anymore. Let's get controversal! Mshake3 (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we should ignore this rant because this user does not understand any of the policies. We are not supposed to express opinions, unless they're from important and distinguished people (not wrestling fans on the internet!). If we were to add fans, what would the article say...: "JohnCENASux1 on the ProWrestling.com forum says John Cena's wrestling skills are terrible, and Ortonrulesass, JerichoNumber1, TNAisdabomb, and SecretPedophile agree with him!" (SERIOUSLY, COME ON...) Lex T/C Guest Book 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Considering Screwball was one of the main contributors to Randy Orton article I have a hard time taking his rant about quality seriously - the Orton article represents more or less everything that's wrong with wrestling articles. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW newsletter

Something new for the newsletter: the newsletter will be begin to do user interviews for each newsletter. Apply here if you want to be interviewed for a future issue. Apply today! :) The Chronic 04:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also from the newsletter: you now have methods on how to receive the newsletter. See here for detail! The Chronic 07:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Move list cruft/clutter (again)

I mentioned this at least once (if not more) in the past, so I'm bringing this up again. Hopefully it makes a difference this time. Move lists for some wrestlers are just getting excessively out of hand. One example: Rob_Van_Dam#In_wrestling. I think the project should come up with a general guideline of a certain number of moves that should be listed. If not, move lists are just going to get even worse than they are now. It should be notable moves, not seemingly every move they do in a handful of matches. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a horrible example of when too much is just too much - I'd also ax the nicknames & music lists from the section. A guideline would be nice. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I hate the nicknames, moves, and music too. Maybe we should get rid of the nicknames and music altogether, and cut down the moves lists to only include moves that the wrestler has named (which proves it is signature) or has a third party source proving that they consistently use it. Whatever we decide, it is going to be hard to enforce. IPs and the annoying regulars who do nothing but mess with he "in wrestling" sections are going to be pissed. Nikki311 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we probably could enforce it. Sourced nicknames can be included in the prose and entrance music is pointless. All those lists are nothing but listcruft, and we have WP:V and WP:CITE on our side. Only moves that you can prove were named by the wrestler should be listed. Nikki311 15:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
My proposal:
  • Remove theme music to Music in professional wrestling and link to it from the article.
  • Cap the lists of nicknames (5, perhaps?) and moves (8-10 maximum, perhaps?). I actually find the moves section helpful (eg. if I'm writing a PPV article and want to mention that I.R.S. won after performing the Write Off, it's nice to be able to pull up the Mike Rotunda article to see that I should link that to Professional wrestling attacks#Lariat). But some of it is beyond absurd. Do we really need to know that Nelson Frazier, Jr. used a Corner body splash as Mabel, used a Corner body splash as Viscera, and currently uses a Corner body splash as Big Daddy V?
  • The nicknames strike me as cruft, especially when it drags on and on and lists variations on other nicknames {eg. The Undertaker as "The Phenom" and "The Phenom of the WWE"). I have a hard time believing that any wrestler has more than 5 nicknames that have been used on a regular basis. In addition, many of the nicknames seem to be actual ring names (eg. Hulk Hogan as "Hollywood"). And a ton of the nicknames seem so obscure that I don't think they're worth including (I haven't watched wrestling in a while, but how often is Hulk Hogan called "The Babe Ruth of Pro Wrestling"? And if it is used frequently, how about writing it into the text? Quite a few of The Undertaker's nicknames seem absurd as well [eg. The Best Pure Striker in the History of the game]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that move lists should be shortened and nicknames moves to prose if they are important enough. I'd personally like to see the theme music section stay, but the consensus seems to be against it and I have no real wiki-enforcable reason to want it to stay. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The information is certainly notable, but in the cases of some articles mentioning them in article bodies would detract from the rest of the article. Especially for people who legitimately have a lot like The Undertaker. At which point do you mention the Phenom nickname, when the Booger Red one, when Deadman? They're all things he's been called but not nicknames. Theme songs also wouldn't work in the body as well as they do in a separate section. They can be arranged in paragraph format instead of lists (John Morrison) but saying every time Al Snow changes gimmicks "at this time he used the song X by band Y" would get ridiculous. This stuff works like "lesser" titles, every specific win and loss of the OVW title isn't mentioned, just that it was held twice. And I won't even get into the arbitrary cap of move or name list. Who decides which five or ten are the most important?«»bd(talk stalk) 21:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Not all of it is notable. Some nicknames are notable, yes. For example, Stone Cold Steve Austin as the Texas Rattlesnake, which is already mentioned in the prose. If it can't be worked in or there isn't a source, it should go. Also, I don't agree with the cap, either. Like I mentioned, we should only list moves with names, as they are likely to have sources proving they are indeed signature (think Jeff Hardy's Swanton, Whisper in the Wind, Poetry in Motion or Rob Van Dam's Rolling Thunder and Five Star Frog Splash). If people want the music list to stay, I guess I'm cool with that. You can't win every war. Nikki311 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
So the sequence of un-named signature moves John Cena, Randy Savage, Bret Hart, Goldberg, Shawn Michaels, & Hulk Hogan do every match don't go in?«»bd(talk stalk) 21:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
After looking over the lists of the wrestlers you mentioned...I have to ask, is there a specific move you are referring to? Most of those unnamed moves are moves that a good number of wrestlers do on a pretty consistent basis: big boot, clothesline, moonsaults, etc. If a third party source can be found that proves it is a signature move, then it can be added in. Nikki311 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a joke, yes? You're not actually saying Savages Double Axe to the outside or jumping knee drop, Bret Harts Moves of Doom (which he did so often they had an entry in the RSPW faq), Hogans big boot and back rake, etcetera etcetera etcetera aren't signature moves because commentators don't call them by cutesy pun-ridden names. Just because others also do them doesn't mean they aren't connected specifically to these guys in the minds of the wrestling watching public. You can't find an Ultimate Warrior match where he doesn't hit a clothesline. It's part of his in ring persona. That Jimmy Wang Yang does it sometimes doesn't change that.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I do believe I said that if a third party source can be found, it can be included. If they truly use a move in every match, then it shouldn't be that big of a deal to find a source. I also believe that below I said that there are exceptions to rules. Nikki311 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Nova named most of his moves. Listing mostly moves with special names is useful to a point (as long as the wrestler used them regularly): but with Nova's case, that should be ignored. I'm no expert on Nova, but I highly doubt all those moves are notable. As for music and nicknames: those need a bit of cleaning as well. A cap on the nicknames should be done, to prevent massive listings of just clutter and very brief names. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There is always going to be exceptions to the rule. Nikki311 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I do have a special attachment to the theme music, as it is a section that has helped me frequently, and I think it has become somewhat of a standard. It is as relevant as any gimmick IMO. As far as moveset goes, I agree they should be limited, but if a wrestler performs a move every match, it becomes common knowledge, and shouldn't need to be sourced. However, if moves do get the boot, don't discredit the adding of combinations. This is especially true in cases of 5 moves of Doom, but also in common sequence moves. For instance, Matt Hardy's "Corner clothesline followed by a bulldog", or Undertaker's "Snake eyes into big boot". But that's just me... And I think nicknames should be kept back under control. I hate "The Phenom" being something different from "The Phenom of the WWE". Also keep it to things he is called, not things used to describe him. I won't lie when I say I like that Undertaker is called "The Best Pure Striker in the History of the Game", but when have you ever seen WWE (or anyone for that matter) say "The Best Pure Striker in the History of the Game just won himself the World title at Wrestlemania!" Exactly... maybe we can draw a line against that. --EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 03:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So...from the above. Would a consensus be to limit move sets to moves used in every match (or nearly every match), moves that have names, and/or moves that can be sourced? Music stays. Nicknames are limited to actual verifiable nicknames, not descriptions. Note: there will be exceptions that should go under a case-by-case basis. Comments? Thoughts? Nikki311 03:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds just about perfect to me. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Where are we going to find sources for non-named moves outside of the matches themselves? Are we going to have to cite 10 issues of WON with match break downs for every move we want to add? But wait, isn't WON a "dirt sheet" and thus non-reliable? This is getting stupid. You know what a guys signature move are if you watch them wrestle over time, conveniently pointing to WP:V and WP:Cite to blank whole sections instead of actually fixing the problems isn't helping. This is what article talk pages are for. You don't think the Snake Eyes/Big Boot combo is a real signature of the Undertakers, say so on that talk page, let it's actual editors defend it. «»bd(talk stalk) 04:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Articles and books will sometimes list signature moves of wrestlers or talk about "Hogan defeated Andre the Giant with his signature bodyslam". WWE magazine consistently describes signature moves of wrestlers. You clearly aren't reading what I'm saying. I also said that moves used in nearly every match were fine to include. Nikki311 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think an ideal template for the length of a move list is Robert Roode's article. We don't want any list to be much longer than that, except for wrestlers that have been wrestling for many years. Chris Sabin's article is an example of what it shouldn't look like. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I totaly agree with Gavyn, that is perfect. As for nicknames, that is just getting out of control. Chris Jericho's is the longest thing I've ever said in my life. He uses a name a couple of times while cutting a promo, and its on there. I mean, "The Man of 1004 holds" Please, that was just a bit he used when cutting promo's for his feud with Malenko.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else have an opinion? I want there to be more consensus before we start implementing anything. Nikki311 20:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Orton non-GA review

To avoid any issues of biased reviewing etc I've stopped GA reviewing wrestling articles - but I figured I could still review them in a "Non GA" manner and provide input to articles currently up for GA, a "Pre-GA" review if you will, stuff to fix before someone really reviews it according to the GA criterias.

In that regard I've started with Randy Orton and commented on the part I could stand to review, I litterally had to stop reading about 1/4 of the way through for my own sanity. I left notes and comments on the talk page with the many things I found wrong in what little I read. Please, please, please read them and understand that I mean no one ill will or hostility but the state of the article just put me in such a bad mood. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RAW XV

Just seen this come up as an article. Two options here:

  1. Redirect to WWE Raw
    OR
  2. Expand (like what we are doing with the PPV's). I'm almost certain we'd be able to find reliable sources.....

Davnel03 18:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect, with the precedent being WWE Homecoming and Tribute to the Troops. Nikki311 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect from me too. Zenlax T C S 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirected. Just checkin. Davnel03 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it should have been expanded. Tribute to the Troops and Homecoming also were notable specials. Raw XV was just as notable as some of the PPVs. -- Kevin Browning (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Raw XV redirects now, but someone else has created 15th Anniversary of RAW, and its even linked through the special episode list in the mainr aw article.LessThanClippers (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Idk but I kinda feel that we could expand RAW XV like a PPV because it had a lot of hype like a PPV. I also believe that Tribute to the troops could be made into an article, plus that its annual and is very important. Just my opinion.=)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, past consensus shows that these pages aren't notable for there own Wiki page. Anyway, consensus can change over time, and am always willing to discuss the matter again if anyone wishes. :) Davnel03 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Other than having a lot of past WWE stars, it was not that different from a regular RAW. Have both redirect back to the RAW article. TJ Spyke 22:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance '06

The article is UP. Feel free to make any changes. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

PPVs with their own articles

Can somebody tell me why why a PPV like No Mercy 2007 has to have the results on the No Mercy page replaced with a link to its own article? Why can't the results go below the link to the main page so that people who want the results can get them in the results section rather than being mislead and just finding a link to another article? 24.159.39.11 (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We at WP:PW are gradually expanding PPV events and moving them onto seperate pages. Per past consensus, we have opted not to list the matches under the related year, but instead just direct the user to the expanded page. Cheers, Davnel03 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Care to link to said consensus? Mshake3 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
We actually haven't had an official consensus, editors have just generally done that way, and no users seem to be against it. It was sort of brought up here. Davnel03 16:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No one's against it, until now. So it's time to establish a new consceus. Mshake3 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't list the results per common sense. The merged PPV articles were too long, and looked ugly. The Hybrid T/C 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If it was just the match results, and none of this stupid "Batista won the cage match by excaping the cage" crap, it would look just fine. Mshake3 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And then it wouldn't be comprehensive, which defeats the purpose of listing the results in the first place. The Hybrid T/C 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want a comprehensive look at the PPVs, then you click the "Further Information" link that would be placed above. Mshake3 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
True enough, but at the same time I think that we should just create templates for each PPV, providing links to all of them, and delete the individual sections for each one entirely. The Hybrid T/C 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hybrid and Davnel. The Royal Rumble, SummerSlam, WrestleMania, and Survivor Series have been separated for a long time, and the results aren't listed on their main pages. I thought the point of separating the PPVs in the first place was to break up the articles. Nikki311 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that any article that breaks the 30KB should be considered for break up. A lot of the more recent PPV's that have been going basically since the In Your House concept was wound up have got to that point now. And as a result it would be inconsistent to treat the younger ones (ie Cyber Sunday and New Year's Revolution even if it is defunct) the same way. No sense in not being practical. !! Justa Punk !! 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble

I've finished the main Royal Rumble page and have inserted into mainspace. I hope to nominate it as a Featured List Candidate fairly soon. If you can improve the article or want to add to it (with sources!), that's cool. If there's anything wrong with it, let me know on the article's talk page. Thanks. Nikki311 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Roster Template

It's nice to see that every WWE superstar's page has a nifty convenient WWE Roster Template at the bottom of the page; why can't there be a TNA Roster Template?? Maybe it can be split up into Knockouts, X-Division, Staff, and Regular Roster of course. Just a suggestion. Derrty2033 (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just finished creating it. See here. Feel free to make any changes to it and add it to the mainspace. The Chronic 06:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason it should be [[Talia Madison|Velvet Sky]]. It should either be [[Velvet Sky]] or [[Jamie Szantyr|Velvet Sky]]. Talia Madison is a ringname, and according to apparent consensus, and overwhelmingly non-notable one. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Change it if you will. The Chronic 06:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
To which? I think both are reasonable, though Velvet Sky is the only one that's not salted. Something tells me it probably will be soon, though. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Christ, that was quick. How about not wikilinking her at all, since she'll obviously never have an article. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. :) The Chronic 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And...I might be talking out of my ass here, but didn't WWE raise a big legal stink about TNA calling their wrestlers "superstars" and basically keep them from doing it? As I look at tnawrestling.com, their roster is just called that, "roster." Perhaps the table should say something other than "superstars." Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should just call them wrestlers.TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made that change. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XNW -- EndlessDan 15:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. Davnel03 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Update on my Projects

My final exams are over, so I have much more Wiki time now. I started to correct the move links in the TNA Roster's articles, and should finish it tommorrow, if all goes well. After that, I'll begin to work on bringing WrestleMania 23 to GA. I may tackle the ROH roster and other independent wrestlers later. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I took one look at and took a step back. I've not seen him wrestle much, I'd appreciate it if someone could clean up the move section, since there are about twenty-five or more moves there. It looks really bad, to be blunt. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Stub Article improvement revisited

I proposed this idea a few weeks ago, and some people seemed to think it was a good idea but mentioned that they didn't have time until at least mid-December. I am reposting my proposal so that we can revisit it now that things are calming down for some people...

I think this project has done a great job lately with the focus on Good Article and Featured Article/List development. We've made significant progress in this area. One thing that I've been thinking about, though, is that we still have 777 stub articles (that are not likely to be chosen at Collaboration of the Week) out of 3230 total articles. I was thinking that it would be nice to challenge ourselves to see if we can improve a certain number of articles from Stub Class to Start Class within a month or so. I was thinking of something like 15 articles. I was looking through some of the stubs, and quite a few stood out as articles that would have adequate resources for improvement or might already fit the criteria for Start Class. A few that stood out are:

I thought that if we had a place to show our progress (eg. a subpage), a few people might be interested in helping trim the number of stubs. What do people think? Is this a worthwhile endeavor? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with my finals now, so I'd love to help out. Do you want to make the subpage or should I? I think we should model it on the PPV expansion subpage. Nikki311 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I could pretty much copy Nikki's reply and it would be fully accurate for me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well one of them has found an underconstruction tag. :P Davnel03 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If someone could create the subpage, I would really appreciate it. I've started it a few times since getting home today, but it just comes off sounding too formal and academic. I think I need to take a few hours off. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I started the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stubs. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlers with multiple Tag Team Championship partners

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hennigan&curid=7419707&diff=177939920&oldid=177821499

There's a small debate going on here. Is this against the style of guide of WP:PW or of Wikipedia itself? Because I'm of the opinion that the left edit looks better and explains things more clearly. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I think the one of the left looks better. But I really don't mind either way. Davnel03 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd go with the left version, since it tells you who he is currently champion with. - DrWarpMind (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's my point. But apparently style guidelines dictate that the right version be used. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am in favor of left as well. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the partners are listed by the time they were partnered with Hennigan, so logically, if Hennigan is the current champion, then the last one (Miz) would be the current one; so the (1, current) isn't needed. But either way, I'm fine; really don't care. Lex T/C Guest Book 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a small debate? Really? «»bd(talk stalk) 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
What would you call it, then? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

FA Re-Review

I'm proposing an FA review for one of our project's FAs periodically. We can make it one article every 2 months or so. The thing is that I have found many errors in Montreal Screwjob and I bet I can find so in the others. Lex T/C Guest Book 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagee. I wouldn't propose an FA review, possibly just a little general cleanup. These articles get tons of IP edits that the tinest of things that they put in without a fact tag get missed. I really don't think we need a FA review unless there are major problems with the article (citation needed tags; dispute tags; lead too short) etc... Davnel03 09:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

TNA Roster

Repeatedly (first with Senshi, now with Christopher Daniels), User:NickSparrow and myself have been butting heads over inclusion. His current belief is that Christopher Daniels is still employed by TNA, and is reverting any edits that remove him from the roster list. I, on the other hand, believe that he should not be included without a reliable source stating that his release was kayfabe. As stated in one of my edit summaries, his release has been confirmed on the TNA website. Article link. Thanks in advance, Hezekiah957 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Senshi has left the promotion, Christopher Daniels however is still very much employed (and wrestling at houseshows), his firing is just storyline (a bad 1 IMO, but thats by the by)Skitzo (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Any way to verify that? I've given links to news stories that aren't sure if Daniels is only kayfabe fired, the TNA roster on its official site (doesn't include him), etc. If a reliable source (and, isn't the TNA website reliable?) can be given (instead of users just saying it) that Daniels' firing was only a storyline, then I will consider changing my stance on his inclusion. As for Senshi, I made a section higher on the page about that. If we could keep the two discussions separate, I'd much appreciate it. Hezekiah957 (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that since this is a kayfabe issue TNA's website can't be seen as reliable. When WWE "blew up" Vince McMahon, WWE.com reported he was dead, so would it have been right to say that he was in fact dead because WWE.com said so? Nenog (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You want to take on screen happenings as fact with the burden of proof being on the side that they're not true? That's lunacy. So I guess we need a reliable, third-party citation that says Vickie Guerrero isn't actually confined to a wheelchair right now, huh? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact he is wrestling at TNA promoted house shows would be enough indication, also BOTH WWE.com and TNAWrestling.com are run as part of storyline and most articles are written as such. Skitzo (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Immitator

Can I just quickly point out that the person who signed as User:Davnel03 a few threads above in the WWE roster thread is not me. I have no idea who it is, but Davnel03 has been indefinitely blocked. Davnel03 22:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Its good to know that this impostor has been blocked. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I assumed it wasn't you. Their comments were ridiculous. Nikki311 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons I said you shouldn't have requested your old username be deleted. Instead of it being a redirect to your current username, it was made available as a username again. I just hope that you managed to get all comments made by you on talkpages changed to your current name so that they won't be linked to that vandals account. TJ Spyke 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Or another alternative: when you changed your username, you should've gone and created a new account under your old username (as it's now open), and made at least one edit with that account. That's what I did, and I have advised several people who had changed their usernames to do that as well. Obviously nothing you can do about that now, but I'm just saying. The Chronic 06:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling the "imposter" is Cowboycaleb1 who some of you guys might know. As a result, I have presented my concerns to WP:ANI located here. Davnel03 10:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Davnel03 and User talk:Davnel03 have been deleted and salted. Davnel03 10:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week

Someone needs to keep track of the pruning dates and stuff. I think there are some overdue pruned nominations, but I can't tell. The Chronic 08:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WrestleView.com

I have had many people tell me that WrestleView is unreliabe in articles, but this site has been running for about 10 years. To me they seem reliable as they have results, archives of WWE/TNA and have profiles of professional wrestlers. Despite them having spoilers, at least they dont have rumors like other sites per say PW Headlines. So is it reliable or not?TrUcO9311 (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable or Not Reliable

There is no such thing as making a consensus about the reliability of a site. See WP:SOURCE, WP:CITE and WP:CONSENSUS. For the record, I find ALL dirtsheets are unreliable unless they can find actual proof (audio, video, picture, official press releases, etc.) about what they post. Lex T/C Guest Book 01:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't know what constitutes a "dirtsheet". I haven't watched wrestling since the internet really took off. If I'm reading a site for information, how do I know if I'm looking at a "dirtsheet"? Is there a consensus on the definition? GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"Dirt Sheet" wrestling sites are sites that have rumors, spoilers, and alot of speculation like PW Headlines. Also they have no proof of what they say, they say they have "sources" but nothing to prove that it is all true.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My vote is reliable. They have been running for over 10 years, and always wait until news is verified before posting it. Kris (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true. In case you guys don't know the probably No Way Out main event was leaked several weeks ago, and WrestleView only posted it a few days ago. My vote is reliable. Kris, I remember you saying that WrestleView have srong connections with WWE sources. You mean, like what they said here, start of the 3rd paragraph? Davnel03 09:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, but I can't verify who these sources are, obviously they won't release them. Kris (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Im not sure about how that can be true but I just find it reliable for PPV articles and for TV results.TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Dirtsheets are any wrestling news site that is not from the company itself. I find all of them unreliable for backstage info if they don't provide proof. For example, when London n Kendrick won the championships, they provided a photo (RELIABLE); when Mickie James won the Women's Championship at a house show, there was no photo (UNRELIABLE). So they will continue to be unreliable unless they have:
a. PHOTO
b. VIDEO
c. QUOTATION from a source inside WWE (with identity)
d. Official Press release / Public contract
Obviously, they have none. They claim they have a source inside the WWE, but because they don't have proof their source exists, then: UNRELIABLE. Lex T/C Guest Book 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
What a joke of an argument. You want these reporters, who are more or less insiders based on who they know in the companies, to reveal their sources? You NEVER reveal your sources. EVER. Based on this logic, we'd have to consider ALL articles (regardless of the topic) to be unreliable if it contained a quote from someone who wanted to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. Pathetic. Mshake3 (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You now understand my point. I see that we are on the same page. Like you said, we'd consider all articles to be unreliable if they contain anonymous sources which don't have proof if they're real. Cheers, Lex T/C Guest Book 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope you never work for a newspaper, because you'd run out of sources in a month. Mshake3 (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

for my money www.wreslingobserver.com and www.f4wonline.com are very accurate, both often wait to verify news they here from sources they have that ARE inside the companies before posting and are often the most reliable when it comes to developmental contract status changes.Skitzo (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ranjin Singh

He has appeared on screen as The Great Khali's manager for quite a while now, I think he deserves an article. Anybody else agree? Kris (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Feel free to create a draft article on a test page. TJ Spyke 02:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Will be hard to find much info or references, but go ahead if you feel you want to. FamicomJL (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

New article - Judgment Day (2006)

Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that I've stared the expansion of Judgment Day (2006). Cheers, LAX 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Category_talk:World_Champion_professional_wrestlers. —Random832 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Edge and Christian

Can somebody watch the Edge and Christian article for me. There is an editor adding WP:Weasel statements and fair-use images (with no rationale and copyright info) to the article. I've already hit my limit at three reverts. Thanks. Nikki311 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As I. Zenlax T C S 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Armageddon 2007

I am proposing this section be split into a new article while it's young and can be easily done so.--72.186.91.215 (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but we should wait for some other opinions. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I say wait until after the event, i think it can wait. Its next sunday, split it on Monday or right after the event.TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It becomes harder to write as you wait...do it now.--72.186.91.215 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Trucco, lets wait after it happens. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In my mind, we should wait until after the event. Cheers, LAX 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, 72.186.91.215 is User:Hornetman16-- bulletproof 3:16 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed from [1]. Cheers, LAX 03:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
And he said we would never hear from him again... -- bulletproof 3:16 04:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Aww... and I thought this spoke for itself. -- bulletproof 3:16 06:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
He's been editing alot on The Pro Wrestling Wikia lately as Monnitewars. Cheers, LAX 04:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I am aware of that. I've been keeping an eye on him for quite some time. He has also been active in other Wikis. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm an admin there, so no worries. If he steps out of line I can handle him. Now, I'll take this opportunity to say that anyone who wants to join the wikia should. There are almost no boundaries to what you all can add. It is a wrestling fan's dream wiki. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Proof this is me?--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't start this again Hornetman... Grenelefe, Florida. You think IP's are untraceable?-- bulletproof 3:16 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Plus that's exactly how you respond every single time. -- Scorpion0422 05:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. Are you gonna help me copy this template to here or not?--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No, because you shouldn't be copying things from the main Wiki. -- Scorpion0422 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The first step toward recovery is admitting you have a problem... Congrats! Anyway, like I said on the template's talk page, you cant just copy and paste templates from one Wiki to another. I believe some links and tables are only available here. You should ask Hybrid for more info since he's an admin in that Wikia. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Why hasn't this IP been blocked yet? The Hybrid T/C 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you at least help me build a new one? I don't know building code as well as ya'll.--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, you should ask Hybrid there since he is an admin in that Wikia.-- bulletproof 3:16 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't do it; I tried. The Hybrid T/C 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
HORNETMAN is like a superhero villain. He tries, and tries and tries... but we always win...Lex T/C Guest Book 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Something we all know to well... the thing is it has become old, his behavior is just to obvious I suggest that any address is ignored and subsecuently blocked if its either obvious or confirmed that it is being used by this user, otherwise he will keep coming back. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this gonna be done?--72.186.88.137 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rated-RKO

The article has been receiving edits, that both Edge and Orton are World Champions, as to the fact they are no longer a stable. Can someone please monitor the article. Zenlax T C S 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's notable. In 2006, Edge offered Randy to join him to get their world championships back (Edge was referencing his WWE Championship and Orton's World Championship). Well, after joining Rated RKO, and some months after the disban, they did just that (in reverse however). So, Edge kept his promise and that can be added to the article. Lex T/C Guest Book 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not notable since it didn't happen as part of the group and they didn't help each other win world titles at all. - DrWarpMind (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You have to note that Edge brought Randy back to main event status. Before Rated RKO, he was feuding with Carlito and losing Intercontinental Championship matches. Lex T/C Guest Book 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

not really he was losing those matches as punishment for being a fuckwhit on an overseas tour, the man is lucky to still have a job let alone be WWE champion. Skitzo (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What Orton did backstage is just rumors, not fact. Besides, Orton had been relegated to midcard status long before those rumors started, he was down pretty much right after he lost the WHC to Triple H. WarpMind is right, only titles won while part of the tag team/group are included (at least in the titles won section). TJ Spyke 23:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No argument there. But I think the prose should mention something about what I mentioned up there. Lex T/C Guest Book 00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrestler Infobox text

Quick question - is the proper format for the text above a picture in the infobox the real name of the wrestler or the name of the article? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is actually answered on the Infobox page (Template:Infobox Wrestler): "The person's most common name (probably the pagename itself)." So Shawn Michael's infobox would say Shawn Michaels, not Michael Hickenbottom. TJ Spyke 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Professional wrestling portal

Would it be now time for talks to consider a professional wrestling portal? I'm just wondering what WP:PW thinks, since the last mention of it. The Chronic 07:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. Wait until the New Year at least. I think a professional wrestling portal is the last thing on people's minds. Davnel03 10:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I on the other hand think we should. Read my comment about the issue here. Lex T/C Guest Book 12:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, this discussion may go on until the new year. With the newsletter and the development of the articles and stuff, I truly believe a portal can and will be successful. I would support it 100%.The Chronic 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to sound like a total moron, but what the hell is a portal? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I'll be a moron with you. So, what is a portal? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
See WP:PORTAL. Cheers, LAX 21:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I seriously think there should be a professional wrestling portal. We have a considerable amount of pro wrestling content. The Wikiproject seems pretty active. The newsletter appears to be successful. I really don't see any reason not to start the portal (besides the argument that the portal would "sit for weeks or months without any attention"). The Chronic 22:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think that there is a real risk it will end up sitting for months without any edits, but if y'all are committing to it, and you're open to being held to that commitment, then I won't oppose it. I will say right now, however, I personally won't be taking part in it actively. The Hybrid T/C 05:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely be committed to keeping the portal up-to-date, even if it means the harder work for me (along with the newsletter, vandal fighting, regular editing, etc.). And I'm sure other users will agree. The Chronic 05:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hybrid stole the words out of my mouth. I can't oppose something that people are willing to work on, but I can't support something that I know I won't be able to help much with. Nikki311 07:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Same here. I have no problem with there being a portal, but I might not be able to edit it much. Just remember that portals are supposed to be meant for the general reader (wheras wikiprojects are meant for those knowledgable or interested in a subject), so wrestling jargon should be avoided and written like you are showing it to someone who knows nothing about wrestling. TJ Spyke 16:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I will keep that in mind. The Chronic 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Portal should be helpful too. TJ Spyke 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Seen that. So should construction of the portal begin now? The Chronic 17:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The Professional wrestling portal is currently under construction.

Approval poll

References to WWE Roster

Ok this is ridiculous, PLEASE stop removing the citations to the article, me and Alex are not done constructing the page. He is working on the tables and look to the page while I am finding citations to prove that each superstar is signed to WWE. We are attempting to make the article an FL class article, I dont know why people are against this? Having a FL article is good to the Project.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the same user has deleted the references seven times, perhaps a message on his talk page would be appropriate? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been voted on it came back 5-4 to not add the referances.You are just trying to push your way on everybody else.Bleek25 (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the easiest way to cite the article be to change "External links" to "References" since that were all your references are coming from. Plus their profiles don't list their real names, which, when the reference is next to it, also looks like its being cited. Also, the tags teams are being cited with their profile for second time when several of them (i.e. "Jim Duggan and Super Crazy") their profiles make no mention of them being in a tag team with anyone. Nenog (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not to reference articles should not even be up for discussion. If a good reference can be found, it should always be used to source the article. Referencing gives credibility to the encyclopedia. This isn't something to vote on. Valid references and citations continually being removed from an article should be treated as vandalism, no? Oh and Bleek, there was no time limit set for the "vote" and it currently sits at 6:6, tied. I don't see anyone pushing "their way." It is an encyclopedia's obligation to provide as much insight as possible as to where they got their information. --Naha|(talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If only the references were being used correctly. Mshake3 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If they are good sources, make them right but leave them in if possible. Taking them out completely isn't a solution if they are good sources. All articles should be sourced to the best of our ability. --Naha|(talk) 02:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna repost something I wrote in one of the many, many sections about this article, with an addition: Just a thought here. The discussion seems to be whether or not to use a few references from the roster page at the top of each section, or to cite each and every bio. Well when you cite each and every bio, what are you really citing? For example, Triple H's bio tells me nothing about him being a Raw superstar, except for the URL and the Raw logo. You would have to make it clear that those parts of the page are the proof that he's on the Raw roster. Now, if we were to link to the Raw roster, we now see a list of superstars. The purpose of this page is to show the superstars of the roster, and the brand's champions. Seems to me that the later would be a more accurate reference. Of course, then comes to question of whether or not to use that one reference for every name (me, I'm against that). Mshake3 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Trucco you lost the vote, so leave them off, do an example in your sandbox, if you wish to do so and show us then otherwise LEAVE it as it is seeing as the consensus ruled not to have them. Skitzo (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, how did he lose the vote? It was 6-5 in favor of including citations. TJ Spyke 05:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well the WP:PW members have spoken even though TJ says i didnt lose the vote, if i add references, members will probably delete it. So I will just work on it in my sandbox. Thank you fellow members for not wanting a FL class list. TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for wanting an article to have crappy references. Mshake3 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
U kno what milk shake go to.... (w/e):PTrUcO9311 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Truco keep working on it in your sandbox, along with who ever was doing the tabl format, then show us. Skitzo (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I miss understood the situation. That is what I get for trying to be involved when I'm not ready to fully come back to Wikipedia yet and delve deep into every issue going on around here. My bad. Over-referencing can be a pain, yes and we should be careful about that. However I just glacned at the article and didn't see any referencing at all which is actually worse than over-referencing. An external links section isn't enough and won't count for an FL as far as I understand it. Referencing at least once per section should be suffice though, for now. --Naha|(talk) 20:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My gut reaction is to err on the side of over-referencing. Looking at Featured Lists like List of birds of Thailand, however, makes me think that two or three general references may be sufficient. I realize this doesn't help much, but I thought I might as well state my opinion (or lack thereof). An idea, though...what about using one or two general references and nominating it as a Featured List? If people oppose based on a lack of references, that would indicate that references are needed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The perfect compromise, in my opinion. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:The Attitude Era

I know he/she is just trying to help, but User:Number87 is adding this category to every person and event that had anything to do with WWE (even Drew Carey) from 1996-2002. The article on the Attitude era itself is up for deletion and there is no definitive beginning or end to the era (the end is usually accepted as WrestleMania X-Seven, but the beginning is not as clear). Any opinions? TJ Spyke 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The category doesn't seem too useful and it's a bit speculative, I think it should go to CFD. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, CFD for sure. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Nominate: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 18#Category:The Attitude Era. TJ Spyke 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the era itself, i'd say it started at the beginning of Austin's 1st big push, around the time of the double switch between him and Hart. Skitzo (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Backlash (2006)

Is it ready for a Peer Review? Zenlax T C S 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I've noticed one thing that was unsourced, so I've gone and added {{fact}} tag to the article. Also, I would possibly consider merging some of the stubbier section in the "Event" and the "Aftermath" sections. Davnel03 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Here. Davnel03 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Thanks for all your help. You were a true asset to the project and really kicked off the PPV expansion project. :) See you. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Damn, you did a great job with the WWE PPV articles too. I hope you change your mind in the future, but thanks for all the work you put in which IMO made you one of the projects top editors. TJ Spyke 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:( I'm sorry to hear that, as well. I know you've had to deal with a lot from a certain blocked editor. I hope you do change your mind when everything blows over and come back. Best of luck. Nikki311 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Aww, that sucks. :( You were a great editor here. I really hope you return. Maybe a short wikibreak is all you need? Either way, best of luck in your future, and try to stay in contact with us! :) FamicomJL (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
What? Why? I didn't get a chance to thank you for the holiday card. You will be missed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has come to terms on the release of Davnel03 or DMN as of December 18. We wish him the best in all future endeavors.

It's a shame, man. You were a good editor around here. Hope it's just a short wikibreak, and you'll be back to give us more support. Oh... and thanks for the holiday card! Cheers, Lex T/C Guest Book 01:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Davne, I hope your break turns out to be short. This project will sorely miss you. You do great work and a lot of it. Happy Holidays /hugs --Naha|(talk) 02:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Damn man you helped me so much with the PPV articles I made. You will be missed!TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A fin says he'll be back within a month. --EndlessDan 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

D.M.N. here editing from IP address - the above comment made from D.M.N. and the retirement notices were NOT from me. In other words, a troll has hacked into my account. More details can be found HERE. I have no intention of retiring from Wikipedia, but cannot remove the notices, as my userpage is semi-protected. If you have any advice, please E-MAIL me. 87.127.39.114 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm happy to hear you aren't retiring, but I'm sad to hear that someone out there apparently has no life and is Wiki-stalking you. Nikki311 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I am happy to say that the account is now back in my hands. :) Davnel03 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
YEA, glad you are back man! --Naha|(talk) 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That's great to hear man! This project runs on your edits and advice.TrUcO9311 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad you're still here. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
So am I. I know its late, but Thank You for the holiday card. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlemania importance level suggestion

Outside of I and III (I may be missing another one), most Wrestlemania articles are listed as 'low-importance'. While I don't think they all deserve 'high-importance', but as a comparison, Super Bowl articles are listed as 'high-importance'. Given that Wrestlemania is the most important event of the year and is considered 'the Super Bowl of Wrestling', I think it would be fair to upgrade all Wrestlemania to 'mid-importance'. I mean, it's not fair to put Wrestlemania on the same level as these. --EndlessDan 16:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mid This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.

Low This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.

Does it really matter? -- Scorpion0422 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you really need to comment if it didn't? --EndlessDan 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. Wrestlemania is at its very least mid-importance, and some, in my opinion are of high importance. It definately is the culmination of many storylines, the final match for many retiring wrestlers, the biggest pay-per-view buy of the year.LessThanClippers (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think some deserve 'high-importance' too. WrestleMania X8 comes to mind. --EndlessDan 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with upgrading some WrestleMania importance levels. Maybe I, III, X8, and a few others should be high-importance, and the rest mid-importance. Nikki311 18:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but also feel that the Importance scheme for PPVs should be :
  • Top: None.
  • High: Some "major" WrestleMania's and Survivor Series (1997)
  • Mid: All other WrestleMania's along with all KOTRs, SummerSlam, Survivor Series and Royal Rumbles.
  • Low: Other WWE PPV's.
Opinions? - (D.M.N.) 87.127.39.114 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with D.M.N. Cheers, LAX 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above in terms of the Importance scheme. Now which Mania's would be deemed of 'High-importance'? It can't be based soley on having a bitching card or being popular. Like I feel X-8 deserves a nod because of the Rock/Hogan match. Also, I'd say WrestleMania XIV because that's when the Stone Cold/Attitude era began. Thoughts? Any others that deserve inclusion? Also, in terms of the importance scheme - where would WWF Invasion fall? I think that would also be of 'high-importance' due to it's historical significance. --EndlessDan 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think WrestleMania in general is High importance, but very few specific years are more than Mid importance (WrestleMania (1985) being the chief exception). I believe any of the essential information about the most important years should be in the main article. The year-by-year articles really do just "fill in some more specific knowledge of certain areas." I think certain Wrestlemaniae, like X8 mentioned above, may be High importance to a WWE Project, but are only Mid importance when it comes to a WikiProject about the entirety of pro-wrestling, in all times and all places. For this project, the only historic cards that should be High importance are cards that truly changed or defined pro-wrestling itself. - Geoffg (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Three PPV articles up for grabs - anyone wishing to work on them?

The three that have been started expanded, but left inactive:

Anyone offering to improve these? :) Davnel03 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

ALERT: List of WWE World Tag Team Champions (WWE) DELETED

List of WWE World Tag Team Champions (WWE) was deleted! It was recreated, but needs MAJOR work...what happened?! Kris (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh...... Mshake3 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Um that article is nonsense. I think the list you are looking for is List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). That other one needs to be deleted. Nikki311 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
MShake beat me to it. :) Nikki311 02:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Now don't I feel foolish... Kris (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Especially when no page was actually deleted. Mshake3 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

December to Dismember (1995)

Just letting you know that I'll be taking on the difficult task of attempting to expand the D2D 1995 article. If anyone has got any book or web sources that could help improve the article, that would be great. :P Davnel03 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD Notification...

...here. Davnel03 17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Members Recall

We should have a WP:PW recall, to find out who in the members list is actually still part of WP:PW. Lex T/C Guest Book 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We could send out a notice in the newsletter, but it would have to be for next week's, as this week's is done. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 08:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just I find very few people working here:

  1. 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs)
  2. Feedback (talk · contribs)
  3. Bdve (talk · contribs)
  4. The Chronic (talk · contribs)
  5. D.M.N. (talk · contribs)
  6. Drwarpmind (talk · contribs)
  7. FamicomJL (talk · contribs)
  8. GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs)
  9. Gavyn Sykes (talk · contribs)
  10. Hezekiah957 (talk · contribs)
  11. The Hybrid (talk · contribs)
  12. Justa Punk (talk · contribs)
  13. Kris Classic (talk · contribs)
  14. LAX (talk · contribs)
  15. MPJ-DK (talk · contribs)
  16. Mshake3 (talk · contribs)
  17. Nahallac Silverwinds (talk · contribs)
  18. Nikki311 (talk · contribs)
  19. Odin's Beard (talk · contribs)
  20. {PayneXKiller (talk · contribs)
  21. Spike7000 (talk · contribs)
  22. ThinkBlue (talk · contribs)
  23. TJ Spyke (talk · contribs)
  24. Truco9311 (talk · contribs)
  25. Zenlax (talk · contribs)

I frankly think that the above 23 would be the only people to answer the recall... Lex T/C Guest Book 12:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

there's absolutely no arguing that. Hardyboyz27 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
but then again, what about Skitzo? Hardyboyz27 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Who's Skitzo? I checked up the name and it's some guy who did 21 edits in 2005 to Pink Floyd, James O'Brien, Steve McQueen and Trailer Park Boys Lex T/C Guest Book 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, why aren't I on that list? :P Sorry, just been busy lately, with the Christmas season coming up and all. And I've been focusing on one article lately. That's probably the reason why other members have dissappeared, the Christmas season has slowed some of us down. Regards, FamicomJL (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Famicom. You belong on that list. That'd make it 24! Lex T/C Guest Book 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

just wondering. why aren't I on that list either? i would say that I contribute just as much as some other people on that list. just wondering =] Hardyboyz27 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, why did you revert my comment? Hezekiah957 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
because this topic was something worth reading, and i just think that anyone who views the page should be able to read everything discussed. if there was a problem with me reverting it, go right ahead and change it back. thanks =] Hardyboyz27 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Original post pasted below. Was removed by User:Hardyboyz27:
'I'm not even in the project, but I made it on the list. Awesome (not sarcastic, I've been thinking I should join). Hezekiah957 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)'
Do you mean to say that my comment wasn't worth reading? That's the message I take from the first part of your reply. Your second part confuses me more, as it seems to imply that you didn't think that anything should be removed from the page: "anyone... should be able to read everything discussed." I didn't simply do a revert, as it would have messed with other people's recent changes. Hezekiah957 (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because some of us don't post a dozen things a day here, it doesn't mean we aren't doing things for the project. And by the way, 26 active members on the talk page is EXTREMELY good for WikiProjects. Most I'm part of only have a few active members. -- Scorpion0422 20:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Skitzo, though my official username is User:Skitzouk. I edit WWE and TNA pages all the time but i don't always check on here to my shame, though i'm making an effort to change that Skitzo (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I certainly would answer the recall, then again, I am a newer member to the project.LessThanClippers (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no point to this. The criteria for membership only states that you add your name to a list. This idea would remove people who don't get the newsletter, are on vacation, are on wikibreaks, aren't currently active, don't feel like responding, forget to respond, etc. There's no harm in having a large number of people listed as members. I think you're completely wrong about your list of people who would respond. There are many more active members than you have listed, but only a handful that post here on a regular basis. If I were one of the ones who was excluded, I'd be offended that you seemed to want to drop me from the project because I don't post on this talk page often enough. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. There are a lot of other things to do in the world besides posting on this page and editing the articles. Aside from other hobbies and interests, I'm sure a lot of editors have other responsibilities that have to come before this, which means that participation in posting on this page isn't really a top priority. It's that way for me sometimes and sometimes, I just don't feel like responding. I'm sure it's the same for a lot of others. The fact that some post and contribute to this page more than others is irrelevant. Contributing is supposed to be something that's fun, a useful and constructive way to pass the time. The minute it starts feeling like a job or something that you have to do otherwise risk getting kicked outta the club or whatever, it loses it's appeal fast.Odin's Beard (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, FIRST OF ALL? WHEN IN GOD'S NAME DID I SAY THAT THE MEMBERS THAT DO NOT ANSWER THE RECALL WOULD BE TAKEN OFF THE PROJECT? The caps are indeed for shouting, because I find it completely ridiculous for you to assume that. I was just referring to having an active members list to understand who is currently working in the project. Please, next time get your facts straight, and don't put words in my mouth.* Lex T/C Guest Book 03:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • -Put words in my mouth is a common saying and shall not be taken literally, because I am indeed TYPING, and not using my MOUTH. A correct term would be "Do not insert characters in my text"; but it would lose the enphasis.
Other projects have active and inactive lists so I don't see a problem. I would be on the list but I haven't had regular internet access for three months, that situation should change in the new year. I agree with the idea for an active members list. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cruiserweight Title

There is a WWE.com source that states that the title may only be challenged by wrestling weighing 215 lbs or less. WWE.com botched their own page, as both Chavo and Helms were billed at exactly 220 lbs during their reigns. Unforunately, there is no source for it being 220, despite it being the correct weight. So I'm not sure where to go from here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show me this source. I've always known the CW Championship to be contested with wrestlers 220 and under. Lex T/C Guest Book 10:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.wwe.com/shows/thegreatamericanbash/matches/42789824/results/ Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't take it as a source, as it could have been an error from writer Mike McAvennie. Lex T/C Guest Book 20:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It was announced as 215 by the ring announcer at the show too.«»bd(talk stalk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What show? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could someone with more time and the energy to do so take a look at Senshi's article and remove the extraneous moves? There are about twenty-five listed and I've not seen the man wrestle often, so I can't be sure what should be removed. Thanks, I'd appreciate it. Then I'll go through it and finish off my work on the move links for the rest of the TNA Roster. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone please help me out. I really have no desire to fix all those move links when most of them should likely be removed in the first place. I've honestly not seen Senshi wrestle all that much, could someone please just scan the article and delete the unnecessary moves? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
These are the only for off the top of my head that i've never seen him use, but very likely could have:
Final Four (Elevated cloverleaf)
Iron Octopus (Head scissors armbar)
Soaring Dragon Special (Cartwheel into over the top rope corkscrew suicide senton or suicide plancha)
Dragon Wings (Double underhook suplex floating into a double underhook lock)
A few of them are listed by names i've never heard them called by, but he's wrestled in several different promotions over the years so i don't really doubted they've been called that. Nenog (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Nenog, that's a start. Hopefully there's someone who has seen him compete in ROH that can help weed the rest out. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The rest he did use in ROH, just not all weren't under the names listed (most didn't have a name). Go to Low Ki's website and click on "Technique", he has several of his moves listed with the names (complete with the "Iron Octopus", so it stays). Nenog (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll handle that later. I've completed the rest of the TNA Roster. After I do Senshi's article, I'll get back to improving WM23. Any help with that would be appreciated, especially when it comes to sourcing :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Warriors Way/Ghetto Stomp is still his finisher.LessThanClippers (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Kane and The Big Show

Just came across this. Couldn't the info in the article easily be merged into Kane's and Big Show's article? They only were together for a few months, so are they really notable for their own article? I was going to prod it, but there might be multiple different opinions on this. Davnel03 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it was a long reign (five months). Mshake3 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If they go, then so should Rated-RKO. Mshake3 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the deciding factor for tag team articles should be: were they an actual team or were they two people who just happened to team together? That's why teams like Rated-RKO or Brothers of Destruction should stay...they were definitely a team. If they happened to be two individuals who just happened to briefly unite and win the title, the article should probably be deleted like the "John Cena and Shawn Michaels" article. Nikki311 19:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

They were a tag team. They weren't just some main eventers uniting like Shawn Michaels and Cena, Mysterio and Edge or The Rock and Taker. Others that should deserve their own article are MVP and Matt Hardy, cuz they acted as a tag team, and MVP even proclaimed himself "captain of the team"; and Morrison and Miz, who have been called M&M over the internet, are a team, current WWE Tag Champs, and popular enough for an article. Lex T/C Guest Book 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Eugene and William Regal along with potentionally King Booker's Court could be deleted. A load of the Court article looks like a load of info that has nothing to do with when the group was "officially" together. In fact, were they ever called "King Booker's Court"? Davnel03 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they were offically called "King Booker's Court" (I haven't missed an episode of RAW or SmackDown! in about 3 years nor have I missed an episode of ECW since it began airing, I tape them and watch them the next day or so if I'm not home when they air). This terminology was also used on WWE.com and repeated by the announcers, in back stage interview segments and proclaimed by King Booker himself several times on SmackDown!. The court consisted of Booker, Sharmell, William Regal, Finlay and Hornswoggle if I remember correctly. Hornswoggle might have still been "Little Bastard" at the time though. I also agree with Nikki's definition of how notability should work for tag teams. The same would go for stables in my opinion. --Naha|(talk) 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it is too soon to tell on Morrison and the Miz. I don't really watch SmackDown! very often because it comes on while I'm at work, so I'm not sure about King Booker's Court...the same goes for Hardy and MVP. However, I agree that the Eugene and Regal stuff can be covered in their respective articles and that article can be deleted. Nikki311 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion. Davnel03 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

RAW or Raw?

Which one is it? Mainly for the PPV articles. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, and I think it was decided that when refering to the name of the TV show (i.e. WWE Raw/WWE Sunday Night Heat/WWE Friday Night SmackDown!), it should be called "Raw", but when it is refering to the "brand" (i.e. "Shawn Michaels is apart of the 'RAW' brand") it should be noted as "RAW". Similar to as SmackDown!, you wouldnt say (Batista is apart of the "Friday Night SmackDown brand",... just "SmackDown". {{{{MY OPINION}}}}--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, cause TJ Spyke keeps changing Raw to RAW. And I need to know which one it is. And I've seen that December to Dismember is a FA article and I'm getting the pointers from there, but the change keeps happening. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well this issue had never fully been resolved, because in superstar pages some of them read as "currently signed to........on it's 'Raw' brand", I would put up a poll and let WP:PW members vote on how it should be noted in superstar pages because when refering to the TV show itself it should be "Raw" but the brand is "RAW". What do you think?TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, WWE.com has referred Raw, the results of Monday Night Raw and RAW for the brand. I prefer adding Raw to the PPV's instead of RAW. RAW would work like throughout weeks on RAW, DX..... You know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what WWE refers to it as. WP:MOSTM and WP:MOSCL says it's Raw regardless. I had to revert TJ Spyke a number of times on the same issue.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright, all I needed to know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Armageddon 2007

Here. Lex T/C Guest Book 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Most links have been converted. Mshake3 (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

help

How do you make certain things go in a particular order in sortable wikitables, for example the months of the year. Lets say I wanted February to start first, what would I do?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Try here: [2]. If you need help on a particular table, just ask. Take a look at the tables at List of Virtual Console games (North America) for an example. TJ Spyke 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Couldnt find anything.
Month $
January 5.00
February 10.00
March 12.00
May 6.20
September 5.32
November 4.12
December 8.20

How would I be able to order this by the months order? (i.e. So January will come first, and December would come last, not by alpahbetical order but my the order of the months [[when you push the sort button])TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a standard, but my technique is to add {{sort|01|January}}. I'e implemented it on the table. -- Scorpion0422 19:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Active members list

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list/Active

If you are currently editing and improving pro wrestling articles, please add yourself to the above list. Lex T/C Guest Book 04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is this necessary? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
See the discussion above, and most other projects have active and inactive members lists. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Even though a lot of projects have them, I wouldnt like to use "Everyone does it, so should we" as a reason (...cuz then murder and/or drugs would be acceptable). But yeah, you made a great point, because the reason all the projects have them are because they are very useful. When a non-project member requests/needs a member of WP:PW, they should check the active list and not the full one (the full one might even include people who have retired from wiki). And if in any case, we need a big team of members to help on something (the portal is a good example), we have the list. Hopefully, people who don't post on the talk page regularly will put themselves on the list, and we'd find more active members.Lex T/C Guest Book 14:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/In Your House 1/archive1

I've put In Your House 1 up for Peer review. Comments and problems appreciated, Davnel03 09:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sting: Moment of Truth

Just letting ya know. Davnel03 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

'Nother AFD. Davnel03 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You're going AFD crazy lol Lex T/C Guest Book 20:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but some shouldn't create non-notable articles, thats the only reason for the AFD rampage! Davnel03 20:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Roster Update

Since the little issue with the references with the list, I have made changes to the list in my sanbox. Check it out here and comment here or my sandbox's talk page about the changes. Cheers! =)TrUcO9311 T / GB 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Did we really need four different sections on this one frickin article?!?!? Nonetheless, I'll check it out. Mshake3 (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
1, the tables look awful. You don't need to table everything! Two, the sources are still inaccurate. You're linking to the bios. What does that tell me regarding what roster they're on? Just use the main superstar pages and cite those numerous times. Mshake3 (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
What is with people and “every article has to have inline citations not matter what”. WP:V states “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation”, and all you are focused on are the wrestlers. Now tell me, out of these two which is more likely to be challenged: “Triple H is a wrestler for the WWE” or “Lou D’Angeli is the Director of Promotions & Event Marketing for WWE”? Every single source you are using comes from WWE.com and OWW.com, both of which are already listed. The rosters themselves aren't being composed from several different sources, so you can just put each roster section from WWE.com (along with OVW and FCW’s rosters pages) and the OWW.com pages in the references section and use that. And $50 bucks says if you ask an administrator they will tell you that is acceptable. Nenog (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! The general roster pages will cover most of the wrestlers. Use inlines for everything else. Mshake3 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You guys are full of it but fine, I really dont think that 4 Sources will make that list a FL, but I will go to the trouble to find sources for the brand rosters in general. Happy Milkshake?TrUcO9311 T / GB 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That's Master Shake to you buddy! Mshake3 (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That is why you should ask if you don't know]] Nenog (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
"::Well my bad "MASTER SHAKE"? So "Master Shake", will you at least help me find sources for the rosters in general?TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You can start here. Nenog (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well in one of your many, many sections about this article, I've suggested (several times in fact) using this, along with the other roster pages. Gee, wasn't that easy? Mshake3 (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Im planning on using those, now if I have like 5 sources for each brand will people complain that it look's ugly?(general question, has happened before)--TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Better than the 50 you have now. Mshake3 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop it right now. Everyone here knows both of your opinions on the matter, very well at this point, so please cut it out. --Naha|(talk) 13:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Roster is obviously not just for wrestlers; it's for all contracted talent. http://www.wwe.com/superstars does not assure us that the superstars have a talent contract. Ron Simmons is on the page, and yet he has a Legends Contract; same as Stone Cold. Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler are also on the page, but the page does not specify if they are talent or announcers. So, the WWE.com Rosters Page is invalid. Lex T/C Guest Book 15:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Then you use additional citations, perhaps in this case their bios, for them to clarify their actual position in the company. God damn, this isn't one or the other folks. Use the general refs for MOST of the talent, and use inline citations for everyone else. Mshake3 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It is getting to the point where I don't even want to come back and participate in the project because of the incivility that has been going on the last few days/weeks. I've been poking my head in now and then to try to keep up with what everyone is working on so I'm not totally lost when I can make a full return. The bad language, the bad attitudes, the "I own this article" and "my way or the highway" type thinking has all gotten way out of control here among several users. I'm not the only one who is tired of the bickering, trash talking and lack of cooperation. I again urge everyone who has been editing in this manner lately to stop it now, please. You are hurting yourselves, the project and Wikipedia as a whole by doing so - it is unproductive and makes people not want to work with you because they'd just rather "avoid getting into it with you." If there are particular articles that are the main sources of all of this negativity, then stop working on them. Find something else to do for now. Revisit them in a few weeks when you have had time to cool off. Its just not worth it folks. And we can't afford to lose good editors over pettyness. --Naha|(talk) 21:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone finally said it. This is getting tiresome. And we don't want to lose any productive editor in the project, you included, Naha. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The project's redirects

Apparently other non-WP:PW members opposed to the redirects, and the result was deleted because no one opposed as no one was notified of this. How do we challenge it now?--TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What redirects? -- Scorpion0422 04:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I assume you are talking about the Major Brothers. What's happening is that since you did a copy and past move, non-admins can't move the article back. So what's happening is that Major Brothers will be deleted, and then The Edge-heads (which has the edit history of the Major Brothers article) will be moved back. The end result is that the article will on the team will be back at Major Brothers with its edit history intact. Nothing controversial. TJ Spyke 04:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Like the redirects to the project like WPT:PW [[wpt pw]](nowiki'd by User:Jerry per RFD) WP:PW they were opposed and/or deleted.--TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
GO here for the discussion on it.--TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that a big deal? What's wrong with WP:PW and WT:PW? -- Scorpion0422 04:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
oh i didnt kno those existed, thanx for informing me. Then forget about the other ones.TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who finally had WPT:PW deleted after a Hornetman sock restored it as a listed redirect. See Wikipedia:Shortcut for the standards. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 06:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Cruiserweight Championship

(sorry, fourth new topic started in a row by me). The Cruiserweight title, as you guys know has been vacated now for three months. As it has been vacated for several months now and not one single mention of it has been made on WWE TV of it since, I really think in the infobox of the article, I think the status should be changed from "Vacated" to "Inactive - Status Unknown". It's pretty obvious that they have dropped the title, and we can't keep it listed as "Vacated" for ever, can we? Davnel03 20:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you are right, it cant stay vacted forever, I like your idea of "inactive-status unknown". Despite I got my info from a dirt sheet site, I read that WWE had plans on dropping the WWE Cruiserweight Championship and then replacing it with a brand new one in like 2008. Apparently they were some what 50% right.:p...but yea lets go with your idea D.M.N--TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
As no one has objeced to this, I'm going to be bold and change it. Cheers, Davnel03 17:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Briscoe Brothers, Don Kent (wrestler), King of the Ring (1994), Mickie James, and WrestleMania III

The above articles have been at GAN for some time now, and no one has reviewed them. What are we supposed to do with these articles? Have them sleep eternally at GAN? Because only people interested in wrestling would review them... and all people interested in wrestling on Wikipedia, are part of WP:PW... and if someone from WP:PW reviews them, some people would accuse of violating WP:COI! Lex T/C Guest Book 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You can always ask ask a GA member to review the articles. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not entirely true. There is significant back log there, so they'll get to them eventually. A couple of weeks ago, someone not in WP:PW reviewed the Amy Dumas article. Sometimes it just takes awhile. Nikki311 23:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The major problem involves that there are 40+ articles in the Sports section, 21 (at least last time I checked) of them nominated by the same user, most of them are not even close to the GA standards but just the quantity repels any reviewer away. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
King of the Ring (1994) was listed 10 days ago. I listed it after Royal Rumble (1994) was promoted after being on the list a very short time. I would hardly consider that "sleeping eternally." GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lex, if have a problem with the process, why don't you review some articles to try and get rid of the backlog? Why don't you review articlest that have nothing to do with wrestling. In return, they might review one of the above mentioned articles. Davnel03 11:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, when someone bolds words in a sentence, they are usually trying to make a point; and I really don't appreciate someone speaking to me that way :-D. And yeah, on Saturday, I am going to review a lot of articles (trying to get on the top 5 reviewers). Have I ever said I wasn't going to? No; so don't make comments with absoulutely no foundation. Lex T/C Guest Book 13:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, kind of like how earlier today, you, Alex, replied to one of my comments in all capital letters (and clarified that "[t]he caps are indeed for shouting") and bolded font because you thought my concern was "ridiculous"? Kind of like the whole "treat others the way you would complain about them treating you" thing, isn't it? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Some people deserve it when they start putting words in someone's mouth, assuming things they shouldn't and not reading the complete context of other's comments... and you also caught me at a time when I was wikistressed.Lex T/C Guest Book 15:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't deserve a reply like that. You're trying to overload this project with bureaucracy, and it's completely unnecessary. Stress is no excuse--if you're stressed, take a break. It would also help you out if you learned to treat Wikipedia as a hobby rather than a job. And when hobbies get bogged down in bureaucracy, it's time to take a break. My advice:
  1. Apologize for your attitude.
  2. Don't criticize people for doing the same thing you're doing.
  3. Calm down and stop trying to run this project.
  4. If you want people to do GA reviews, don't constantly attack them like you've been doing in the WrestleMania III review.
You're welcome. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, No. I will not apologize for my answer because of your ignorance and laziness to read the above comments during our conversation, which you replied with an over 500 character statement, which shows about "how much you hate the fact of kicking people out of "the club" just because they don't post on the talk page". The worst part was that another editor agreed with you (you made him think that that was what I was trying to say). And the fact that I never mentioned anything similar, completely gives me the right to be upset, regardless of what you think.
  • Second of all, I did not criticize Davnel for acting uncivil, because he was NOT acting uncivil. I only commented that he was seeming to, completely in contrast with what he was trying to say. However, he did make the same mistake you did in "assuming" things that you have no right to assume.
  • Calm down and stop trying to run this project? Now you're just being outright ridiculous. If you think I am trying to run this project, then you are completely assuming things you shouldn't assume. (You have a problem with assuming, huh?) I do not try to run this project, and mostly everyone here knows that I try to help, edit and improve the encyclopedia in any way possible. You do the same, but you think you do so much better than anyone else here in the project, which causes you to believe you have some authority over others; or this is what you imply with most of your comments.
  • I did not attack the editor. I calmly assured him that I did not imply to be mean, and that I might have done it accidentally. However, when I spoke to you in our above conversation about the members recall, I was intentionally angry.

Cheers and Happy Editing, Lex T/C Guest Book 01:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Children, please stop. -- Scorpion0422 01:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Major Brothers have their own articles

(Just letting you all know that) I am currently working on making seperate article for Matt Cardona (Brett/Zach) and for Brian Myers(Brian/Curt) in my sandbox.TrUcO9311 T / GB 14:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should split them up, as they would basically be duplicates of each other, as they have teamed together for the vast majority of their wrestling career. The Highlanders also do not have seperate articles. Davnel03 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If you say so..--TrUcO9311 T / GB 15:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Same with the Briscoe Brothers and they've been around considerably longer. -- Scorpion0422 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the article right now. As far as I can tell, Talk:The Major Brothers should be deleted and redirected to Talk:Major Brothers. How does one go about doing that? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Be BOLD. It's not controversial, so I just did it myself and turned it into a redirect. TJ Spyke 23:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. It wasn't a lack of boldness on my part. It was a lack of knowledge (how to create a redirect and whether the talk pages needed to be merged). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_37&oldid=1190114030"