Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 51

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

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

→

Hardcore Holly and Cody Rhodes

I started to try working on creating their article here, but I haven't really had time to work on it. If anybody is willing to help write the article, please let me know. King iMatthew 20 08 11:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikieditor222

Has continued on, and added World Wrestling Entertainment to the waiting list. King iMatthew 20 08 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No way is the article ready. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Nikki311 01:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should remove this and Glen Jacobs from the waiting list. King iMatthew 20 08 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You can if you want to, I guess, but leave him a note telling him why. Also, point out a few really good examples of what a Good Article looks like, so he can better judge. Nikki311 01:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, they're removed, but "they're not ready yet" was the only explanation given, and no specific examples of high-quality Good Articles were given. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Nikki told him what examples there are to get the article to GA. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago I left a list of things to do to fix Glen Jacobs to help get it ready for GA (User talk:Wikieditor222#Good Article nominations). Nikki311 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he doesn't listen and continues with adding articles that are not ready for GA, then I guess I can probably help with getting what Nikki said. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

Just to notify all, this article has been semi-protected for one whole month. ;) King iMatthew 20 08 12:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this should be semi-protected indefinitely, but for now, let's enjoy the month. King iMatthew 20 08 13:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll drink to that! Z AC H 17:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Newsletter

Can we have like a "This Month in History" section, th reason I bring this up is because today marks the ninth anniversary of Owen Harts Death, and It would be nice to see that in the newsletter as a tribute, and then we can have major important events in other editions, ex. creation of WWE Championship, the Brand Extension, etc. Thoughts?--S R X 03:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good, only where to find the facts.. King iMatthew 20 08 11:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, occassionally, WrestlingNewsWorld does "Today In Wrestling History", like for May 22, [1], where they list relevant info, like title changes, etc. Porblem is, they do it kind of randomly, I mean they did one on May 19, but before that it was March 20. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't for Hart's death we can easily source it with his Biography.com page, or SLAM Wrestling.S R X 14:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WrestleView has a feature on Hart. They reproduce it every year. D.M.N. (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a site that looks promising. Check out Today in Wrestling History. At the bottom, you can choose the month and leave it set to "all days" and "all years". GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great. We should add it to the newsletter!!--S R X 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New Collaborations of the Week

The new collaborations for the project are Rick Rude, which is currently a Start-class article, and Carly Colón, a Good Article that is our Featured Article Collaboration of the Week. It would be great if everyone could help out a bit, especially those who voted to make these the collaborations. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed Rick Rude to B-Class as it has recieved substancial improvements. This could make it's way to FA-Class easier than some of the rest as it won't have daily edits/edit wars made to the page. D.M.N. (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do FLC's have to be put on the waiting list?

Do they?--S R X 00:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever discussed it. I suppose it would be best if you let the project know which list(s) you plan to nominate so that people can look them over. I don't think it would take a full week, though, as there is considerably less text. Maybe a shorter waiting period (2-3 days?)... GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any PW FLCs right now, so why should there be a waiting period? Before you nominate it, please be aware that there is an enormous backlog at WP:FLC and some have been there 20 days and have gotten a sum total of 1 comment. So, if you do nominate it and nobody comments, please do not assume that it is because everyone is biased against wrestling (and then ask every member to come and support). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If many FLCs are kept for 20 days with one comment, I'm sure that project members would simply expect the same (that is, that lists nominated by this project not be closed after 10 days [or less, as the case has been] because of lack of comments). As for asking members to come and support, you know very well that it has never happened. People have requested that others look and comment (and the occasional request has gone a little far and included a mention that more support votes are needed if it is to pass, but I don't recall any incidents in which a support vote has been specifically requested (and certainly not asking "every member" to come and support"). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just saying that I'm sick of members blaming failed FLC/FACs on a supposed anti-PW bias and pointing out that a lack of reviews is a process-wide problem right now. I'm also sick of having this vote stacking discussion every time as well, and I seem to remember one member demanding that at least two project members support one FLC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. It's become clear that we disagree, but I believe that your pre-emptive comments don't do much toward assuming good faith and remaining civil. Like I said, if everyone else is given 20 days and so are we, we would clearly have nothing to complain about. However, as in the case of recent nominees, the problems have been (1) that the discussions have been closed early [~ seven days], (2) the concerns were actively being dealt with, and (3) opposed voters had been contacted to revisit the article to examine the changes, but they weren't given a chance because of the early close. As for canvassing, it's true that one member did "insist" that two project members vote, but the editor also made it clear that the votes did not have to be support votes. I do agree, however, that the demand went too far. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the question about why there should be a waiting period, it would simply give another editor or two another chance to look it over in advance. There may be minor prose fixes necessary, or the other editor might know about a more reliable source for the information. I don't know if there's a need for a specific waiting period, but advance notice (eg. I plan to nominate Article X soon) would be nice. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And that member being me, but back then I was unaware of all these policies, but now I know that what I did was wrong. I plan on nominating List of WCW World Tag Team Champions, once its complete. Also after the 2007 WWE Draft and the 2005 WWE Draft's peer reviews are over, I plan on nominating them, that's if no one disagrees with it. I think the FLC's should be put like GCF said, 2-3 days. As for Scorpion, I've learned from the past, and what you pointed out above about me, will not happen again. But if I do nominated the above articles, I would understand why it would fail/pass, due to the backlog.--S R X 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Steel Cage capitalized?

Is it? Talk:Starrcade (1987)

RandySavageFTW (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I remember per one of my previous Peer Reviews that matches without a gimmick name should not be capitalized all the way, it should be Steel cage match. Unlike TNA, where they call it Six Sides of Steel, which should be capitalized all the way, since its a different name, but still a steel cage.--S R X 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was "Steel Cage match." –Cheers, L A X 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I always thought so too.SimonK S K 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Or I may be wrong, but I think it has to be Steel Cage match because that's the way they spell it hereS R X 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On that page, "Match" is also title case. Note that they have "Superstar" in title case. Having "Steel cage match" (and that's not at the start of a sentence) just wouldn't make sense. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it: Common terms in professional wrestling would not be considered proper nouns but would rather be considered as jargon (or slang) and left uncapitalized. This is seen with other professional wrestling slang and move names. An example would be how "Stone Cold Stunner" is a proper noun but "stunner" has been adopted as a common term and left uncapitalized. As steel cage matches are common, it should be left uncapitalized while Elimination Chamber matches are exclusive to WWE and left a a proper noun (capitalized). --13 of Diamonds (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this makes the most sense. I've had reviewers question why I capitalized so many words. I have stopped capitalizing move names altogether (with exceptions, as 13 of Diamonds mentioned, like Irish whip) and match names that do not include proper nouns (eg. Province of Quebec rules, Hell in a Cell, etc.), as I agree that there is no need to capitalize something like "splash" or "handicap match". GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Draft Help

Okay, Matt gave me a good idea, to place the 2007 WWE Draft and the 2005 WWE Draft for peer review, found here and here, so they can pass the next time they go to FLC. Plus, so it can become a featured topic, as every draft has an article now, as the 2004 WWE Draft is currently being constructed. The thing is, from the original FLC for the 2007 WWE Draft, the article failed because it received few media attention, which I find redundant, its entertainment for goodness sake. But aside from that, I know that WWE uses the Draft to increase ratings, but I cant find a reliable source, that states that, or that states reasons for the draft? Any one know where I can find this?--S R X 18:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad I noticed this, because your draft articles need a lot of work. The 02 extension had the list out of order. The 05 trade was listed as five individual trades, when it was just one. A lot of work is required. Mshake3 (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok man I am tired of you always ranting about my work, as if I don't do a good job around here. If you are Mr. Know it all, go ahead and do the work on your own, because I wrote those articles a long time ago, and I followed what sources said. --SRX^--^Latino Heat 20:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no doubt you followed the sources. But you didn't read them correctly. Some how, in your previous setup, Raw got two straight picks! This made the rest of the list out-of-sync, as evidenced by the part where Bubba Ray and D-Von were three selections apart, when they were actually picked one after the other in a span of 30 seconds! Then there's the trades. Your setup makes it seem like they were all one-on-one, when that's obviously not what happened. It seems like you're taking the format of the 07 draft, and applying that format exactly to the previous ones, when they were vastly different! You're doing a good job with table formatting, but when it comes to knowledge of the storylines, you, or whoever, are way off. Mshake3 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:72.179.128.217

This IP is claiming here that he is Lance Cade. How do we go about this? iMatthew _T._C. 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt it, why would Lance Cade be on Wiki on the first place (IMO), this is just an IP claiming to be Cade.--S R X 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You never know, I doubt it as well though. iMatthew _T._C. 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would he waste his time explaining on the talk page, instead of doing it himself?--S R X 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if he was Cade, he probably wouldn't have the time, nor the knowledge on how to edit a page correctly, as that was the first edit to the IP address. Although the location given here suggests that it is not Cade. iMatthew _T._C. 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't impossible. We once had a user claiming to be Shad Gaspard. He actually proved it by taking a picture of himself holding DMN's username on a piece of paper. It was him. Oddly enough, he vandalized my userpage. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking of/about. We'll see if he returns and makes more edits. iMatthew _T._C. 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if it is him, and we need proof, I call having him hold my username up on a piece of paper! ;) iMatthew _T._C. 21:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, is there a link to that discussion?S R X 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Only record I have is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AGavyn_Sykes&diff=169440216&oldid=169439830 - which shows him vandalizing my page. Ask DMN about the rest, see if he still has the pic. His talk page archives might have a conversation or two as well. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) I'm surprised you've never heard about that. Anyway, I believe it is still up at User:Bmg916;s talk page. iMatthew _T._C. 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I don't have one single picture whatsoever to do with Shad. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It was actually Bmg916 that Shad send the picture to. iMatthew _T.C. 19:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I remember DMN being the one that told me about it, and I guess I misremembered that as it was his picture. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wade Keller

An interesting note, we now have somebody claiming to be Wade Keller (editor of the PWTorch newsletter) has edited wikipedia. [2] I reverted an editor attempting to add week by week results to Deuce 'n Domino and an hour later a user named WadeKellerTourch08 showed up and said "Un-Did revision by Scorpion. Noteable as I included it my Torch Newsletter recapping the events". Something tells that the real Wade Keller would spell Torch in his name the correct way. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

But then again, they could be intelligent, and just use that as a way to make it out of the obvious, its all possible, it could be and it cant be.--S R X 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It`s just gotten more interesting. Now another user, WadeKeller2008, has shown up and claims the other one is fake and that he is the REAL Keller. [3]. They both keep readding stuff first added by EverythingDies (talk · contribs) so I think it is safe to say they are all socks of eachother. Is it worth reporting this, or should we just wait until tomorrow and hope the user has lost interest by then? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I say wait till tomorrow, stuff like this usually lasts for a day, but just to be sure, if not, we can report it.S R X 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found another one, also claiming to be Wade Keller here, User:WadeKeller2012. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think it's safe to say it's a "sock puppet", and it might nott be of the same person it could be someone that saw it and is starting to do it as well. Z AC H 18:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Intercontinental Title Article

I have made numerous edit listing as a name for the IC Title, the Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship. It was been edited out numerous times by Darrenhusted. I have provided indisputable video proof of the old name through a video I put up from WrestleMania 1. His rationale is that it's a "bootleg" and it shouldn't count as a reliable source even though it's in there in both spoken and graphic form. My notes on it are in the articles discussion page. This needs to be discussed because ignoring indisputable video evidence because of it's source is still ignoring indisputable video evidence. When indisputable proof is shown and and someone edits it away, it's just plain ignorance of the truth and putting up false information. Something needs to be done about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Twice is not numerous [4] [5]. And all I'm asking for are some reliable sources. Daily motion and a title histories site with hundreds of pop-ups are not RS and I am not the only one.Darrenhusted (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If a video is your evidence, then cite the actual broadcast, or even the VHS/DVD. Mshake3 (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The belt certainly used to say Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship [6] [7], but I don't know if that means it was the official name or not--Apsouthern (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While you can't put too much emphasis on the text on the belt, if the video shows that name in other means, then that's good enough. "Bootleg?" Pathetic excuse. Mshake3 (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You have no problem with illegally uploaded copyrighted material? And you feel that this would be a good enough source? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If the championship was refered to that in WWF broadcasts in the 80s, and the video evidence was there, then yes, that would be good enough for me. The only reason this user and myself are forced to use illegal videos is because people like you are stubbornly obsessed with internet written sources being the only allowable source. There's really no debate here. If that's what the video shows, then that's what it was. Mshake3 (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the video, and he's 100% right. It's an alternate name. I added it to the infobox with a reliable source, the DVD release. Removing reliably sourced content will be considered vandalism. Mshake3 (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad we got this taken care of. Like I said, it doesn't matter where the video came from. It's a WWF broadcast and the evidence is right there. And to think this article got me so riled up last night.SChaos1701 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)SChaos1701

Here we go again - "Bootleg" makes the point invalid? that's retarded. it's not a valid reference in itself but then you can easily site the video - it's not like someone went in and edited it before they "bootlegged it". Maybe you need a better, more intelligent argument? Maybe to say "It's not a valid reference" not the "It's not reliable", it works better if the argument makes sense. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing an illegal video is illegal because citing it violates the copyright as much as the video does. Besides, it as a source is unreliable because it can disappear at any time. Is the point valad, yes, but it breaks the law to cite that video. I've been through this before with at least one of you. You may not like this fact, it may not be all cute and cuddly and convenient, but it is a fact. -The Hybrid- 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 43#A new ruling has been established. -The Hybrid- 03:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works - "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." -The Hybrid- 03:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The video itself can not be used as a source, that is true, but it is reliable. Omitting information that is factual because of a lack of a "correct" source is however not the correct action to take. If the information is valid, it can be added with a source pending that can be linked to (or simply the broadcast itself). There is a big difference between being unreliable and being unusable. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I read that old archive, and I must say there was a ridiculous amount of policy wonkery being thrown around. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) Mshake ended up finding the solution to this whole debacle (that he also applied here) in that dispute, so the issue of not being able to use the correct information isn't a problem. However, like you said, the usable sources be proven wrong is a case where WP:IAR is satisfied, though the information would have to be left unsourced. And for the record, WONKery is almost unavoidable in that kind of situation. -The Hybrid- 04:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a little ridiculous that because it comes from YouTube that we have to pretend that what happened didn't actually happen. The point of this site is to provide FACT.SChaos1701 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just do what Mshake does; cite the actual episode instead of the video. -The Hybrid- 07:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is what {{cite episode}} is for, you can make a citation of the episode and you don't need to link to the website hosting the actual video. Shame on those who think remove facts from articles on the basis of the video being copyrighted; WP:IAR for the sake of accuracy. — Κaiba 17:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Images

Hi, I have spent some time over the last week adding infoboxes to Tag Team/Stable articles that were missing them, and noticed that a lot of the articles don't have images. I am confused about the whole "fair use" rationale for images and was hoping someone could clarify something for me.

For example, The Rockers article has no image, and the Tag Team are disbanded. Would I be able to take an image from WWE.com (in low resolution as per above) like image 45 here [8] and upload it for the article? If so, would the rationale from [[9]] be acceptable?

If someone can clear this up for me then I am probably going to go through as many of the articles with missing images and see what I can fill in, but obviously I don't want to go through all that only for them to be deleted.--Apsouthern (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A non-free use image can be used in articles if it meets these requirements: Non-free content policy. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The one big rule is that you can't use a fair-use image just to show who a person is, which is why you won't see those types in the infobox. Mshake3 (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, that would make sense as to why there are so many without images. OK, I'll leave it for now and work on something else - thanks for the clarification--Apsouthern (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images can be tricky and the policy page can be confusing to someone new to the policy, let me know and I'll help you with fair use images. — Κaiba 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Ohio

Pro Wrestling Ohio is a Wrestling company in... you guest it Ohio, they have had wrestlers on such as Colin Delaney, and Mdogg20 I think he wrestled in Ring of Honor for a while under a different name. I think it need's a article. I would love to create the article, if somebody would like to help co write it with me or what ever that would be great, just somebody let me know if it deserves one. Z AC H 15:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It has three hundred thousand google hits. Z AC H 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno what your talking about. It has 2 million Google hits. D.M.N. (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I count 360,000.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

An exact search gives only 892 on page 1, with 146 once you take out duplicates. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

O, O.k. Any way is it notable enough for a article? Z AC H 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it notable, you can create it in your sandbox as long as you source everything, and adhere to a Neutral Point of View in your text. After your done, you can present it here and we will see how it looks.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Image questions

Now there is a comment on SummerSlam (1988)'s FAC about both images not meeting all the criteria. I can fix most of it, but I was wondering about low resolution. If I made the images smaller would that help? What is the acceptable size or pixel x pixel for an image to be considered low resolution. I looked through a bunch of Wikipedia guidelines, but I must have missed it. Nikki311 01:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Might this help? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the page, but I remember reading about it when I was working on SummerSlam (1993). To get the image within the limitations, it had to be less than 100,000 pixels. I went with 270x360, as that came to 97,200. The rules may have changed since then, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I've updated the images, so I think I have it all taken care of. Thanks for the replies. Nikki311 05:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the low resolution criteria is quite subjective. Basically, the resolution should be just high enough to convey its information. Here's an inactive Wikipedia page on this: Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution". For SummerSlam (1988), I suggest cropping the second image. By the way, why was the second image chosen to be included? I don't quite see the significance of the image to the article, at least relative to the other subjects that could be featured. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The climax/turning point of the main event was when Miss Elizabeth removed her skirt to distract the ref, so Hogan and Savage could execute their finishing moves and win. Images from the event are minimal, and I didn't have much choice, but I thought the one I chose at least had to do with that pivotal moment. If anyone can find a better image, I'm willing to switch it out....I'm not attached to it or anything. :) Nikki311 06:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't you take something from here: WWE's SummerSlam 1988 Photos page --13 of Diamonds (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this...I can't believe I missed those pictures in my quest to find images. I like the first one, so maybe I'll put that one in the article. Nikki311 19:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Member lists.

I've been thinking about a comment GCF made about the Active members list, and I'm beginning to agree with him. My opinion is that maybe we should delete the active members list, and keep the members list, but reduce that list only to active-semi active users; and remove users from that list that have been inactive for at least over a year, like some of them have. iMatthew _T._C. 10:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not an exclusive club, so I don't think we should remove people. Remember, the only requirement for belonging to this project is adding your name to the member's list. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but why list users as members of this project that never come to Wikipedia anymore. iMatthew _T._C. 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a sort list which lists members who have been inactive over a year? Darrenhusted (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing users as the same problem would start affecting the active members list in a year or so. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the list to avoid things like this happening by blocked socks. D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

New Template

I created a new template, Template:Infobox wrestling draft. This is how it would it look,

{{Infobox wrestling draft 
|name=2008 WWE Draft
|image=
|caption=
|promotion=[[World Wrestling Entertainment]]
|brand=[[WWE Raw|Raw]]<br>[[WWE Friday Night SmackDown|SmackDown]]<br>[[Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE)|ECW]]
|date=[[June 23]] [[2008]]
|venue=[[AT&T Center]]
|city=[[San Antonio, Texas]]
|attendance=40,000
|draftpicks=8
|superstarsdrafted=32
|televisionnetwork=[[USA Network]]
|televisionprogram=''[[WWE Raw|Raw]]''
|rating=2.5
|commentators=[[Jim Ross]] and [[Jerry Lawler]]
|lastdraft=[[2007 WWE Draft]]
|nextdraft=[[2009 WWE Draft]]
}}

Does it look good, any comments?

P.S. I took the templates of the PPVs and the SuperBowl as examples.--S R X 01:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as evidenced by the fact that it was removed, you can't use the show logos in the infobox. I would just stick with the current picture of a wrestler in the articles and add a line in the template for a caption (and stick with the same caption as already in the articles). Didn't one of the drafts happen over several episodes? What are you going to do for the venue, attendance, and city in those instances? I really don't think those are important to the draft anyway, so you might want to leave them out altogether (depending on others' comments of course). Other than that, I like it. Nikki311 05:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no benefit to a infobox for the draft pages. Mshake3 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to Nikki, I have added the caption parameter (though you can't see it because no image can be posted here, but I have tested it and it works). For the 2005 Draft, I will redirect it to the table for the locations, venues, dates. In response to Mshake3, why has it no benefit sir?S R X 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. For starters, WWE is the only wrestling promotion do these drafts, so there's no point to that. Listing the brands is like listing every team in the NFL or MLB (ie, a waste). Half the drafts take place over several days, so it would be a date range, which probably means you'll have a bunch of "see belows". Commentators? These shows feature all four or six of them. Most importantly, the draft is not an "event" like the professional drafts, or the PPVs. There are simply segments on Raw. Just a giant waste of space. Mshake3 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude you need to chilax, it was just a suggestion by an automated peer review to add an infobox, and Nikki and I thought it would have been a good idea. But it is an important event in the history of WWE, and the article looks better with an infobox, though the 2007 WWE Draft and the 2008 Drafts could be the only ones that will fit the infobox, because the 2007 one consisted only of Draft related matches, and segments, so the infobox could be needed there.23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)S R X

The automated peer reviews ALWAYS suggest adding an infobox if there isn't already one. It's not like the bot thought it would be a good idea. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, I just thought it would be a nice suggestion, gee.S R X 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary. The draft in recent years is nothing more than a segment, and 90% of it is filler. The rest of it is relegated to WWE.com. Giving it its own infobox treats it like it is an actual event that draws people solely for it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Mshake & Scorpion. WP:PW seems fixated on creating as many new articles as possible (under the guise of WP:N) but don't take enough time to repair or improve existing articles. --Endless Dan 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok since there was a majority of opposition, and since it is not in use in any article I will request its deletion, though everyone's comments were appreciated.SRX^--^Latino Heat 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Events list in PPV articles with notes

In some of our PPV pages (eg. WWE One Night Stand, WWF Over the Edge), there is a notes column in the list of events table. In these examples, the notes are rather long and the format did not seem fitting for this. I'm suggesting a format like {{Episode list}}, where there is a row after every episode for a short summary. Any ideas? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll test it out, and see what it would look like. D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think the notes section is needed. I can see why it was added for the first two years, what with it being a nostalgia show and then a launching platform for the new ECW but why detail every main event afterwards? You can just read the specific article for that info. I suggest either leaving the more recent years blank or taking out the notes column and incorporating the information into the article. Tony2Times (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

UT

Last night's match with Edge has resulted in a number of edits today proclaiming him to be retired. So far as I know the whole thing is kayfabe but can somebody else keep an eye on the page. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep an eye on List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also keep an eye on the {{WWE roster}} template, where Undertaker's name may be removed. — Κaiba 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Now watching move pages, thanks for the heads-ups, guys. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Undertaker's been removed from the SmackDown roster on WWE.com. In my view he should be removed from the {{WWE roster}} template, as he is currently on none of the three brands, his status is unknown. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE.com is a kayfabe website and should be treated as such.SChaos1701 (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct but Undertaker is still with the company, though his role is unknown within the company. All matches in WWE are kayfabe, take a look at Ric Flair his last match was at WMXXIV, many of us thought he would be gone from WWE because he "retired" from professional wrestling, but now he does promo work for WWE, so The Undertaker could end up doing the same or a different path. The Undertaker could also be at draft night, I say we wait for more info on this. for now, remove from WWE template.SRX^--^Latino Heat 21:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As with Ric Flair, it was uncertain that he would remain part of the Raw roster of go to something else before he started doing PR work, Undertaker should remain on the SmackDown inactive until it is confirmed, like Flair, what his role or status is. Quite honestly, you do remember how many times he comes and 'disappears' again, right? — Κaiba 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone remembers how he seemingly disappears and returns seemingly even more "powerful" than before. It's part of the current storyline he's working with Edge. They do this every couple of years. However, what's different is the stipulation of him being forced to leave the WWE if he were to lose at One Night Stand. His profile's removal from the SmackDown section of WWE.com and it's placement in the Alumni section is just an extension of the current work. The WWE will have Edge out on SmackDown gloating and celebrating his victory, but it could be weeks or even months before anything is heard from the Undertaker. I agree that, for now, he should be removed from the WWE template.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well in reality he is still signed with WWE, but kayfabe wise, he is out of the company because now they moved his SD! profile page to the Alumni section. [10]--SRX^--^Latino Heat 00:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

They are just selling the angle. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely.SRX^--^Latino Heat 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE Independent Contractors

I have added that WWE Wrestlers are independent contractors in the WWE Employee article. I have even put up a reference from the WWE Corporate website even saying that they are. That is straight from the company's mouth. That is indisputable fact. Even after I put that indisputable fact from WWE's Corporate website. My edits get reverted with someone saying that that isn't appropriate for that article. They don't even bother to discuss it in the talk page. Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the employment status of WWE wrestlers most appropriate for the WWE employee article? Now if that isn't bad enough, I get threatened with being banned because I keep restoring my edit based on a properly referenced and indisputable fact from the WWE Corporate website. I thought taking down a properly referenced and indisputable fact from an article is vandalism. Why isn't the person taking down the properly referenced and indisputable fact that I put up not threatened with being banned? That's what I want to know. Why is my properly referenced and indisputable fact from the WWE Corporate website being ignored? Its is fact. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to be fact? If so, then why is my properly reference and indisputable fact from the WWE Corporate website constantly being taken down?

http://corporate.wwe.com/company/events.jsp

"Our Superstars are highly trained and motivated independent contractors whose compensation is tied to the revenue that they help generate." SChaos1701 (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Something interesting

For those of you interested...in the month of May:

We had 12 articles promoted to GA status.
11 articles went from Start to B-class.
Stubs decreased by 11.
Our overall article count increased by 29...from 3559 to 3588.

Let's try and beat those numbers in June. Nikki311 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WOOOO! Hell yeah, more GA's, FL's, and FA's!--SRX^--^Latino Heat 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff. :) D.M.N. (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job, guys! Not that I was any help, lol. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats people. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for a new PW FL to work on. Any suggestions? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Me and Blue have been working on WCW lists, like List of WCW Hardcore Champions and right now, List of WCW World Tag Team Champions. All WWE lists are complete, but I think List of WCW World Television Champions is a place to start =)SRX^--^Latino Heat 01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant something different. Title histories are easy, I'm looking for a bit of a challenge. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A challenge? what about raising some of the WWC lists to FL? those are harder to source than the WWE or WCW lists. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I have never seen a WWC event and I would prefer to work on a subject I'm familiar with. On a small sidenote, I took a look at WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship and I'd say it could be split into a champions list since the article portion has enough content to sustain a page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A real challenge would be List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni. iMatthew _T.C. 19:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Template:Infobox wrestling event

I always suggested this, but no one ever replied. I thought it would be easier to have the chronology of each event in the infobox. For example, lets say the article was SummerSlam (2000), we can have last year's and next year's SummerSlam's in the infobox. I created an example in my sandbox--SRX^--^Latino Heat 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any other comments from WP:PW?--SRX^--^Latino Heat 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agreed! I think that's a great idea. iMatthew _T.C. 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Matt, 2 approvals. Any further comments before I publish it to the mainspace and begin changing the templates of the PPV articles?SRX^--^Latino Heat 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But maybe for each individual PPV, it should say The Actual Event Name instead of "event" iMatthew _T.C. 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Let me see what I can do.SRX^--^Latino Heat 20:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fine idea. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok majority of approval, so I published it and I added what you insisted Matt, now the infobox looks great! Now time to add the additions to the many PPV's out there.SRX^--^Latino Heat 20:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Help

Now that the new additions have been published to the mainspace, I am requesting assistance on adding them to all articles in WWE/TNA for now. ROH and Japan related events can be added to later on. Thanks!SRX^--^Latino Heat 22:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

to all the wikipedian wrestling fans out there...

First of all, I'm sorry for my rather bad english, but its not my mothers tongue. Anyway, i would like to adress you. I'm a big wrestling fan, and also a big fan of wikipedia. I think the pro wrestling project here was pretty cool, but watching it over the last year, in my oppinion, it went in the wrong direction... Rules here, guidelines there, fighting people all over the talkpages and everyone just trying to prove his power. Don't get me wrong, guidelines and rules are important, but a lot of people just take all of this too serious, losing the focus on what wikipedia really is. wikipedia should be a collection of information from all over the planet, but it appears, that all the rules and "consensus" (whats the plural here?) just work against that. i agree, that not every site is reliable and that not every anonymous contributer can be taken serious, but some things that are said here are just ridiculous! i remember a discussion, where (allthough not written) the result of the discussion was, that one australian is worth more than one american. on every ppv page, i see fights about when we add which match, in witch order we add the matches, or which other information is noteable or not. Some guys here just act like we are engraving stones here, but here is a newsflash. we are not. everything can be changed... If a match at a ppv changes, we can change it. but leaving things away from pages, because "it can still change" is just ridiculous. So please, just stop taking every rule and guideline so damn serious and just let the people contribute in the way, they want. I hope, you understand, what i am trying to say, its pretty hard for me to find the right words. thanks for your time. Diivoo (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to is on your own talk page. The reasons for not adding every rumoured match is simple, Wikipedia is not a crystall ball, and that applies to every WikiProject, not jus this one. I would be inclined to take you seriously but you have 98 Talk edits to 85 Mainspace, and it seems that every month you recycle the same arguments about adding matches to each PPV page. I don't think this project has gone in the wrong direction, on the contrary in the last year it has turned in to a more focused project, and although everyone agrees with WP:IAR on occasion, PPV match listings is not the time to ignore the rules. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know dude, you seemed to have ignored the rules and vandalized the WWE Employee article by taking down my properly referenced indisputable fact from WWE Corporate. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Now tell me, since you failed to do it in the talk page, why did you take it down? Why did you vandalize the article?SChaos1701 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously WTF? Show me an f-ing edit, [11]. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

All I saw was an edit by you on the article.SChaos1701 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you were wrong. The Hybrid 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For your information...

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_3#Category:Vengeance. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list/Active iMatthew _T.C. 20:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Name Change Discussions Above

Anybody's assistance would be great, in opening discussions, or closing them. If they are closed as oppose, then mark them as resolved, add the "not done" template, and sign it. Then move it to the articles talk page. If it is supported, ask an admin to move it, and follow the same steps above, only use the "done" template. iMatthew _T.C. 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

For the inactive talent sections of this page, should we state the "Kayfabe WWE" reason for their inactivity, or the "Real life" reason?

For example, should The Great Khali be listed with..

Taking a leave of absence to return to India for one month.

or

Injured by The Undertaker on SmackDown.

It should be kept consistent through the article, and it currently is not. iMatthew _T.C. 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Both. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, should Kenny Dykstra be moved to active talent, since he is actively wrestling dark matches, right? iMatthew _T.C. 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Previously people wrestling dark matches have been kept inactive but noted to be in dark matches. I think this system works but I can see why people wouldn't like it, it all comes down to your definition of active I suppose. I think both kayfabe and non kayfabe reasons should be listed, because as iMatthew said it needs to be consistent and when someone is injured (legit or kayfabe) and takes another on-screen role, like Gail Kim at the moment, it'd need to be noted why and it could be due to either way. Tony2Times (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys...

Can all of you put my user talk page on your watchlists. It is being constantly targeted by banned sockpuppeter Cowboycaleb1 who just, quite frankly, hasn't given up with his IP hopping and various socks. If you do see a attack on my talkpage, along the lines of "admit it now" etc, revert the attack and alert an administrator, either LAX, Nikki311, Tiptoety or Alison. Failing that, make a post at WP:ANI. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had your page on my list since it started. Already reverted one last week, I believe. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out. King iMatthew 20 08 19:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just put your page on my watchlist, too. Nikki311 05:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the wrestling project. Next time, ask people on their personal talk pages, instead of using a project talk page for it. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rob, I think there really wasn't much need for that comment, was there. And actually, it does concern this project to a certain degree as before the sock was blocked he was editing professional wrestling articles, e.g. Ashley Massaro. D.M.N. (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty harmless. It's not like he asking for much. I think a little bit of leeway as far as that goes is just fine, as long as this talk page doesn't become a cluster**** of off-topic conversations. This doesn't relate to the wrestling project, but it does relate to a member of the project, so IMO, it sort of indirectly relates the the project. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this for real?

Professional wrestling holds#The Matrix

I don't see how it's a hold, as it seems to be...well, nothing more than the absence of contact between wrestlers. It just seems somewhat absurd altogether. I was going to delete it since there was no way it could be real, but it's listed on Stratus' article, along with MaTrish Reloaded and MaTrish Revolutions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely real (see [12] at about 16-17 seconds in), however, whether it could be classed as a wrestling hold is debatable --Apsouthern (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is real, and is used by name by Samoa Joe in Straight Shooting with Samoa Joe when talking about an incident involving Low Ki, Japan, and a water bomb. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly not a hold by any definition. A move, yeah. I've seen the term used frequently, though I haven't actually noticed it being used on the air (but I haven't watched in a year or so)—mostly by independent commentators (like on 411wrestling), and usually as part of the phrasal verb "matrix out". — Gwalla | Talk 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally..

After a long review and a lot of hard work done by me and GCF, Over the Edge (1999) failed it's original GAN but it has passed it's GAR. New Good Article everyone! Thanks for all your help!--SRX^--^Latino Heat 10:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FLC

Ok the above discussion went nowhere, is it ok if i just nominate right now List of WCW World Tag Team Champions for FL, without being put on the waiting list?--SRX^--^Latino Heat 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it might be a tough sell. People have been cracking down on what constitutes a reliable source for featured content. Pro Wrestling History, Wrestling-Titles.com, Titlehistories.com, DDT Digest, The Other Arena, PWWEW.net, and Wrestling Information Archive are all likely to be challenged. The might not be the same level of scrutiny for Featured Lists, though. I'm not opposed to giving it a try. If it can't be promoted, it would make for quite the scavenger hunt for more reliable sources. I know I have an old PWI Almanac somewhere in my parents' basement, so I could stop by there and look for it if nobody else has one. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gary, I have none. But these same sources were used a couple months ago in the FLC of List of WCW Hardcore Champions and it passed, with the support of one of the FLC directors.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 01:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The process is quite a bit different now, and I think people will be cracking down on the sources a lot more with the rewritten criteria. You'd best hope Tony1 doesn't see it, because he probably will have issues with the sourcing (and it would be best not to bring up the hardcore champion list, it could easily be put through an FLRC) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OooooOO..Thanks for the heads up Scorpion. Well if he sees it, I will do my best to prove their reliability. Most of these sites we use, they use tapings, magazines, original photographs, books, etc. to source their information. So basically, all of our current FL's could go to FLRC, some have sources like those, others only have one primary source and no third party ones. Wow, this is gonna be complicated for the project from now on.SRX^--^Latino Heat 02:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference though, the WWE and ECW title histories have an official website to fall back on. The WCW ones don't. I know some users are probably going to hate me for this, but I think I'm going to need to nominate the following lists for FLRC: AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship, IWGP Heavyweight Championship, IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship, IWGP Tag Team Championship, List of WCW Hardcore Champions and NWA World Women's Championship. My reasons are that they all rely on questionable websites as their main sources and it is unfair for FLs to have easier sourcing standards than FAs. These sources would be forgiveable if they had an official source to back them up, but many of them don't. I know some are going to say "they were passed, so the sources should be okay", but I openly admit that the process had sub-FA standards as recently as a few months ago, and we are trying to clean everything up. I'm probably going to choose one of those lists (most likely the oldest FL) and nominate it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While that does suck, some of those do need to be delisted, like the NWA Women's one, how in the world did that pass? But the thing is, it is impossible to get old articles like from WCW and the old old ECW days to FL because they have no official source to back it up, unless it is a print source, which is limited, since WWE has no history on them.SRX^--^Latino Heat 02:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have strong opinions about editors who nominate articles for removal without first bringing it up with the relevant project(s) to give an opportunity to make the necessary changes. In the interests of civility, I'll keep them to myself. Suffice it to say that I believe this move is completely in character and that I would have placed money on this happening this week. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Those seem like pretty unnecessary comments. "Completely in character", what is that supposed to mean. Why is it that you must take some kind of shot at me every time I mention something relating to FLs on this page?

As for your other comments, I used to leave comments on talk pages (I can provide diffs if you don't believe me) but nobody ever did anything about them. If I see a list that I think doesn't meet the standards, I'll nominate it so that the concerns will be taken a lot more seriously. Yes, WikiProjects should be notified, but I don't think doing so before hand should be a prerequisite and not doing so certainly isn't out of bounds. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Spoken Articles

There exists a project for doing this, and given that this, this and this have spoken articles I think that we should try and get some of our articles spoken. I like to think I have a good speaking voice, if anyone would like ot suggest some articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you did one about a deceased wrestler or a tag team that is not around a lot. You could do Bobby Eaton as he's not really active anymore. I don't think you should do present wrestlers as they are subject to changes every day. D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with DMN. Nikki311 18:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How about The Rock, or Stone Cold, or even Hogan? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have done defunct championships as a starting point, see WWE Cruiserweight Championship, WWE European Championship and Million Dollar Championship for details. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That kinda go's back to what DMN siad thoes wrestler's article's change just as much as active one's IMO. Z AC H 15:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deceased wrestlers might be a good place to start. What about Rick Rude, the current COTW? Nikki311 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will look at it today. But some articles will have to be edited before being turned in to spoken article because some of them (such as the Hardcore title) are almost unreadable. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick Rude is done, 9m 14s. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Professional wrestling

Well it hasn't been updated in a while, does the selected article necessarily have to be an FA? Can it be a well written GA? --SRX^--^Latino Heat 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be going in no direction. iMatthew _T.C. 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help with it, try asking Cirt, he's worked on quite a few Featured Portals and might be willing to help. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we make this thing less WWE central please? there are other companies, ya know.

If you have a problem with it being too WWE central, be bold and fix it. The point of this thread was too see if anybody had any thoughts, not complaints. iMatthew _T.C. 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and revamped the DYK section of the portal with 12 new DYKs. It was very hard finding a mix of stuff (especially from non-WWE articles since many of them don't have sources). If anyone would like to add more then go ahead, but please make sure the fact has a reliable source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned some of it up, too. I'm not sure how the whole portal thing works, but shouldn't the DYKs be from WP:DYK? We should probably start creating some of those when we make new pay-per-view articles. Also, could someone add Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions to the Topics part of the portal? Thanks. Nikki311 02:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Night of Champions

I wonder if it'd be of interest to show in the article the various versions of the posters that were printed. It would show the historical changes of them and brighten up the article, obviously in the info box we should leave the finalised one, but if WWE keep this Night of Champions theme over the years, most years there will probably be last minute changes (like 'Taker to Edge last year etc.) and so maybe we could always show an archive of the changing champions posters as I don't think any other PPVs have advertising posters that change in the same manner. Tony2Times (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the extra images would meet fair-use criteria. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean The Great American Bash (2008), I've already seen 2 different versions: Image:WWE The Great American Bash.jpg and Image:GAB 300x450.jpg. D.M.N. (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE Divas Championship

This title (WWE Divas Championship) is a redirect to the Women's title, so User:Emmittp has created the article WWE Divas Champion, which is the wrong naming convention per all other Champiopnship pages. Can an admin move the "WWE Divas Champion" page to the "WWE Divas Championship" over the redirect? Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE Diva's Championship is also floating about. What a mess. D.M.N. (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-direct all of them. -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

fixed. all redirect to WWE Diva's Championship as this is the correct spelling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Straight Edge PXK (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, redirect to WWE Women's Championship, because we don't even know if this is a new title, or Raw's title being carried over. -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, its quite obviously not. she stated it was a new championship and since when did she have the kayfabe authority to steal and repackage titles from raw? Sexy Sea Bassist 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why argue? We don't know anything about this title, so why can't we wait to create an article, if necessary. We should wait until more information is released. -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Is anyone keeping a list of what sources we have proven reliable? Especially since we keep having debates (see #Warning for Future PPV Talk Pages above), I think if we don't already have one, we should start one. Once we have proven a site reliable (and I would use Ealdgyth's judgment in the various FAC reviews), we can add it to the list with a link to the appropriate discussion proving it so. So far, I would list the obvious ones (DVDs, WWE publications, books, SLAM! Wrestling) and add websites as we prove them (ex. WrestleView with a link to the SummerSlam 2007 FAC). Nikki311 02:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Other then what you mentioned, we also consider WON reliable last time I checked.But I do think a discussion like this is definitely a needed one. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WON definitely. Meltzer has books published by Winding Stair Press and Sports Publishing LLC. He also has several mentions on legitimate news sites (Baltimore Sun, Albany Times, SLAM Sports, Mourning Journal) just in the last month. [13]. Nikki311 02:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well some of those are at here, but we may need further discussion to establish which sources are reliable, should we start a discussion for each one like we did with the name changes? --S R X 02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should divide that list into subsections, ones that have 100% been proven reliable and ones that have yet to be proven. Nikki311 02:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well are we going to discuss those that have not been proven here?S R X 02:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We can. I don't object to discussing it like we did the article name changes. Nikki311 03:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok but when the list get's to big, what should we do with the resolved ones?

We can move it to a subpage somewhere or something. Nikki311 04:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about this section on the talk page getting too big, we'll start a new section and let this be archived automatically. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling History

Is the above article reliable, per the discussions at the FAC of SummerSlam, it appears sketchy. The owner of the site states that he gets info from Dave Meltzer, tapings, and magazines. Reliable or Unreliable?S R X 03:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

50-50 with it. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this is what the site states.--S R X 03:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it can stand up to a GA review, but it will never be considered a reliable source for a Featured Article candidacy. While he gets some results from Dave Meltzer, the site also invites any reader to submit results. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

IGN Sports

IGN Sports does a lot of wrestler interviews (which are obviously reliable), but they also recap what happened in wrestling during the week and on pay-per-views, and they have articles. IGN is used a lot in video game articles, so I was just wondering what everyone thought. Nikki311 04:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think about this one. I'm leaning toward reliable. It's owned by Fox Interactive Media, which I believe counts in its favor (which is more a belief in the reliability of a site operated by an established news corporation than an endorsement of Fox). Perhaps Ealdgyth would be the best person to ask. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well im not sure, for video games its a great reliable source, but for other uses like PPVs, I'm not to sure, but like GCF said, it is operated by Fox, so it could be used for GAN's, but im not sure about FAC's--S R X 14:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Arena

This really gives detailed results from the Attitude Era of the WWF, detailed results, title histories, PPV results, etc. Reliable?--S R X 01:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it will stand up to a GA review, but it will never be considered sufficiently reliable for a Featured Article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it for a GA either. What's the point in adding/using sources we'd have to replace in order to be an FA? Nikki311 05:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As a placeholder more than anything. I don't honestly know that we'll ever have enough reliable sources to get some articles to FA level. When trying to writing a GA in the absences of sources that will stand up to the Ealdgyth test, I often find that I have to use (quality) sources that probably aren't good enough to get articles to FA. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with both you Nikki and GCF, it can stand up for GAN, but I doubt for FAC. So should we make a list which to use for GAN, and which to use for FAC? (I think that will be redundant, but thats how it looks like it will end up).S R X 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As those that are acceptable for FAC will be acceptable for GAN, have a list of GAN-acceptable sources and tag with {{FA-icon}} for FAC-acceptable. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

PWInsider.com

Considered one of the top sites for insider infomation, and for the doubters, some of us are still waiting for someone to give an instance of the site being unreliable. Despite the negative conatation that the site has here, it's exclusive stories have been credited (aka, copy and paste) on other websites which have been considered acceptable, such as this story, which is currently being cited on SummerSlam (2007). Mshake3 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna give it a chance and say it is reliable. The only thing I hate about that website is annoying popups and it's general layout. D.M.N. (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PWInsider is one of the best news sites out there. Dave Scherer (sp?) and the rest of the old 1Wrestling.com crew are wonderful journalists and well respected in the business. I hate the popups myself but the incredible amount of bandwidth and writer's salaries aren't free.SChaos1701 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Has Dave S. published any books or is he mentioned in any news articles? That will also help prove reliability. Nikki311 17:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised as a wrestling fan that you don't know of him. He's pretty respected in the business. In 1999, he was approached to take over RAW magazine but turned it down. He's written for the New York Daily News and WOW Magazine. Like me, he's also worked for Bill Apter. His site has reliability hands down.SChaos1701 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think she's just asking if there is anything we can use to assert reliability if the website is challenged. For example, if he has written a couple of books, that helps to prove that he is an expert in the field. I realize that he is, but we need concrete proof to give to reviewers—they will demand more than one of us saying that he is respected in the business.

Online World Of Wrestling

I'm aware we don't consider this reliable for anything but match results, correct? If so, then it appears to be used in articles to source championships such as here. So what is the deal here? Is it reliable for that as well, or is that as a ref considered "better than nothing?" Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

According to here, it was asked on its "verifiability", so... IDK. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's "better than nothing", as it can be hard to find reliable sources for some championships. If a reliable source can be found, though, it should be used instead (perhaps "Wrestling Title Histories" or PWI's "2007 Wrestling Almanac & Book of Facts", both of which are owned by project members -- see the library). As for match results, I believe it's the same story. It's better than nothing, but a more reliable source would be required for promotion to FA status. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. I'll get to work filling in those gaps when I have the energy too later (heat is killing me). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tapings

SmackDown/ECW taped this weeks episodes on Saturday, and they taped the "go-home" shows for Night of Champions yesterday. So, as a reminder, if you see spoilers without a reliable source, revert on sight, citing BLP and RS. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay.--WillC 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Indie wrestler

I've just finished expanding and sourcing a British indie female and was wondering if someone with a bit more Wiki credentials than I could take a quick look at it and see if there's anything I could improve in style, for future expansions. Tony2Times (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I did some copyediting for you. Nikki311 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Tony2Times (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Sourcing question

So I've been trying to find sources for all of Edge and Christian's indy title reigns. Both articles say that the won the "Southern States Wrestling Tag Team Championship." I have found a source. However, this source lists them as never having won the title under any of their ring names. The source is here: http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/other/sswtit.htm.

So my question is, does this mean we remove those titles from their articles. I could find no other source beside OWW. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed, since its mentioned in Edge's book. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, is it? In that, case if you give me the book info, I can cite that in both articles instead. By chance would Edge's other indy titles be mentioned in there? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and find the book. ;) Come on, its Edge, of course he's going to list every accomplishment he has done. A little sarcasm. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

To all project members, remember to keep heading over to our COTW to vote and nominate articles. It's pretty slow right now, so I encourage other users to head over there. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Employees templates

I think the design of the "current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees" and "current World Wrestling Entertainment employees" templates is presently lacking. The templates would be much more accessible to casual readers (which is who all articles, etc, should be written for, not people with an existing knowledge of the subject matter) if every member of the roster was listed by the surname of their ring name. The current design is confusing and makes it harder to quickly locate a particular article. Any thoughts? McPhail (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Stage names do not have a surname they do not have a first name, they are mearly nicknames when they appear in the ring. That is why the current order is as: real name = alphabetical by surname and Stage name = alphabetical by first letter. — Moe ε 01:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But a casual reader would not know whether the wrestler performed under their real name or ring name. It isn't immediately obvious whether "John Morrison" and "Eric Young" are ring names or not. The current template design only makes sense if the reader has a pre-existing knowledge of wrestling, which is against Wikipedia policy. The articles should be ordered in a consistent fashion. McPhail (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well technically, all of them are stage names, it just so happens that their stage name may also be their real name. — Moe ε 15:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, all articles should be sorted alphabetically, irrespective of whether they relate to real names or ring names. The current format is decidedly user unfriendly. McPhail (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, alphabetical by first letter is the correct way for stage names. If it is a list of wrestlers by their real names, it would be by their surname. I'll start moving lists like those templates around if there is no problem from anyone with that. — Moe ε 21:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, wrestlers are not employees of the promotion but independent contractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pfft, lets not get into the technical terms, eh? They are contracted to WWE, lets leave it at that. — Moe ε 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why go "pfft" at the FACTS. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA after all. I think we should put a note saying that the wrestlers are not employees of the company but independent contractors.SChaos1701 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

...find some reliable sources, then we'll talk. — Moe ε 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing, this is supposed to be a group of wrestling fans and people who are supposed to know about the business because, you know their writing articles in an ENCYCLOPEDIA about it, and some of you don't even know the basics of the business. It's a commonly known thing that professional wrestlers are independent contractors.

Here is Kurt Angle even saying that they are.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:WXLy_Di__q4J:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070731/ai_n19438642+professional+wrestler+independent+contractors&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Here is a sample WWE contract referring to them as INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.

http://contracts.onecle.com/wwe/communications.consult.2003.05.01.shtml

Here is a book that talks about trying to change wrestlers' status from being independent contractors.

CHOKEHOLD: Pro Wrestling's Real Mayhem Outside the Ring

http://www.amazon.com/CHOKEHOLD-Wrestlings-Real-Mayhem-Outside/dp/1401072178

Here is another article explaining how a pro wrestling contract is written and they are referred to as INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCO/is_2_2/ai_64061218 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a Wikipedia article even listing Professional wrestlers as independent contractors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_contractor

You go on any wrestling news site and ask them and they will tell that they DO NOT work for their promotion but are INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. Hell ask a wrestler, he'll tell you too.

This is really starting to get to me. There are people here writing for an encyclopedia who don't seem to grasp or know some of the basics of business. This isn't the only example. There's the thing with the IC Title and WWE Championship article that come to mind.SChaos1701 (talk)

Do you have a better name for this article? — Moe ε 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How bout putting a note in or mentioning that professional wrestlers are not employees of the company and they are independent contractors. Along with that rename the article something like "WWE Employees and Talent Roster" and "TNA Employees and Talent Roster." I know it can sound anal but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and we're supposed to write FACT no matter how anal or tedious it may be. SChaos1701 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1) You don't need to shout using caps, I can read just as well without it, and it doesn't make your argument stronger, it just makes you look more anal.

2) Your suggested title of "WWE Employees and Talent Roster" would be actually be renamed to "World Wrestling Entertainment employees and talent roster" because of naming conventions to not use abbreviations and to avoid all first letter caps.

If this were true, I guess all the title pages are screwed. Instead of TNA Championship, it will be Total Nonstop Action Wrestling championship, and instead of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE), it will be World Heavyweight Championship (World Wrestling Entertainment). Wow. Feedback ^☎ 07:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't go putting words in my mouth, I said naming conventions prefer lowered caps even if their official names (like Mobscene over mOBSCENE) and to not use abbreviations. Although that is a guidelines there is also WP:COMMONNAME, which says to use the most common name, which things like 'Total Nonstop Action Wrestling championship' wouldnt fit under, as TNA championship is more often used. — Moe ε 01:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

3) That title is unrealistic, because the name of the article needs to remain as a list, the current title is "List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees", because it is a list, and a renamed article will remain as such, a new title other than what you suggested needs to be chosen.

— Moe ε 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to net shout. I was just emphasizing what I was writing. It's something I had to start doing on a political forum because people wouldn't read posts fully before they responded and it's sort of become second nature (lol) so don't take it as if shouting. How bout. "List of World Wrestling Entertainment Wrestlers and Employees" and still add the section in the article about them being independent contractors. The same should be done with the other promotions. I can make the appropriate changes if need be.SChaos1701 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Wrestlers is a rather awkward word to include in it, how about List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees and talent? — Moe ε 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That could work. Now how would we go about making these changes.SChaos1701 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Being bold and doing it? lol — Moe ε 22:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can make the text changes but how do you change the url?SChaos1701 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Already done. — Moe ε 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, that title List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees and talent is non encyclopedic. It was changed in the first place from Superstars because not all are superstars, but the employer being WWE hired employees, who are made up of the roster. That contract you pointed out above was made five years ago, since then contracts have changed due to the many scandals and drug issues. If you have a contract from this year it would help, but do not move a page until several members have agreed upon it. That is not being bold Kaiba, just moving it w/o a clear consensus.SRX^--^Latino Heat 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a bunch of sources there showing that they are independent contractors. They have always been independent contractors and they still are. Something needs to be said showing that. Wrestlers are not employees of the promotion. They are talent that are paid a fee for a service. Like say for instance, Microsoft pays let's say Smith Construction to do some remodeling. That does not mean that Smith is an employee of Microsoft. It's the same thing. I've shown several sources that show that professional wrestlers are independent contractors so the change should be made. Fact is fact.SChaos1701 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? But according to the IRS [14] An Independent contractor is whom has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result. The "talent" does not control the result of the matches/bookings/promos/. Plus, WWE bookers just book matches and results, where the "talent" figure out the rest of the moves. So not fit to be called "independent contractors". According to the IRS, [15] an employer is one who can control what will be done and how it will be done. Which is what exactly WWE does to their "talent".SRX^--^Latino Heat 23:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the second paragraph third line. "Our Superstars are highly trained and motivated independent contractors." The WWE states themselves that they are independent contractors. So there you go. The change needs to be made. I have more than proved I'm right.SChaos1701 (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

http://corporate.wwe.com/company/events.jsp

Well Im not sure whether even WWE's corporate is kayfabe or not, but WWE is incorrect when they say that per the definitions given by the IRS. But if this is so, the article needs a better name than "talent".SRX^--^Latino Heat 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A Corporate website cannot be fictitious. That is misleading the shareholders. All wrestling contracts that wrestlers sign (that includes WWE and TNA) acknowledge that they are independent contractors. If you read one of the articles it says that though they are independent contractors that if a wrestler decided to sue the company over it has a chance of not standing up in court. But as I've stated, I've shown many instances of proof that wrestlers are independent contractors so unless someone shows me other wise, I think I should note that in the employee articles.SChaos1701 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

possible sock?

User:Crofty 4000, User:Wwe fan 5000 notice any similarities? Sexy Sea Bassist 14:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've alerted User:Alison, so we'll see what happens after she runs a checkuser. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We really do not need a checkuser here, because:

Both accounts have virtually edited their userpages only.
One is from October 2007; one from April 2008.
It is blatantly obvious from the userpages.

D.M.N. (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

4. this is not the place to report users.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New catagorie

I just got a Wicked idea for a new catagorie! I think we should make Catagorie:Dead Wrestlers. Good idea? Altenhofen (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead wrestlers? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe something more specific like: ~~Dead people who worked for the WWE at one point~~, nah, ~~Former WWE Superstars who aren't currently alive~~, okay; I know, Dead people who worked for WWE. That is the best I got. Altenhofen (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's correctly spelled category. Feedback ^☎ 07:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A category was created for that a while ago, and deleted, because it was pointless. iMatthew _T.C. 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup it was, if I'm not mistaken the primary argument was "eventually they'll all be dead wrestlers", which you can't argue with ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

but after the dead ones die, new ones will be wrestling, it will go on intill the impossible happens; violence is deminished. Altenhofen (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it's been tried before, but deleted. Also instead of typing out "(sorry if I spelled stuff wrong or didn't use capitals, I was in a hurry)", may I ask why you didn't just correct the grammar instead of writing the reason you didn't. Whatever, that's not important. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown (video game series) and List of WWE SmackDown video game titles

Ok, so I've decided to start work on this. I was told at WT:VG that the current series article is more like a list of game titles, and not like a series, see Harvest Moon (series) and List of Harvest Moon titles. (Well not like the Harvest moon series article, more like the Crazy Taxi (series) article.) So currently I am working on transforming the series into a more series like article, in my Sandbox. After I am done, I will move the current series article to the title's article (which has not been created yet), and publish what's in the sandbox to the series article. However, this is a big project, so I am requesting some assistance, is any user willing to assist me in this?--SRX^--^Latino Heat 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I don't know crap about the series. Sorry.--WillC 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Harvest Moon. Great Series (except for AWL), good times. On topic though, I'll help out when I get home from class today. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gavyn. Notify me on my talkpage when you are ready to begin.SRX^--^Latino Heat 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles finished

I have finished and published the articles, please provide feedback, as I would like to nominate them for GA/FA and FL in the future.SRX^--^Latino Heat 03:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Guerrilla

After a recommendation from SuggestBot, I have been adding citations for the Pro Wrestling Guerrilla article; however, all the citations I have added come from the same place [16] - if anybody gets chance, could you have a look and see if that is OK, and whether it would be considered a reliable source? Cheers --Apsouthern (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but that's almost certainly an unreliable source. D.M.N. (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if it is, I'll just revert the citations, but as most of the references were PWG press releases I figured it's probably OK. If they get removed I won't be heartbroken. --Apsouthern (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

John Cena <3 Brooke Hogan

Could everyone keep an eye on John Cena's talk page? Apparently a bunch of tabloids are saying Cena and lil' Hoganette are dating, and many new and unregistered users are going crazy. The Hybrid 14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is already on my watchlist. I've seen them do that. I think one who is going crazy is by the name of WWEluz or something like that.--WillC 00:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

International flag

Not sure what to do here. TNA has done something that I'm not sure how to even go about doing. The TNA 2008 World X Cup Tournament has 4 teams, Team TNA, Japan, Mexico, and International. Not sure if I sure just put the flagicon USA or the logo for TNA besides Team TNA. Also what should I place besides Team International? I decided to make a topic here instead of on the World X Cup talk page because I feel I'll get more fed back here.--WillC 03:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:FLAG, and in response towards what flag should be used for TNA, it should be the United States because "if a sports person has has represented their nation or has declared for a nation then the national sport governing body's flag should be used."-Quote from WP:FLAG, since TNA stars are representing the nation of the USA, since TNA is located in the USA. For Team International, there should be no flag, as there is none to represent a stable like that, and adding all flags from nations that consist the team will be redundant and will violate regulations per the MoS of WP:FLAG's.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 04:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'll just place the USA flag next to Team TNA. Actually I should have known that since Team USA has been in the past to represent TNA and the NWA. Also good to know about the International team.--WillC 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this flag can be used? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel it could but to me it in turns replies Team World instead of Team International. Maybe a flag where it just has many countries flags on it, like they showed on Impact tonight with all the flags of all the countries in the world.--WillC 05:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

PPV Chronology

Why do PPV boxes now have links to the previous year's and next year's PPV of the same name? There's a link at the bottom in the box. It's a bit unnecessary. Tony2Times (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the discussion above? It makes it easier for readers to navigate through articles, especially for outside users. Instead of scrolling all the way to the bottom of the page, it will be in the infobox, which is where it should belong because thats what the infobox is for, to present needed information.

Additional PPV Chronology template

Now that this has been added to infoboxes, do we really need separate templates to be embedded in the WWE PPV template to show the chronology?--SRX^--^Latino Heat 23:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Either way, one of them should go. The one with links to ALL occurrances of an event, or the one that just has the preceding and following ones. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to transfer the separate templates into the infobox. Like how they have a list of episodes in {{Infobox Television episode}} --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what has been done. Im just suggesting we remove and delete the embedded templates, because its already in the infobox.SRX^--^Latino Heat 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There are more links in the navbox. If the navbox template is helpful, then it should not be removed and your new addition should be removed as it would be redundant. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering most PPVs have over 10 events, I think the navbox is much more helpful so you can click any year at will rather than having to cycle maybe from Royal Rumble 2008 all the way back to Royal Rumble 1990 through each individual year. You could keep both or remove the part of infobox, but I don't think it would be wise to move it from the navbox. Tony2Times (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And SRX, I think you may have misunderstood my previous suggestion. I suggested to have the navbox template (ALL links) in the infobox. Like how episode articles list the entire season episode list. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That would take up too much infobox space, and it would look messy, that would be like placing the chronological ppv's in that way. Events like WM, SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and the Royal Rumble would take up too much space.SRX^--^Latino Heat 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see your point, But that will take forever to include in every infobox, typing every event, redirect, wikilinks, unless we get a bot to automatically add the dates for each event, but that will take up too much time IMO.SRX^--^Latino Heat 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, forget my suggestion. If you could reduce your new addition to something less obtrusive (e.g. 2008 NBA Finals), I would be OK with it. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How is it obtrusive, if I based on original the original WP:PW template? If you have a problem with the entire template, you should have stated that before.SRX^--^Latino Heat 22:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You have the name of the event repeated three times in your recent addition. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you would like it to appear like < (2006) (2007) (2008) >?SRX^--^Latino Heat 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting this. Actually, it doesn't look that good when the names go to the next line. And I'd like to apologize for the way I handled the situation. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. Though I think the current format should remain.SRX^--^Latino Heat 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I added an example and a comparison to the current format to the sandbox. Is there really no chance? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm against adding that bit anyway, but if it is gonna be added I think it looks better just saying the years rather than the names seeing as it's always gonna be the same three titles side by side, there's no point as it's titled 'SummerSlam chronology' so people know what it is and it saves the box getting too cluttered. It might as well just be the year number (or in WM's case, the event number). I'm not too keen on the arrows though. Tony2Times (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I got the design from {{Infobox sports season}} and some other ones use it as well. Although they incorporated the arrow into the link. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you Tony and 13, but take WWE Night of Champions for example, that event changed its name from Vengeance to Night of Champions, as well did WWE Cyber Sunday from Taboo Tuesday.SRX^--^Latino Heat 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We can still have the full name for those cases. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Then you should just list the whole name. The NFL is a different case as they never change their names, but WWE is fictional and they are unpredictable.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This name changing isn't that common. Therefore I think we should adapt the year-only format based on majority of events not having undergone name-changing. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

But there also other promotions that underwent PPV name changes. Like I said, pro wrestling is unpredictable.SRX^--^Latino Heat 00:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you prefer listing the full name so there would be a consistent format throughout all articles instead of a mix between the two? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying.SRX^--^Latino Heat 01:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology

The account hornetchild16 was an account that i made and im sorry to aaron i had no intention on getting him in any more trouble than he already is. It was a foolish thing to do and I'm really sorry. Posting this here to ask for forgiveness and to help undo the damage 13 62^talk 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well ... I have to say that 1362, while what he did was wrong, it took courage and honesty to come here to 'fess up. Well done, I say! Per WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, I'm not seeing any reason for any punitive sanction here, given that there's no further threat of disruption to the project, and that he has done his best here to take ownership and clear User:Hornetman16 of any association with that account - Alison ^❤ 16:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Alison's advocacy on behalf of 1362, and his status as a former adoptee of a very good friend of mine, I will not seek a community ban like I was planning on when the puppeteer was outed. I have much more that I could say, and that I would like to say, but I will leave it at that. The Hybrid 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto (in response to Hybrid). -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Message from User:Hornetman16 / User:ChristianMan16

(hope I'm not 'proxying for a banned editor' here :) )

First off I'd like to say "I told you so." and that's all I'll go into that I just had to get that off my chest. And I'm glad to know I'm gaining users trust over here on simpleWP and over there on enWP I look forward to being back when I've served my ban and the enWP community entrust me with another shot at it. I may even go so far as to say that simple will become my home Wikipedia as it is a little less stressed environment over here. I must really be moving up cause on my last RfA over here I actually got some supporters. It's gonna fail though. Anyway, just do me the favor from now on on if you find a sock that you think is me...double check with check user. 1362, you are forgiven as are any others that impersonated me...I just want you guys to confess to it. And BTW y'all know me good enough to know I don't talk like this. Anyway thanks for your time. And have a blessed day. P.S.: Shouldn't this have been a hint. - AARON

Copied from here. I guess he's feeling a little vindicated - Alison ^❤ 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To User:Scorpion0422 - Please do not delete the above section, as you did here and here. Given that 1) I was one of the administrators who was instrumental in seeing Hornetman16 banned from enwiki, having worked on his issues for months, I have a pretty good idea as to what's been going on, 2) as checkuser, I am already involved in this issue concerning the above editor and one other editor, and the community are due an answer to all this - check my talk page, 3) WP:BAN clearly states, "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. and "new users who engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked user in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." - I think you see the context there, especially given that this section of policy largely applies to mainspace. Furthermore, per discussions on my talk page, the WP:PW community as a whole are interested in this whole affair and deserve a clear and honest answer to all this. Finally, editors, banned or not, are entitled to justice, fairness and due process and as admin and checkuser, it is my duty to ensure that happens. Please do not remove the above thread again. People need to see it - Alison ^❤ 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. However, we don't really need more "I told you so"s with all the drama going around, being framed doesn't jutify socking the hell out of the patience of most users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, indeed it doesn't. I totally agree. And in doing so, I guess he sends a rather strong message, too. Were I him, I'd not have crowed so loudly - Alison ^❤ 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

...Are' you him? ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Have I once said "y'alls"? :D - Alison ^❤ 07:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Never noticed :-D ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Strawberry Fields

Strawberry Fields was a female wrestler who won the NWA Womens World Championship and trained a bunch of the women currently active in the scene today. She retired due to injury in 2000, forfeiting the NWA Womens Title in the process. She does not have an article on wikipedia currently and, as far as I can tell, never has. She's difficult to source for, as I've searched the internet and found very little, but I believe I have a notable source. I wanted to ask the project and the people who know the guidelines better than I do before I tried to create a page.

Strawberry was profiled in an extensive article in the October 1999 issue of World of Wrestling Magazine. WOW Magainze was an independent publication at that time, though I'm unclear on the notability. To be truthful, I also don't know how to source magazines for Wikipedia. Anyway, I wanted to check notability with the project before I put work into an article that might get AfD'd. McJeff (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown (2008)

I've wrote the Report for Lockdown (2008). I was wondering if someone would review it please. Just for you to know I'm not that very good at writing reports.--WillC 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good start. One thing you will need to add is reliable sources. Some of the prose needs tightening, but overall, it's a solid start. Well done! :D D.M.N. (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Really I'm the only source. TNA doesn't have any articles that I know of that are about Lockdown. I went by stuff I remember from the ppv. I don't know how I'm going to get Destination X (2008) done because I didn't watch the ppv. All I can do is the background and aftermath. Hopefully someone watched it and can do the event. But I'm the only source that has reliable info. I can't use Youtube or Dailymotion videos as Reliable info.--WillC 10:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also thanks.--WillC 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WrestleView is a reliable website, and has a lot of TNA report on it, located here. D.M.N. (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If all the "articles" on that site are merely reposts from other websites and newspapers, why aren't we just directly sourcing those places? Mshake3 (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems that the only benefit of this site is that it's a collection of stories of other websites without a lot of ads. Mshake3 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Also is gerweck.net a good source?--WillC 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Lance Cade's wikipage

I need someone to stop by the disscussion of Lance Cade's wikipage. There is a unknown user claiming that he is Lance Cade and I am slightly not sure if it's him. But somehow he is. I need someone to investigate onto this matter and talk to this user and tell this user about the rules. By far, he is the only one who is making me very confused and I do not want to get on his bad side if it's him. I like Lance and he is the reason I am happy when my personal life is making me upset!User:LindsieandLanceMiss Lindsie aka LindsieandLance 07:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WHOIS, the IP alleged to be señor Cade does indeed originate from San Antonio, where Cade is supposed to live. So, I suppose this is moderately plausible, and we should proceed with caution. Ask the man to take a picture of himself holding up a piece of paper with Wikipedia (or anything) written on it, and then upload it. If he refuses, he should not be taken seriously. If he does, we will still need someone with image editing experience to look over the picture and verify that someone did not just edit a picture to make it look like that. If all of this works out, we still need to remember that the actual person is not treated as a reliable source. However, we can use his advice to determine what areas of the article need to be given a second glance in the interest of accuracy. Cheers, The Hybrid 19:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hybrid, he is not going to do that, because he is so mad at some of the users. I am waiting to see his next move. After all a user ask him to do that and he is not cooperation. So someone needs to have a nice talk, before he flips out.Miss Lindsie (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we had this problem before here 13 62^talk 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this is creeping me out. I am going have to find out if it's him, if I may go to Kentucky.Miss Lindsie (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly as 1362 said, we had this discussion already. It's the same IP address, but he was released from his block. We have already established that this person is not Cade. There is no reason for further discussion on the matter. If the IP continues the claim that he is, and disrupts Wikipedia more, I will report him to WP:AIV. -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, you need to know that this person needs to be removed then. I am fearing that he could be a threat.Miss Lindsie (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A threat was never given with this IP. -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, apparently the issue is settled. However, instead of using AIV as the answer to getting rid of him, I'd recommend ANI. Cheers, The Hybrid 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well when I read the conversation it's sounds like it's was a threat. But the only thing is he been attacking is you guys, but I just don't get it? How come he is mad at you iMatthew, threating NiciVampireHeart, but didn't say anything towards me?Miss Lindsie (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, the situation is under control, I have the IP being watching, and if I notice something, I'll bring it up at ANI, like Hybrid said. Please stop trying to make this more than what it is. -- iMatthew _T.C. 11:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok.--Miss Lindsie (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)