Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

New Quick Results Archives page?

Hey everyone, I wanted to propose the idea of setting up quick result archives of wrestling TV programs such as TNA iMPACT!, TNA Xplosion, TNA Weekly PPV's, WWE RAW, WWE SmackDown!, WWE Velocity, WWE Heat, ECW on Sci Fi, ECW on TNN, Ring of Honor live events, WCW Monday Nitro, WCW Thunder, etc. Over the years I have collected this original data all on my own and I think it would be a great addition to Wikipedia.

It would look something like this for example:

TNA iMPACT!

October 1, 2005: Orlando, FL

• TNA X-Division Champion, AJ Styles defeated Roderick Strong, in a Non-Title Match.

• Monty Brown defeated Lex Lovett.

• Three-Way Match: Chris Sabin defeated Petey Williams and Alex Shelley.

• Jeff Hardy wrestled Rhino, to a no-contest.

Let me know what you all think. MC511 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the TNA weekly ppvs should be made but there is no reason to at the moment because it would just be a big list. Though I was going to create it later. The results to tv shows shows is a okay idea but that is just my opinion.--WillC 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That has been proposed before. The ECW brand had a results page, but it was AfD'd as listcruft. I'm not sure if any other weekly wrestling show has had a page. Nikki311 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We are not a wrestling site, that would fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY I think. D.M.N. (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That would cancel out all the WWE, TNA, WCW, ECW, and ROH program results but surely not the TNA Weekly ppvs since they are ppvs and went around 2 hours, just as long as the ROH ppvs today.--WillC 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. This is why we don't have results for the weekly ROH reports, which is why List of Ring of Honor events was deleted a while ago as List cruft, which applies to TNA's weekly PPV shows.--S_RX 20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, the lists would be long which is why we can do a page for each year, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, etc. MC511 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree SRX, the ROH events were house shows and DVD shows. The weekly ppvs were two hour live ppvs for 10 or 9 dollars each week from Nashville. These would fall under regular ppvs like SummerSlam 2003. If it was possible to get a hold of a weekly ppv from TNA then we could expand them as well. I believe something like 2 years of weekly ppvs that added up to 136 ppvs is something that deserves a article instead of a foot note in Victory Road (2004).--WillC 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree again, the weekly PPV's were just shows promoted like television shows to build up storylines, like Raw, ECW, and SmackDown, with the exception that they were not on regular television. Thats what the pro wrestling wikia is for.S_RX 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To build up storylines to what? They had every match on their weekly ppvs. They build up to nothing but the next weeks episode. There was and is really no difference between them and a three hour ppv. And plus it is a ppv and not a free broadcast tv show. Because they are ppvs I feel they should have a page. 136 I believe is enough since TNA refers to them all the time and there is enough sources at prowrestlinghistory, Online World of Wrestling, Wrestling observer, and PWtorch to make a good sourced list. Maybe enough for a FL with time of expanding many of them and finding new sources.--WillC 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. They were PPVs, but at the same time, they were essentially earlier versions of a two-hour Impact. At the least, I think a page should be created to explain the concept. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how you think, they were PAY-PER-VIEWS and just because you have a biased opinion, that doesn't mean you're right. You can't change the fact that they were Pay-Per-Views and to this day TNA says their first Pay-Per-View was on June 19, 2002 in Huntsville, Alabama. They DON'T say their first Pay-Per-View was on November 7, 2004 in Orlando, Florida with Victory Road. MC511 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006) - Attempt #2

I attempted to post a similar message above, but the very first comment of that discussion directed the discussion directly off track and left my request going un-noticed. My request asked for users (of this project) to do peer-like-reviews for December to Dismember (2006), and leave comments on the talkpage. It seems like it's going unnoticed that its currently undergoing an FAR, hence why I'm leaving a further comment to try and get you guys to comment on the article on the talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we shorten the infobox?

By doing this...

I think that we should remove the "Pay-per-view chronology" and "Event chronology" from the infobox and into succession boxes. If we make the succession boxes, it would go in the external links section and look like this:

And the shortened infobox would look like this:

The Great American Bash (2005)
Promotion	World Wrestling Entertainment
Brand(s)	SmackDown!
Date	July 24, 2005
City	Buffalo, New York
Venue	HSBC Arena
Attendance	8,000

-- iMatthew _T.C. 22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --LAX 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ;) -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The succession box for the specific event (eg. The Great American Bash) seems redundant, as the table in the external links section already has the succession of The Great American Bash events. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I guess that should go. --LAX 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with new idea, but remove the "even chronology."S_RX 00:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the event chronology. Is this enough of a consensus to begin making the change? -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be the odd woman out, but I like having the last and next PPVs listed. As Darrenhusted said (somewhere), it is analogous to having all the episodes listed in the TV episode infobox. Removing the event chronology will make the infobox shorter, but I really think the other should stay. Nikki311 01:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that you think no change should be made, or that a change should be made, and the event chronology should be included in the succession box? I would agree that the event chronology should be included though, just don't have an exact reason. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep the "PPV chronology" (Vengeance 05, current, SummerSlam 05) in the infobox, but remove the "event chronology" (the one that lists all the SummerSlams, for example). Nikki311 01:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I disagree with that, because the chronology does not really provide basic information of the event, as infoboxes are supposed to. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "event chronology" is already listed in the table in the EL (as GCF pointed out) and having the "PPV chronology" makes it closer to the TV episode format, which is kind of what we are striving for anyway (with the production, reception, and real names). Right? Nikki311 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, definitely. D.M.N. (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want a visual aid to what it would look like in the article, well I've done it to Lockdown (2008).--WillC 21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to add it or not?--WillC 21:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Testing Out of Universe

Well just and update on the FAC, no current votes of support of opposition, just comments on fixes, which is a good thing. But if we are going to do this, how are we going to apply this to future PPV events when their are IPs and Newbies always getting into a conflict over the consensus here. Suggestions?--S_RX 00:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The same as with the tables, revert and tell them. Unless you want to place a banner that says leave contents alone.--WillC 02:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you placed a banner, I think that might border WP:OWN, by saying a group of members in this project "own" that particular article. D.M.N. (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How is that a problem if we are "owning" it per Wikipedia policy. If we created a page with a banner than had an crapload of MOS and guideline violations, then I could see your point. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding a hidden note wouldn't be bad to add, since most PW articles have that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hidden notes these days don't mean nothing to the Ip's or newbies. I like the idea of the banner but could go against WP:OWN, I guess we should just go ahead and do it and add a hidden note and revert if they change it and let them discuss it and we will explain why. Is that okay or should we come up with something else?S_RX 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, they need to know that if they make the "changes" that they will be warned for doing so. But, we would have to discuss some kind of consensus. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Things like hidden warnings are like placing signs up in real life; people will ignore them if they want to, but at least this way they can't claim that they didn't know what they weren't supposed to be doing. TJ Spyke 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the concern that people will create/expand new articles in a way other than the "consensus" here or that people will change articles that have been completed according to the "consensus"? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing the consensus of the Manual of Style. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The new changes that have been made to the PPV's. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What about them? I'm still not sure what the concern is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The concern is that they will continue to revert from the new style of writing back to the original jargon/in-universe format. What did I guys tell you it's already starting.S_RX 02:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep in mind that the new format is "consensus" in name only. With the exception of the tables, none of the recent changes were discussed and debated here. It all came from individual editors in peer reviews and/or FACs and was put in place immediately as "consensus" without discussion. It would have been nice to see some of it discussed, as it would have given an opportunity to point out that there are definite problems. For example, I just finished expanding SummerSlam (1992). According to the new "consensus", I should have split the "Event" section into two subsections: (i) Matches # 1-8 and Match 10, and (ii) Matches #9 and 11. How I would make paragraph transitions there is beyond me, as is the intended benefit of the subsections (which, in many cases, will be point of view, as main events aren't always clearly identified by the promotions). GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed, this spans from like the month of June. The community agreed with out of universe style, and then it was enhanced with the FAC reviews. Then it was disagreed, but then agreed after it was explained that their were easier ways to doing the format. Like I said above the guidelines have been updated and they can be seen there.S_RX 04:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I know where to find them. I just don't think they should be referred to as "consensus" when no consensus was sought or formed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page banner

How about we make a talk page banner and state the explanation of the new format and reference to WP:PW/MOS#PPV Guidelines or the ^New shortcut WP:PW/PPVG?S_RX 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes. Seriously. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well what should it state? Lets discuss community.--S_RX 03:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it should be worded but it should go right to the point and even a three year old should be able to understand it that there has been a new consensus that ppv articles are now going to be written out of universe and to not revert the edits and instead open a discussion about the problems you have about it on the talk page.--WillC 03:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How about The following article is written in an out-of-universe style of writing for the understanding of all readers on Wikipedia. Pay-per-view articles should not be written for one specific type of readers, but to all English readers. The original format of pay-per-view articles violated WP:JARGON, WP:IN-U, and WP:PW/PPVG. If you have any questions, please discuss here or at WT:PW.? or something along those lines.S_RX 03:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That would work but I believe someone who doesn't know the behind the scenes of WP:PW would be confused. Maybe a little less confusing and it would be better.--WillC 03:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How, they are just shortcuts to long titled project pages.S_RX 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mainly when you said out of universe. I don't believe IPs would understand that.--WillC 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

TNA Spin Cycle

We need an article page for TNA Spin Cycle. MC511 (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, what is "TNA Spin Cycle". --LAX 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fan created videos aren't notable.TrekFanatic (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

At most a foot note in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling is needed. Also now I see that WP:PW is just about WWE. Because Spin Cycle is a youtube tv show that TNA does with four members from its roster and they talk about current events. TNA is trying to get it on Spike tv as a half hour tv show. WWE isn't the only company you know, there is also ROH, TNA, PWG, NJPW, FIP, and Shimmer.--WillC 20:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, in that case let's make articles for every reoccuring segment on WWE.com --Endless Dan 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, a foot note in TNA will do just fine.--WillC 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that there is a complaint that this project is "discriminating" TNA when the major problem is that we must improve material covering companies outside of the US. There is wrestling in other countries you know ;-) WWC, IWA, AAA, CMLL, NJPW even new companies like RXW in Panama... Compare the coverage that we give to those with TNA. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To me about the same amount. I would be glad to work on any of those companies articles if I new anything about them. I also have a good reason to say that the project is more about WWE than other companies. I'm the only one, besides a few others, that have worked on the last 3 ppvs by TNA. I've wrote the background to Destination X to Hard Justice this year. I've mainly been working on them alone, besides a very few others helping out.--WillC 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is hardly the same, TNA has articles about all their PPVs and other events. Heck, each one of the World X Cup teams have its own articles, when each incarnation changes every two years. As far as coverage goes, I know that IWA, WWC, AAA and NJPW get a decent ammount; IWA even publishes "inside" articles where they discuss hirings and firings in English. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I misread your statement. I don't follow TNA (or current wrestling for that matter), but is this contest/segment/whatever really that notable? Fans submitting their own youtube videos?? --Endless Dan 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here watch it.--WillC 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll pass. There's a reason why I don't watch wrestling. Is this something that has been around a long time? Is it new? Would it be equivalent to the WWF's Byte This program?

Is Youtube even a reliable source??? Even so, I don't think this is notable enough even as a blurb on the TNA page.TrekFanatic (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fan created videos? Seriously? Wow. Mshake3 (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a TNA fan, I watch Impact every week, but I've never even heard of Spin Cycle. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First off if you would check the link you will see that it isn't created by fans. It is from the TNA youtube account, it is relible. It is from TNA and they even post it on their web site. It deserves a foot note in TNA programs or Total Nonstop Action Wrestling.--WillC 02:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is TNA-produced you'd think they could do it in better quality than "low". Sorry Will, but I disagree with you that this is notable. TrekFanatic (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now it is TNA's product. It has TNA's logo on it; Gail Kim, ODB, Traci Brooks, Salinas, Jeremy Borash, and Don West are all seen in the video. I don't believe a fan could make the video. It is note worthy of a foot note in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling.--WillC 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Some help, por favor

I'm not really active in this project anymore, but I do maintain my pet article Briscoe Brothers, and I've run into a problem with User:ROH Historian that....well, quite frankly, it's making me laugh my ass off (see his talk and mine {I've removed the comment, but it's in a past revision} for the lulz), but it's disruptive all the same. ROH Historian insists on the following text being in the article:

On August 1, 2008 in Manassas, VA The Briscoes defeated Sweet N'Sour Inc's Adam Pearce and Shane Hagadorn when Jay pinned Hagadorn following the Springboard Doomsday Device.

On August 2, 2008 in New York City they defeated The Vulture Squad (Ruckus and Jigsaw) when Mark pinned Jigsaw following the Springboard Doomsday Device.

Which is patently unnecessary and best covered by a single line referring to Mark's return to the active roster (which I've added......several times). User:Gavyn Sykes reverted ROH Historian once and included a comment tag discouraging the addition of the sort of material he was trying to put in, but obviously ROH Historian paid that no mind. He even called me editing out the above quoted text "vandalism," which is just sinfully hilarious.

Humor aside, this is still a problem that needs dealing with. Thanks for any help. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow ROH, but Briscoe Brothers is on my watchlist just because it's a GA, for the record. I haven't checked the history of the page, so I had no idea ROH Historian had been constantly adding that. But he seems like troll to me. "I know you wish you for me to kill myself?" WTF? Anyway, I'm not really sure where we could go from here. We've cited WP:V, WP:RS and most notably (excuse the pun) WP:N. Might be something to ask an admin about. We have three on the project now (LAX, Nikki311 and Lid, though Lid isn't as active as the other two. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, thanks. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a note on that user's talk page. Let me know if he continues. Nikki311 02:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Crap, look at his contributions. He's been doing this to easily a dozen different articles. Tromboneguy0186 (talk)

After his latest statement on his userpage (which has since been blanked), I've taken this to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who blanked his user page, and I have also templated him with some warnings, maybe he can be redeemed, but if ANI can sort it then he is next to 3RR. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've trimmed down the excessive recentism that was in Kevin Steen and El Generico, Naomichi Marufuji, Claude Marrow, Go Shiozaki, Delirious (wrestler), Adam Pearce, Claudio Castagnoli (this article needs a lot of work, by the way, it is still heavily kayfabed-up), and Brent Albright. Other users had already done the same to Bryan Danielson, Larry Sweeney, Chris Hero, Austin Aries, and Motor City Machine Guns. These seem to be his targets. I did not edit The Age of the Fall, which similarly received attention from this goofball. I was unsure what, if anything, ought to be trimmed. Now, when/if this guy returns from his block, he's probably going to go right back to these articles. As I said at the top of this section, I'm not exactly active in this project any longer and to be a little blunt I don't particularly care to be. I'll be able to look after my own talk page (though thank you to the user who reverted the latest insane rantings the Historian posted there) and surely Briscoe Brothers, but if you don't want this sort of crap seeping into other WP:PW articles, you'd best keep an eye on the ones he's targeted, and probably more, to be frank. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

When did..?

....we incorporate the "defeated" parameter into the television programs under the Champions section? See here, here, and here.--S_RX 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

August 6 at 19:56. According to the edit summary in the page history, the editor stated, "I added some text to the top article and add the defeated section to the champions." GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the precise time, but should we remove it? I find it irrelevant to the article itself or the section, as that is what the respective pages is for.--S_RX 12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, it is pointless as any link to the championship will give the information. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Darrenhusted. D.M.N. (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The same user also made WWE Title Holders which has since been redirected, and TNA Champions which I have now redirected. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for you to know now TNA has a current champions page. So if anything like that is made agian, redirect it there.--WillC 05:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Branding storyline?

I've been a vocal critic of the OOU style of writing but accepting it briefly, I'd just like to ask why every PPV article now contains (or will contain) "The event starred wrestlers from the Raw and SmackDown! brands: storyline expansions of the promotion where employees are assigned to wrestling brands under the WWE banner." I don't really see how the branding thing is a storyline. The wrestlers are assigned to brands and they do wrestle almost exclusively on them. Sure, which brand they are on is arbitrated and not lottery, but that doesn't stop them wrestling on that brand. Could we not put show or programme instead of brand and cut out the explanation. In fact, now that all PPVs are non-brand exclusive, why do we even bother to put that on there? It's like saying this WWE event features [unsurprisingly] WWE wrestlers from all WWE shows. Obviously it needs to be said for the 2002-07 PPVs. Tony2Times (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is how FAC Reviewers understand it better and it is doing no harm to any reader. Articles should be written so all readers of Wikipedia can understand. We should not base our articles on one set of eyes (wrestling readers). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news site or a site built on wrestling. If you don't appreciate the new format, head over to our sister Wiki, Pro Wrestling Wikia and you can have it your way, but here we are wording it for a better reputation of wrestling articles and an opportunity for more Good articles and Featured articles.--S_RX 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. As I said I was briefly accepting the OOU writing style. My point was that the brand extension isn't a storyline because the wrestlers are assigned to brands so to tell non-wrestling fans that it is storyline is misleading, I reckon. Moreover, why complicate things by adding that on current PPVs where there is no brand exclusivity? Tony2Times (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Style Guide should take effect in September

The new guidelines should take effect beginning inSeptember. Currently their are GAN's that are written in-universe, which will be the last ones to be in that format. After September, articles that are not out of universe, should not be able to go to GAN or FAC. This gives the project some time to get articles in shape. If anyone disagrees, say it here, we can extend the time period or if there is anything else wanting to be discussed.--S_RX 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Says who? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad, should have restated that, Style Guide "should" take effect in September, there we go.--S_RX 02:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is true then I don't have to take Lockdown out of universe, though I still should, it doesn't mater to me.--WillC 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't all FAs and GAs be converted? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If those who created them don't take the liberty to do so, everyone from the project is going to have to pitch in. Eventually, these will be new standards for GA, and GA Reviewers will take many of our articles to WP:GAR, where they may get delisted.--S_RX 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Being that I am the principal author of a pro wrestling GA, Briscoe Brothers, and I still wish to maintain it, I'd like to ask if it's sufficiently "out-of-universe" for your standards. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes for all GA PPV articles will be gradual, hell, it's not going to happen overnight, it's a process it will take a while (I've got five PPV articles at GA - but I don't really wish to feel like I'm in a rush to do it otherwise they'll get the chop). D.M.N. (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

At the moment we should not worry about biographies or tag team articles, those can be done later. The PPV's should come first, and like D.M.N. said, this is not an overnight process, this will take time, hell, we may finish come January.S_RX 12:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I will likely not be much help in this regard. I'm not good at writing PPV article nor do I have much interest in them. I will probably ignore the conversion altogether unless someone specficially asks me to help with an article. I will stick with wrestler bios for now, and can perhaps make some improvements while most others are focused on PPVs. I'll least maintain them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sticking to my belief that all of this is being pushed too quickly without sufficient thought put into it. The current style of "Per this edit at a peer review, all pay-per-view articles must be changed to include this" doesn't work. I don't mean to criticize the editors who are trying to make the changes, but a quick glance at a few articles shows me that there are numerous problems:

1. Who decides what is a preliminary match and what is a main event match? The promotions don't always make it clear, so separating them can be point of view. I know that the WWF used to call all title matches "main event matches" back in the mid-90s. Is that what we're going for? And, of course, not all main event matches involve titles.

Well main event means "most hyped" match, and the featured preliminary matches are most hyped than the other preliminary matches.--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's still an artificial, point of view distiction. For example, with WrestleMania X, should the opening match (Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart) be considered a main event match because it was heavily promoted? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. People are making subsections for "Preliminary matches" and "Main event matches" but then beginning the main event section with "One featured preliminary match was..." This makes no sense, and it won't fly at FAC.

Actually it will fly because the FAC reviewers suggested it and currently it is "flying."--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the phrase "featured preliminary match" named as a concern in a GA review because some readers have no clue what that means. In addition, it makes no sense to separate preliminary matches and main event matches and then discuss preliminary matches in the main event section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The division into these subsections ignores the fact that events with two or more main event matches may have another preliminary match thrown in between.

It doesn't matter, a side note can be thrown in to explain that a preliminary match was thrown in.--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It makes much more sense to discuss them chronologically. Dividing it into subsections is just superfluous headers for the sake of superfluous headers. Again, take the WrestleMania X example from above. Would I begin the discussion of matches at WrestleMania X with the second match on the card? As a reader, I would wonder what was going on if I saw that in an article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Extensive descriptions of holds don't always work. Unless you've seen Dean Malenko use a Texas cloverleaf, reading a two-line description of how it is applied won't make sense (I had a hard time following, and he was one of my favorites). Linking it and calling it a submission hold that hurts the leg would work better.

Have you not paid attention to the recent expanded articles or the FAC for SummerSlam (2003)? The holds should not be explained anymore and should just be linked.--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't. It doesn't interest me. The reason I edit articles about wrestling in the early-1990s is because I think wrestling became unwatchable midway through 1996. I just checked, though, and it seems as though this new change (which will soon be named a "consensus" is because Brianboulton said so. Since when do we change every article, without discussing it here, because one editor said so? And if you look at SummerSlam 2003, many of the moves are still given extensive descriptions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The description of holds is leading to poor grammar. There are many switches between past tense and present tense, and "their" is being used as a singular pronoun, and the reader is being addressed with "your".

Like I said above, they aren't explained any more.

But they are, both in SummerSlam 2003 and several other articles that were written according to the "consensus". Looking through a few, they contain exactly the type of writing errors I mentioned above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Descriptions are getting way too wordy. Why say "for malicious actions" instead of "for cheating"? By definition, most wrestling moves would be considered malicious (eg. punching your opponent), but they don't cause disqualifications.

Sigh, like in the FAC, we don't need to say that anymore, No Disqualification is self explanatory.--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it should have been changed in the first place. Again, matches are still described in detail in other articles and contain the same writing errors I mentioned with the holds (In the example, "The only way to win a "Bra and Panties match" is to strip your opponent's clothes off until they are left in their underwear", "your" addresses the reader and should not be used in an encyclopedia, and "they/their" are plural pronouns being used incorrectly to refer to a single person). GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The articles are about pay-per-views, not about professional wrestling in general. Throwing a sentence discussing staged rivalries and scripted matches doesn't work unless it discusses this in relation to the event itself. Otherwise, it's just choppy prose.

That is what "flies" at FAC, and I find it necessary because I find it redundant to say every sentence that it "was part of the scripted events" "as a part of the storyline." It's not like its in every section, it's only in the lead for the reader to comprehend what pro wrestling is about.--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point: "unless it discusses this in relation to the event itself". A stand-alone sentence about professional wrestling as a whole doesn't work in the middle of a paragraph. It should be rephrased to describe what professional wrestling is while discussing the specific event. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

These are a few of the more obvious problems I've seen. I think some of the recent changes are for the better, but I think some thought still needs to go into how to implement all of it (or perhaps just some of it). I'm also not trying to point out problems without proposing solutions, so I'm willing to discuss this. I just think someone needs to say something before all of the articles are changed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I responded to your concerns. (Sorry to sound like a dick)--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I am currently on vacation, just found a computer. I will be able to help make the change to our GA's when I get back. Without going into detail, I agree with GCF, and I'd have to say some of this is just being taken to far. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How? So if SummerSlam (2003) "goes to far" and it passes FAC, what does the project plan to do?S_RX 14:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess so. Guess we have to do that to get our articles to FA, like it or we do. Although the FAC (as of yet) doesn't have any supports, it also doesn't have any opposes... D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess my main problem with all these changes that have been proposed, and now apparently will be incorporated in the PPV articles (at first) is the fact that we feel the need to have a "disclaimer" of what professional wrestling is all about. I'm from the school that most everyone knows what professional wrestling is (staged athletic combat with pre-determined match outcomes). If we were to say, for instance, "SummerSlam was a professional wrestling pay-per-view event," and then link professional wrestling, that would suffice. If someone wanted to find out about professional wrestling, they would just click on the link. Think of it this way: Take for instance the page about the Chicago Bulls basketball team. The current version, as I write this, does not have an explanation of what basketball is. By your arguments for putting the "disclaimer" in (to explain what professional wrestling is and to make it conform to good article and feature article status), the same should apparently be true for articles about professional basketball teams (putting in a disclaimer of what basketball is, purportedly to "help" the reader understand what basketball is). Yet, I highly doubt that anyone with the NBA basketball project would agree to that. The same would be true for, say, an article about an episode of the TV series M*A*S*H — nobody would publish a "disclaimer" in each article stating that M*A*S*H was set in the Korean War and that it centered on the lives of the members of the 4077th. Most people who link onto one of the M*A*S*H articles probably have some idea of the show's general premise. I just have a hard time believing that a "disclaimer" would only be necessary for professional wrestling articles, and not any other pop-culture medium. Do we have enough Wiki readers who believe everything they see in professioanl wrestling is real, thus making it necessary to include the "disclaimer"? I ask that seriously, because it definitely seems to have affected the way we introduce professional wrestling-related articles. I do think this apparent decision to place disclaimers at the beginning of articles — if only to make them featured articles and good article candidates — has been made too hastily, and yes, I realize not everyone has had time to or decided to participate. Sorry for the rant, but I had to weigh in on this, even though the issue has apparently been decided. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Vengeance 2002

Hey i was expanding this in my Sandbox for a while. I'd just like to see if you's think its ok before I move it into main space. here it is Adster95 (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

John Morrison and The Miz

An article has been created for this team. I believe that by now, notablity has been established and the article can remain. Thoughts? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. They've been a tag team for nearly a year and have their own talkshow, so I think that establishes notability. D.M.N. (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. JakeDHS07 20:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Move purposal

The WWE roster page is now located at list of World Wrestling Entertainment employees. As this is the same type of article and the template has been set I move for this page to be moved to list of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees or move the WWE one to include the current part. They should be consistent. Thoughts? JakeDHS07 20:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Crap I forgot, this might need to go to Article Name Changes instead.--WillC 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude your killing me lol. JakeDHS07 20:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been able to think straight lately, I have lot a crap on my mind as well as I have alot of stress.--WillC 20:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

List This?

Does anybody know if WWE.com's List This is voted for by the fans or just made up by the writers? Nikki311 20:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is by the writers as I have never seen a vote put up for it. And I would know WWE.com is the only site I vist more than this one lol. JakeDHS07 20:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results >> Spilt?

This in currently undergoing an AFD, which looks like it'll end in keep. Now, I think this article should be split like what we've been doing with PPV's. For the original run, from 1985 to 1992, I believe some storylines built up to the SNME events, which means it'd be easier to put information in, of course, it may be a bit harder for the recent SNME events, but it is still "do-able". Of cause, we don't have to do it all at once, one at a time like with PPV's. But overall, I think it is a completely feasable option to split them into "PPV style" articles. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. I'd be happy to write the sections on the most recent three SNME's since I've actually seen them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarify: My proposal means that each SNME event will have it's own article. D.M.N. (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the results list be on its article? Like Clash of the Champions is.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Anyway, I'm creating a "!vote" for my proposal:

Why isn't Saturday Night's Main Event results just moved to Saturday Night's Main Event? RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support split

1. D.M.N. (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
2. --WillC 09:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
3. RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I've created the "!poll" to see what you guys think about splitting them into event articles like with PPV's. D.M.N. (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not against splitting the pages (I'm for anything that can be done well), but I do think we should wait until we get all (or most) of the PPVs done. It also might be a little harder to find good sources. Nikki311 01:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It might be harder, but at the same time, SNME during the 80's was huge, so I'm pretty sure there will be book sources and web sources. D.M.N. (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

December PPVs

Okay, I guess WWE wants to see what TNA is made of, they have changed their date for Armageddon (2008) to December 14. This is also the same day as Turning Point (2008), TNA's December ppv. Should we acknowledge this in the articles or just wait to see if WWE or TNA changes the dates of their ppvs? P.S. I hope they don't change anything.--WillC 22:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I say wait and only mention it if they affect each other. Nikki311 23:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking just to wait, I was just asking because a IP keeps placing it in on the Armageddon page. Though it does seem notable to me. As far as I know this will be the first time two major professional wrestling promotion's ppvs are going to go head to head.--WillC 23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Series (1987) and Starrcade (1987) were both held on November 26, 1987. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that, interesting, well it is still notable to me, because this will be the first time TNA and WWE fight. This one will be live and against the real WWE and not ECW.--WillC 23:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It may just be that WWE wants to hold the PPV earlier to give it's wrestlers more time off for Christmas. It could have nothing to do with TNA. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but why not just change it to the 28. But anyway I feel it is note worthy.--WillC 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If the iMPACT vs ECWWE event was anything to go by, it's TNA PXK ^T /_C 00:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Too bad TNA's buyrates are only a 10th of the WWE's on average. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PXK, that comment doesn't contribute anything constructive to this discussion. Take comments like that to forums. D.M.N. (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If it somehow becomes notable, then yes. But now, it means nothing. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we'll wait. re to TonyFreakinAlmeida: so your telling me that WWE gets at least 300,000 or more for every ppv they do. TNA has a average of at least 30,000. That is pretty good for a 6 year old company when it took WWE 60 years to get where it is at today. Anyways, I was just wondering if it was notable at the moment.--WillC 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Going to iMPACT! on Monday

Anyone got any article picture requests? PXK ^T /_C 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Taylor Wilde needs a pic, and one with the Knockouts Championship would be even better. We also need closeup single shots of Angelina Love and Velvet Sky (if you have really good seats, I guess). Nikki311 23:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt Morgan, Jimmy Rave, Rhaka Khan.

Roxxi could use a pic of her bald. An in-ring shot of Abyss would be nice. A pic of Karen Angle that doesn't include Kurt. Tomko also needs a pic, but he may left the company. The ring announcer, Dave Penzer needs a pic, as does Hermie Sadler if he's there. The referee, Mark "Slick" Johnson as well. And a pice of Creed in TNA could work too. And a pic of Christopher Daniels as Curry Man would be great. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a idea, just take a picture of anyone and everyone because it would be great to place in their articles as well as PPV articles that I'm expanding and ones I'll do in the future as well as ones others will do in the future. Instead of just request, because you never know who you'll see; never know, Jeff Jarrett might show up or RVD might make a return to wrestling by signing with TNA and showing up there, just take a picture of almost anyone.--WillC 01:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. That sounded really bad faith to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Clam down why? I'm acting normal. I was just saying to take a picture of anything because really every article in TNA's section needs a photo. Most of them are old photos. New ones would be great.--WillC 03:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The tone (which is easily misinterpreted over the internet) seemed more "Hey you idiot, here's an idea" then "I have a good idea" to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I might have been a little excited though. More pictures for the TNA section. Something good for that section is rare.--WillC 19:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, I should pay more attention to my galleries. I have some other things I can add, such as Roxxi and Kong from the last SHIMMER show. Mshake3 (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good that would be helpful, the Kong one would do great in Final Resolution 2008 when I create it and write it.--WillC 01:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going now, wish me luck (and look out for me, I'm the emo in the AJ Styles shirt and brown hoodie) PXK ^T /_C 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Have fun. Also if J.J. is there take a picture of him no doubt. With a guitar would be awesome.--WillC 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

well that sucked. After I saved the second day of my pass for the iMPACT tapings, when I got in Studios they said its moved to tomorrow. This "free" TNA show is gonna cost me another 1 day, 1 park pass. PXK ^T /_C 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that is too bad.

Your fault man. Tapings have been pushed back a day after road PPVs for months now. Mshake3 (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead Co-ordinator

I just read the Signpost's coverage of WikiProject Military History, and it mentioned their lead co-ordinator. I was just wondering if we have one, and if so, who it is. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No we don't have one, and I don't really think this project needs one as it would give some members a lot more authority over other members. D.M.N. (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this project does not need any one person to have more power than the next. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need one, I was just wondering about it. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

COTW

I'm just wondering - how many people !vote on a specific article, but don't work on in? If someone supports a certain article, surely it means that they want it promoted to the COTW so that they can work on it? 6 people !voted for Gail Kim, yet only one of the six has made constructive edits to it, while 6 people !voted for The Kliq, yet only two of the six have made constructive edits to it. Out of everyone that is "voting" on the COTW's, only one user (who I'm not pointing out whom, because it's obvious from the article history) is trying to improve the articles (me also on the Kliq - I didn't vote for Kim because I'm not really interested in TNA). I think this is unfair, people are !voting for certain articles, yet don't actually contribute during the 2 weeks as COTW. I mean, what's the point of the COTW, if only one or two editors are going to work on in - it serves no point. If all the 6 users were going to edit it, fair enough but if only two editors are going to work on it; it's pointless, and unfair to the users in question who dedicate their time working while the other editors that supported the article don't contribute whatsoever to improve it. D.M.N. (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way. What really bothers me is when someone nominates an article and doesn't even work on it when it becomes the COTW. Nikki311 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would help work on them, but I have alot on my plate right now with TNA ppvs plus I just got some really bad news so I might not be on for a while.--WillC 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

List of ECW Champions

Someone has decided to mark the article with WWE revisionism once again and claim that all reigns prior to Shane Douglas' throwdown of the NWA Title aren't recognized or official. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Listing Real Names (PPVs)

I would like to know if we can not put the Wrestler's/Diva's real name in parenthesis inside the table for matches. I think it clutters it up and since we have to look in the Event Section to see how the match was won, we should just look in the Background/Event/Aftermath sections for their real names.Qwerty36095 (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly right, that is how it should be per WP:OVERLINK.--S_RX 20:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WWE Championships Article Name Changes

Right now there are two WWE Championships at ANC that have been on there for over a month now, and their is support for the move but their are votes for opposition (but less than support). So this can be fair, the survey needs more opinions before it's archive, I highly plead the project to vote in this survey. P.S. The renaming is for the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) and World Tag Team Championship (WWE).--S_RX 13:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've archived done/not done page moves, and archived some discussions, with them being moved to article talkpages. D.M.N. (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another assanine change just because a FA or GA reviewer has an issue. Mshake3 (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Assanine? Perhaps. But where does it say that this has anything to do with a GA or FA reviewers? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "Look at the article, if that articles were to ever go to a GA review or FA review (hypothetically) they would notice, why isn't World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) written anywhere else in the article?" Maybe there isn't an issue yet, but he's clearly suggesting that there will be one. Mshake3 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE Women's Champions

Somebody keeps adding an extra day to Mickie James' reign length. Camelglue22 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can be more specific. She is the reigning champion, I'm guessing your talking about her other reigns.--WillC 00:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about information that was at the Mickie James article, because I can't find it; if it was there, probably would be a good idea to bring it up at the talk page for the Mickie James article. If not, what article are you speaking of, then go to that article's talk page and let them know. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)]]

This thread contains win (and TNA spoilers)

Ok, I got lots of pics to upload when I get home. Taylor, yup. Roxxi, wasn't there. Kong, the Camera guy got in the way. Abbys, I got a backstage pic of HIS REAL FACE! WIN! Brother Ray tried to steal my hat to throw away (Watch this part, the camera goes right close up) JJ, back stage pic.

Spoilers from this

LOOK AWAY NOW!

Matt Morgan and Abyss formed a team, AJ and Kurt had a match for the medal, when the ref got knocked out, Stings music hit and Angle had a bat (he took it from the ring post) when the blackout stopped. Then as he was about to hit this wrestler's music hit and a second blackout gave AJ his signature weapon. But the most important event was me donating a dollar to Sonjay's "Save your damn gimmick" fund. (as I called it) -- PXK ^T /_C 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When you get the chance to upload them tell us. I got a good place to put the Abyss one.--WillC 01:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the image post, but the spoilers post is not needed per WP:FORUM, its not relevant to the project.--S_RX 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just letting members of the project know..

Even though there are many discussions about the opposition of the new out of universe pay-per-view (PPV) article format, If there are any members of the project that need help or need a copyedit to their PPV articles to remove wrestling jargon or to aid in rewording to avoid wrestling jargon, just drop a note on my talk page ;)--S_RX 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well before the OOU format was adopted I'd begun to cover 1998 pay per views but I was writing them as I watched them, so they are very sloppy and probably have too much detail in. They need subediting quite badly I'm sure, although I tried my best for hyperlinks and citations. Still, they wouldn't be up to standard before, so they really won't be now. I wrote from the Rumble to No Way Out of Texas:In Your House, Mania and Unforgiven: In Your House and then got distracted. I might pick it up again as I'm up to SummerSlam but all the backgrounds are so confusing. Tony2Times (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey I can't find anything to put in the reception paragraph for Vengeance 2002 I'm User:Adster95/sandbox nearly done though if anyone would like to help i'd much appreciate it! Adster95 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Before that touches the mainspace, the Background section needs sources. D.M.N. (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Any better? Adster95 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to do something!!!

Okay, we need to make a banner or something now to tell people to leave the lead and background on PPVs alone. I'm tired of people removing the stuff from the lead and background on Hard Justice (2008), I got so fed up with it I'm now working on it in my sandbox. Also their doing it to No Surrender (2008) and the build for it doesn't start till Thursday. We've had to protect SummerSlam (2008) and Hard Justice because of this. Unless we want to keep dealing with this for many more weeks or months, I suggest we make something that tells them to quit, because I've told a few about the changes and they go right on and remove it again.--WillC 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think a banner is going to make much difference. Judging from the reactions of some of the users reverting to the old style, they don't really care. In fact, they'd probably just remove the banner, too.  Hazardous Matt  23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask to have the page protected for a few days. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)]]

With the amount that is going on at No Surrender, I doubt it will get protection. Hard Justice only got 2 days and it had just as much as SummerSlam has and it got a week.--WillC 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of them are plain vandals and idiotic think its funny. We don't need a banner - as I said a few days ago, no other articles have banner of a similar nature, so we shouldn't have one. D.M.N. (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown (2008)

Hey, can someone please do a copyedit on Lockdown (2008), I haven't got alot of time to work on it much anymore. It is under GA review and if the problems aren't fixed on its talk page then it will fail and I don't want that. The problems are mainly the new out of universe thing and brung it too much into detail. Someone please help me out because I'm not good at explaining it shorter, I really hate the article now.--WillC 19:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Find, who knew who were used :)

[1]--S_RX 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good find. At least we have something to cite to in the future, if anyone tries to start a PPV page war. D.M.N. (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question

I'm going to attempt to take Matt Sydal out of universe and have run into a snag. Two wrestlers mentioned on his page Delirious and Daizee Haze have no real known names. They are known only by their ring names and no reliable source I can find reports their actual names. So, what to do? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Delirious' page says his real name is William Johnston (or is that a different Delirious?). As for Haze, I'd just link her ring name without listing a real name. There's nothing you can do, IMO, if the info isn't available. Nikki311 02:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I swear that wasn't there a week a ago when I last checked, XD, but good enough. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I would write a footnotes section and explain that their birth name is not available.--S_RX 02:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I believe Daizee Haze's real name is Daizee Haze. It seems so real to me.--WillC 05:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it is. Every site I've checked says that her real name is withheld by request. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention

I know that per this, we are to name the events with the year in paranthesis, but in some article we only use that title in the infobox and the lead and thats it. After that we use the title without the paranthesis, like SummerSlam 2003. Then in other articles we mention other PPV events, we write them as SummerSlam 2003 and not SummerSlam (2003). So what's wrong here, the policy or the way it is written?--S_RX 13:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam 2003 wouldn't be the official name, so it shouldn't be used when referring to the event in its own article or other articles. I like to write it as "SummerSlam in 2003". Nikki311 13:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Series (2003)

Shouldn't you rate the article better than a Start rating? Govvy (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed to C. Still needs to be completed though. D.M.N. (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jon Heidenreich

I have mentioned it before and on it's talk page ages ago, but again, the references and external links are very poor and need fixing up for him. Govvy (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Govvy, if no one's referencing it, why don't you try and fix it by adding references yourself? D.M.N. (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I am only using the wrestler articles for cross referencing for another project I am doing. It's something the wrestling project needs to do and I did ask before. Govvy (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the articles need referencing...he's kind of low on the list, IMO. His article will be fixed eventually, though. Nikki311 13:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PPV succession box vs. listing in infobox

Yeah step by step, but when did we incorporate the consensus about the PPV box? No consensus was built on that.S_RX 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There never was one, but there was no body opposing it, so I went ahead and added it. I'm the only one adding it since I feel it will help. It is only in Hard Justice (2008), No Surrender (2008), Lockdown (2008), and Sacrifice (2008).--WillC 00:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Last comment about this- you shouldn't incorporate things into an article in that important nature until consensus is built at WT:PW with many users and not just one or two users or when the discussion goes dead, I highly recommend reverting back to the original format, you need to follow the current format, then we can discuss whether to incorporate the new boxes.--S_RX 00:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but lets discuss it soon, because we didn't discuss any of this other stuff and I don't see anybody reverting back to the old format right now. Plus I took it as a consensus since there was like 5 against 0 who wanted to make the change.--WillC 00:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Because no one else talked about it, you can't make a conclusion based on a small hand of votes. Personally, I agree with having the box but I would like to have the event chronology there (i.e. SummerSlam chronology) that is relevant to the article, but I feel that the PPV chronology is worthless. Why do we have it, because we like it to move from one PPV to another in an order, but as brought up in the SummerSlam '03 PR, it is not needed because it is not doing anything relevant to the article. We don't even have to add the PPV box at the bottom, we can just remove the PPV and event chronology parameters and add a parameter that just says "Succeeded by" and then the next "event" PPV (i.e SS'03 and succeeded by SS'04) and that's it.S_RX 00:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I think the PPV chronology is similar to the list of all the television episodes for an entire season in the infoboxes for television episode articles. You can click from, say, Vengeance 2003 to SummerSlam to Unforgiven and it will help with following the storylines. I think it has more of a purpose than listing the previous and following SummerSlam events (as they happen a year a part and don't even affect each other), but I don't see the problem with just keeping both succession lists in the infobox. User:Brianboulton, who commented on the PPV chronology, "didn't see the necessity" because he "doesn't understand wrestling" (which he admitted himself). He didn't understand that like in the television episode articles, it aids with understanding plot development. How many times in a PPV article does what happened at the previous PPV affect the current one? A lot, especially in the main events and title defenses. Nikki311 01:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We could remove both chronology's, and add the PPV chronology to the "See also" sections. In SummerSlam (2008), the "See also" section would include links to: List of WWE pay-per-view events, SummerSlam, The Great American Bash (2008), and Unforgiven (2008). -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel, the table at the bottom of Lockdown would be better. The see also section doesn't tell which came first and next. Plus it is a little prettier.--WillC 05:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So do we have a decision yet? Just to make sure so that this one doesn't go dead either.--WillC 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not even close. We need some more opinions... Nikki311 02:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does the PPV chronology not add anything? If you're following events/angles from one pay-per-view to the next then it's there, plain to click. If you wanna compare the attendance, the buyrate or if you can't remember when something happened but you remember some PPVs near it, then there you go click. How does event chronology do anything constructive? SummerSlam 2002 is barely related to SummerSlam 2003 in anything but name and the comparable information (where it is, what the date was) can be found at the main SummerSlam page. Ergo I'm pro PPV chron but against event chron for the main box, if it needs to be there use the bottom box. Tony2Times (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be better if it looked like this.

and have nothing in the info box. Like so=

Sacrifice (2008)
[[File::TNA Sacrifice 2008.jpg|frameless|upright=1]]
Promotion	Total Nonstop Action Wrestling
Date	May 11, 2008
City	Orlando, Florida
Venue	Impact! Zone
Attendance	900
Tagline(s)	What Are You Willing to Sacrifice?" "Are You Willing to Give Up What Means The Most?

It looks nice and doesn't distract from the page. That is what I'm for if no one knew already.--WillC 03:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it a problem just keeping both sets of chronologies in the infobox? Then the people who like the event chronologies are happy, and the people who like PPV chronologies are happy. Nikki311 15:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a problem, I just seem to like it better this way. After I placed it in Lockdown I thought it went with the flow. Someone is reading it down the page, they look at the results then go past the references to see if there is anything left, then they see the boxes. It goes with the flow and makes ppvs look like TV episode articles. The next ppv in the storyline and the last ppv in the storyline. It just works to me.--WillC 21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

TV episodes don't have succession boxes. Nikki311 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

They use too. I haven't looked at one in a while, but I like the succession box at the bottom. That is just me, it works with the flow in my mind.--WillC 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

IRC channel

I was wondering if there was any interest here in having a project specific IRC channel so that we would be able to discuss project related things. Several other projects do have them, and if there is interest, perhaps we should have one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. I'm up for it.--S_RX 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and created one, #wp-pw. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance (I never use chatrooms or whatever this is), but how do I enable it? I clicked the link and already had Java installed. It says not connected and no channel. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's working for me at current. PXK ^T /_C 14:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

info box namings

I've been noticing across a lot of biographies that the top of the infobox just above the picture is the name field. But with the wrestling articles a lot have the alias and not the real name of the person. Shouldn't it be the real persons name as there is a collection of aliases underneath? Govvy (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be the name of the article. Nikki311 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox Wrestler#Parameters. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/IWGP_Tag_Team_Championship

Just a quick note to say that this FLRC will probably be closed, soon. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In wrestling and Championships and accomplishments

Does anyone one else feel that these sections are meant for quick reference and thus should not be subjected to WP:OVERLINK much like PPV result tables? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Nikki311 00:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Now for the real question. Is it possible to make an exception for that and still comply with WP:MOS and all other guidelines? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope I read that right...are you asking that if we still link the "in wrestling", are we still complying with MoS and the guidelines? I think so...as mentioned before, reference lists (filmography, discography, results tables, awards) tend to be the special exception. I don't know of a policy that says otherwise. Nikki311 00:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In other words, moves are linked even if they appear elsewhere in the article, same with managers. For the C&A section, titles and tag partners are linked regardless of the rest of the article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good news for project, if it happens

Currently their is a proposal to add Wikipedia:Good topics as a policy, which is like Wikipedia:Featured topics, but instead of high/featured quality, they are of good quality, which can help the project with articles like WWE No Way Out and it's GAs, so I encourage the project to vote here in a straw poll.--S_RX 01:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

*sighs*

A little help, please? Talk:Glen Jacobs#Edit War. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Championship Succession Boxes

One user seems to have a thing for succession boxes. They have been added them for KOTR, GMs, RR winners and WWE Champions. As per consensus I have been removing them (as have others). But with so many other things up for discussion maybe now is the time to properly discuss them. I know the argument against them, and it seems to consist of "Jerry Lawler's page will be massive", or any other wrestler who has won twenty titles. And I'm not saying USWA reigns should be included, but if the list of successions was limited (to the top titles, WWE/WHC, Tag, IC/US, and Women's) then very few wrestlers' pages would be massive (Edge, Kane and Mick Foley would bloat because of Tag reigns). Or another alternative is the idea of a navbox with surnames, as an idea I offer these three pages. They all have massive succession boxes (15, 15 and 17) and also surname only navboxes at the foot. I would be in favour of some limited list of succession boxes but what do others think?Darrenhusted (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I like them for commentator and for accomplishments like King of the Ring, Royal Rumble, Diva Search and Money in the Bank. But I don't think you should do it for titles. And Darrenhusted please sign your posts using 4~ thanks Adster95 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I had six tabs open. Darrenhusted (talk)

Surely IC and US aren't top titles, they're second tier? Anyhow, my feelings on succession boxes are ambivalent mainly because I see them for comics writers and you can never navigate your whole way through it. But if we were to have them, I wouldn't see a problem, like Adster said, for accomplishments like KoTR, Rumble and MiTB, perhaps King of the Mountain too, because they are annual events and thus the winners are limited, plus the winners are rarely repeated. Anyone who wrestled in the late '90s will have their page almost doubled in length. WWF Hardcore Champions tripled. Tony2Times (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Feedback from WP:PW requested at ANI

Hey all. Can you guys take a look at this thread on ANI, and maybe weigh in with your thoughts? I know that the editor in question was a member here, and that this whole issue revolved around the wikiproject here. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006) - Still an FA!

The FAR was finished today, and I am happy to report that D2D is still an FA. D.M.N. (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. I thought it was a sure thing once SandyGeorgia of all users supported it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Great work everyone! Nikki311 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Promo (professional wrestling)

I strongly believe this article should be redirected to List of professional wrestling slang. It's just plain out of hand. The entire article is a series of point of view lists. This has encouraged other editors and IPs to add anyone who ever had a good (or bad) promo. All but one of the lists are also heavily skewed toward recent wrestlers. Nothing significant is actually stated in the article that isn't already included in entry for "promo" on the list of slang. Would anyone disagree with redirecting it? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with a redirect.  Hazardous Matt  16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

These two slang articles also seem unnecessary and could be merged into the slang list. Thoughts?--Endless Dan 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also a good idea.  Hazardous Matt  16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been systematically redirecting those sorts of pages (plus merging sourced info, but most of them don't have any of that) so I, of course, support redirecting all three of those articles, as well. Nikki311 16:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, but List of wrestling slang is really coming out of hand with the sources and original research.S_RX 17:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally. "Arm color"? C'mon. --Endless Dan 18:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it that way, but I could easily find at least 40-50 terms on that list that aren't notable enough to include (From A to G alone: Arm color, Around the Horn, Boys, Broadway, Bozark, Bull, Bump ring, Ceiling, Crimson mask, The Deal, Feeding, Fire, Geek, Gig mark, Gizmo, Go home, Good hand, etc.). I think things like this are the reason it was proposed for deletion in the past. That sort of glossary is better left to Wiktionary or wrestling fan sites. The reason that WP:PW members gave for keeping the list was that it acts as a useful reference for other articles. I have never seen any of the terms I listed in a wrestling article, though, so I think some trimming is in order. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they should only be kept if they can get verified by wrestlers books, i.e. Shawn Michaels makes reference to a few in his book, same with Batista, Jericho, Foley etc.. D.M.N. (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of them can be verified by this list from Pro Wrestling Torch. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that something like a promo is more significant than most of the terms in the list of wrestling slang. Could we not have a list of a wrestling slang, like there is, and then a seperate page or sub section, where the more common and frequently used terms, are elucidated. I don't know what the title of that article or sub section would be but I imagine it to read like the List of Professional Wrestling Match Types. Tony2Times (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU for WP:PW?

What do you guys think of creating a HAU-like page for this project. For the same purposes, if users have questions and/or need help, we can point them to our own HAU list. If you guys think this might be a good idea, I created a list here of those who would probably be on the list. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, most of us know who is who around here and its always only around 20 members who are highly active, IPs and newbies don't give a crap about the project, just MO.--S_RX 14:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But that's because all we ever do is revert them and warn them. I think that we should start warning them, but leaving a message stating "if you need help learning how to use the tools of Wikipedia, to constructively edit articles, see our highly active users that are available to help you" or something along the lines of that. This isn't about the project, it's mainly about giving them assistance and help when they need it to edit articles. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its a great idea. Thanks for letting WP:PW know about this feature. SRX — I don't know if its about IPs and newbies not giving a crap, but what IMatthew said (I'd just be repeating him, so I won't go any further). Give it a try and see how it goes. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)]]

I like the idea.--WillC 03:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. And as for newbies and IPs not caring about the project, I'm a newbie (210~ edits) and I'm here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius101 Wizard (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So does anybody have a problem with the establishment of a page like this? -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

List of matches in match type articles

Are these necessary? See: Elimination_chamber#Match_history, Iron_Man_match#Ironman_Match_history, Ladder match (most of the article is simply listing matches that have taken place for WWF/E, WCW, TNA and elsewhere), Ultimate_X_match#Ultimate_X_matches, these are just some examples. I would bet a majority of the match type articles list matches. I see this as both trivial and just clutter. I can understand an examples section, but a full on list isn't necessary. I'm not completely sure, but these might be violating Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been working on that, we are doing it step by step which is why first we are trying to get rid of Hell in a Cell.--S_RX 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

List of celebrities at WrestleMania

I was thinking of whether this is a good idea? expanding over 20 years with over 100 celebs at the event, I think a list of them and their role and what they do could do good and then we can eliminate the horrible prose at WrestleMania#Celebrity involvement no?--S_RX 15:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It could be a good idea, especially if you describe their role (as you mentioned). Most WrestleManias have quite a bit of coverage, so that should be helpful. Nikki311 15:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and the table could look something like this..

Celebrity	Occupation	Appearance	Role	Refs
Aretha Franklin	Singer	WrestleMania I WrestleMania 23	Sang renditions of "America the Beautiful" at both events.	[3][5][27]

S_RX 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. It's definitely more information to add to the article, and since it branches outside of the PW industry, it could be considered quite notable.  Hazardous Matt  16:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I started expansion in my sandbox.S_RX 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

would Mayweather count as a celebrity, or is he exempted because he was part of the talent for the event? My opinion is that he should be included, as should Arquette for any WCW equivalent. Lafraisne (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I also kept meaning to suggest this, but mainly the reason I brought it up was because there now tends to be that drop down box of "Other on-screen talent" including commentators and interviewers. I'd argue celebrities should be put in there, like Rayven Simone this year as she's currently not there because she didn't compete or interview, but her appearance is noteworthy as celebrity is part of the WrestleMania phenomenon. Tony2Times (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (Why did someone delete this comment? :s)

I think Talent in that case refers to those employed full time by WWE and not guests. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not so, this year included Kim Kardashian (sp?) on the list because she took the role of an interviewer. This makes sense, because she was doing something on screen but seeing as people like Rayven didn't have a role but their appearance was still hyped up somewhat, I feel they should be mentioned somewhere on the page and that table seems to be the best place, so as to avoid bullet point trivia. Tony2Times (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah don't worry, I have a reliable source that lists every celeb at the 'Manias.S_RX 12:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New Project Subpage

I've just opened up a new project subpage: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Suggestions.

The page is for suggestions in improving the articles, and should be used for suggestions mainly about the new format. I mainly opened it to avoid the clutter on this talk page, and the constant repeated discussions. -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have decluttered this page by moved all relevant discussions to the subpage. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

somebody do something

Please somebody do something about this article. Glamarella. There is no way that this team is important yet. Also if it is because they won two belts to keep it then somebody better recreate Beer Money, Inc because they won the tag belts.--WillC 03:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested speedy deletion. If that doesn't work, we'll have to take it to AfD. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we should just start making new teams and stables pages redirects so that IPs never can create them until they become important. Because everytime a new team comes out someone has to create an article about them.--WillC 03:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidently it has been deleted then recreated, I have redirected it but it could still be deleted. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've AfD'd it this time. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Note regarding four pay-per-view articles

After a request at RFPP, No Mercy (2008), Cyber Sunday (2008), Survivor Series (2008) and Armageddon (2008) have all been semi-protected till October 8th. D.M.N. (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what happens I think they will all need to be reprotected after they air. I guess while the "new style" meets with resistance this will be par for the course. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WWE Raw#Commentators

I've just noticed a new layout for the commentators. To be frank, I hate the layout IMO. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Holly hell, that's disgusting. It should be reverted as there was no consensus.--S_RX 16:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, what about something like this?

Commentary Team from Month Year to Month Year
Play-By-Play	Color Commentary	Additional Commentary
Vince McMahon	Rob Bartlett	Randy Savage
Additional Information

Playing around. Let me know what you think.  Hazardous Matt  17:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks good, but I think that will make that list huge, especially the Raw article, but it looks great.S_RX 17:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I on the whole agree with SRX. D.M.N. (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WWE European Championship

Why does this page lack an infobox. I attempted to create one, but could not get it right. I have the info saved (lightest, youngest, etc). If someone would be willing to add the infobox, let me know and I'll give you the info. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I got it in there, you are just going to have to fill it in.--WillC 04:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for some help

Hi, guys can you possibly keep an eye on User:Samgibbs and his Anon IP... i have been trying to just take his edits as good faith and work wiht his changes to better the articles however it seem to be getting beyond a joke now he doesn't want to communicate (blanking talk page and not responding etc), he also seems to be working for Real Quality Wrestling.. mainly POV, removing of wikitags and references while performing other disruptive edits.. he seemingly wants to make the company and its sister promotions have a large presence on wikipedia with no regard for proper editing.. if some else could look into his actions it would be very much appreciated. --- Paulley (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)