Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

User changing dozens of heights and weights

Is there an easy way to revert all of a user's edits? BigMike229 has gone through quite a few articles and inserted false heights and weights, overwriting several that had reliable references (see Special:Contributions/BigMike229). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez, that's ridiculous. I don't know if that can be done. Maybe someone at ANI knows...or any admins here.  Hazardous Matt  21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to do at the moment, so I'll hit him with a warning and start rolling back the bad edits. Nikki311 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I got beaten to most of them. Did manage to get one though :) Looks like they're all taken care of now.DoomsDay 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I think I got them all. If he keeps doing it, let me know. Nikki311 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A Year

Okay, I know the expansion of PPV articles started in September last year from what I've heard, but according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/PPVs the first time we started the list at the bottom to keep track was October 1, 07. Well it has been more than a year and we went from 0 FAs, 0 GAs, 3 finished articles, 0 future events, 1 article being worked on, 0 articles being worked on in a sandbox, 0 inactive articles; having a total of 4 articles being expanded; to having 3 FAs, 45 GAs, 109 finished articles, 11 future events, 18 articles actively being expanded, 7 articles being worked on in a sandbox, and 17 inactive articles in a year. Giving a total of 210. To me that is good. These results are as of October 1, 2008. I thought to share them with the project, to show what hard working editors over the last year have accomplished.--WillC 06:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA Problems huh

Okay gerweck.net has reported that TNA has cancelled Genesis (2008) which is a month away and replaced in with Turning Point (2008) which takes place in December. No word on what takes its place in December. Now TNA has not acknowledged this one bit. They have nothing on their website about Turning Point or Genesis. In Demand has the Turning Point poster up and it says November 9 on it. I do not know what to do here. Should I go with the unknown reliable source or the somewhat reliable source, or maybe just wait till TNA says something.--WillC 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say wait until an official announcement with something like that. EDIT: Actually, there's a poster, so I'd be tempted to go with the unknown RS. D.M.N. (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to wait. TNA still has said nothing and to change stuff a month away would be considered stupid by TNA. Until further info comes along by Wrestling Observer, TNA, or WrestleView I'm going to leave it like it is.--WillC 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to debate here. The InDemand page is a reliable source in terms of dates, posters, and official synpois. Mshake3 (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the poster doesn't say there is no Genesis. That is the problem. You can change the date for Turning Point but it doesn't mean there is no Genesis. Genesis in December would work because of the name is from the Bible and Christmas is in December. It would work.--WillC 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You put Genesis as TBA, simple as that. Mshake3 (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That can be done. Because we have no source that says it will not happen, just one from January that says it was supposed to happen in November. Though I have a source from WrestleView that says it will be at the Impact Zone, so that can be placed in there.--WillC 02:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And anothing thing, can we please stop with this "WrestleView is reliable" BS? They are a "copy and paste" website, nothing more. Mshake3 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been found as a reliable source. Some of its articles are actually fully wrote by Adam Martin.--WillC 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Doubt that. Every time I see a source from that site, it's attributed to another site. It's been given unfair preferal treatment due to having no popup ads and being a favorite of one paticular editor. Mshake3 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth passed it as an RS. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the "one particular editor" is, but I was the one that built the case for reliability to Ealdgyth. It was accepted as reliable due to a combination of having a process to verify its writers' credibility and being promoted by a reliable source as a good place for accurate information. Popup ads (or the lack thereof) didn't come up in the discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Either a new reliable source, or something just to screw with us

10 Count Trivia: Events and Championship Book, a trivia book from WWE. Might be something to check out. Mshake3 (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that the other day but I can't find any info for the life of me. I'll see what it's all about when it's available (comes out later this month). I think it will definitely have a lot of good tidbits to add into articles all around Wikipedia. DoomsDay 23:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Time to get rid of the Suggestions page?

Let's be honest...how many people take the Suggestions page seriously? I think the majority of active project members would admit, in a candid moment, that the purpose of the page is to push all dissenting voices somewhere that the project doesn't have to pay attention to them. A little bit of discussion has taken place, but the project hasn't come to any sort of true consensus about the "new" pay per view style. I believe that it's important to take a wide variety of suggestions into consideration. Some of the opinions will be stupid. Some opinions will be valuable. But the discussion needs to take place on this page, not some page that few people from the project even read, since it is an important issue to the project as a whole. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree! Hardly anyone uses it! Adster95 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The suggestions page was designed for suggestions on how to improve the new OOU style. When someone raises an argument about the OOU style, they've been directed to WT:PWS to suggest alternatives or ideas to enhance it. Typically, that is not the end result and those rejecting the OOU style choose to complain about it rather than actually suggest something moving forward. I don't think it should be gotten rid of just because some people won't actually make suggestions. (I've made a few over there, I believe.)  Hazardous Matt  16:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if people actually have suggestions, they should just come here and we'll work it out since not many people really go there to give suggestions. WT:PWS is, at the moment, just being used as a complaints page, I support getting rid of WT:PWS.S_RX 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On one hand I agree that it will get legitimate suggestions more attention to be on this page here, but on the other hand this page will get all the complaints as well. Still, we can silence or revert the crap easily and deal with legit suggestions here, so I'll agree with SRX and support it's removal. DoomsDay 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We have a suggestions page? --Endlessdan and his problem 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a point (just after OOU happened) when this page had six or seven threads running at once and all that was happening was IPs or new editors were complaining, I think that to some extent Suggestions was used to push all those thread to one side, to save the sanity of the regular editors, and I think that it worked. But since then it hasn't been used correctly and does seem to be nothing more than a complaints page, so I say archive it all and delete, the OOU complaints seem to have died down. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Crap, are you serious? The complaining has not died down on OOU. The sameones are still complaining since we changed. They are starting to call me by name. We bring it here no one will involve themselves still. I only see a few regular editors on suggestions even discussing it. Hell, the complaining is mainly on the PPV pages today. Alot has been on SummerSlam, Unforgiven, and No Mercy. I've had a small amount on Hard Justice and No Surrender. I feel we shouldn't even listen at all. Per what I said on the suggestions page at the bottom. We can get rid of the suggestions page but not until WrestleMania will they shut up. This is why I did not expand Bound for Glory in the open, I knew I would hear alot of it there since that page is edited day by day now.--WillC 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That is true, however, if users complain, we direct them to the suggestions page, where the complain even more versus actually suggesting something for the OOU style. IF we direct them here, more active editors will pay attention and will help out to make the best out of the situation.--S_RX 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I still doubt more will contribute to the discussions if they are here. Isn't that why we made the suggestions page? That we were tired of the complaining here and it wasn't really helping the project. I don't really see but a few even get into the discussions when they come here. Even then we will not get anywhere because we will all say the new format has got us three FAs; technically 2 but you get the picture. The only way to fix this problem is for everyone to screw around with the format. Eventually we will find something that the FA reviewers and the ips like.--WillC 13:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ban PCE

He knows nothing about the past, but vandalizes pages with false/incorrect information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.156.97 (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving comment unrelated to project to user's talk page.  Hazardous Matt  02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Bank

Is there a place that lists all the wrestling related free-use photographs that have been uploaded to Wiki? While I was expanding the '98 and '99 PPVs I began to start using them mostly by looking on a wrestler's biography page but occasionally I would stumble across ones on PPV and move list pages that weren't on their own page. I think it might be helpful, if achievable, to have a page that lists all the WP:PW related photos that can be used, especially as we are now aiming to expand a lot of PPVs and photographs always help break up large chunks of text. Tony2Times (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is one, but that would be a good idea for the project. Plus written list of all fair-use images, to keep track of those.--WillC 16:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Go to "Category:Professional wrestling free use media". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything shown or listed at User:GaryColemanFan/Pictures is something I've uploaded. They're all free to use, if that helps at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It was your uploads that made me think of it actually Gary seeing as not all the images are used on bio pages, but they may come in useful for PPV pages. The Category:Professional wrestling free use media page is the kind of thing I'm talking about, but I've never seen a link to it from our style guide or anywhere noticeable on this project's pages. Also it only has 49 images so it isn't really an exhaustive list of wrestling related images. Tony2Times (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If everybody adds the new free pictures they upload to Category:Professional wrestling free use media (as well as ones that aren't already in there), it would be more useful. Also, we can put a link on the main page. Nikki311 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you add a category to to a picture? Tony2Times (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The same way you add it to an article. Edit the page and add [[Category:Professional wrestling free use media]] to the end of it. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has a Wikimedia Commons account, it would be great if they could add the pictures I uploaded to the Professional wrestling free use media category. I would also love it if someone could transfer the rest (the ones that still show up as images instead of links on my picture page) to the Commons and add them to the free use wrestling category. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike DiBiase

I have a question about the naming of two articles, Michael DiBiase and Mike DiBiase II. I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, but the first one is for Ted DiBiase Sr.'s father and the second is for Ted Sr.'s son. If memory serves me correct, the first one was initially at Mike DiBiase and when the one for the younger Mike was created, it was at Mike DiBiase Jr., which is obviously incorrect. Since the elder's article is under "Michael", shouldn't the younger's be at "Mike" without the "II", or should the elder's article include his nickname? I figured it was best to start this discussion here as I'm sure not many members actually monitor the individual articles. That and there hasn't actually been a full discussion on this. I would like to get some opinions and consequently some consensus on what the proper naming of these articles should be so there is no conflict in the future, especially if and, or more accurately, when Mike the younger joins his brother Ted on the main roster. --James Duggan 05:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I monitor the young one's article. I wondered about this too, but I always assumed it was 'cause Michael DiBiase is also known as "Iron" Mike DiBiase, and Mike DiBiase is a redirect to Michael DiBiase. It is confusing though, and I think it should be sorted out. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyber Sunday OOU note

Given that it's an interactive pay-per-view, and as far as I know it is genuinely interactive, does this not effect the usual OOU disclaimer about everything being pre-planned and whatnot. Obviously it's still scripted but the lines between reality and fiction are blurred just a little bit more with this so I think a bit of extra blurb may be needed to point everything out. I mean, if you thought all wrestling was staged, you'd naturally assume the voting was too. Also the term pre-determined, while being accurate, is a little misleading for incidents where title changes &c are supposedly decided almost on the spot as the results come through. Tony2Times (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship

The featured list AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship has been nominated for removal. You can comment here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your contributions are always appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bound for Glory

Okay, there is an IP placing in false results in Bound for Glory IV. I've reverted him twice on that page and gave him two warning. Can someone please revert his edit and watch the page. I'm going to see if I can get it protected because there is alot of activity.--WillC 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep on eye on the page and if it looks like it needs it I can semi protect it. DoomsDay 21:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to take it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to get it protected. The little template does nothing.--WillC 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

An admin can usually make a judgment call on semi protection without really having to discuss it, so I could have done it. But it got protected anyway, so it doesn't really matter anymore. DoomsDay 04:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I forgot you were an administrator; for some reason I thought you were a newbie.--WillC 04:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that, I'm pretty new to this project but I was involved in other areas for about 2 years.  :) DoomsDay 05:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That is probably why. I've just started seeing you around, thinking you were a newbie just as a result.--WillC 05:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyber Sunday results

I was wondering if you guys are opposed to me placing tables like the following in the Cyber Sunday articles. I feel that for shows based around the votes, some of the poll results are glossed over in the articles and sometimes ignored.

Poll	Results
Chris Jericho's opponent	Shelton Benjamin (37.48%) Batista (20.11%) Jonathan Coachman (7.01%) Christian (6.69%) Rhyno (5.77%)	Maven (4.23%) William Regal (3.81%) The Hurricane (3.77%) Tyson Tomko (2.49%) Tajiri (2.36%)	Steven Richards (2.24%) Val Venis (1.69%) Rosey (1.10%) Chuck Palumbo (0.68%) Rodney Mack (0.58%)
Outfit for the Fulfill Your Fantasy Diva Battle Royal	School girl (53.10%) French maid (30.03%) Nurse outfit (16.87%)
Weapon for the Weapon of Choice match	Chain (40.84%) Steel chair (29.93%) Lead pipe (29.24 %)
Stipulations for Eugene versus Eric Bischoff	Loser has to have their head shaved (58.73%) Loser has to wear a dress (20.77%) Loser has to be the winner's servant (20.50%)
Stipulations for Christy Hemme versus Carmella	Lingerie Pillow Fight (56.48%) Evening Gown match (33.22%) Aerobics Challenge (10.30%)
Triple H's opponent	Shawn Michaels (38.72%) Edge (33.42%) Chris Benoit (27.86%)
Stipulations for Randy Orton versus Ric Flair	Steel cage match (68%) Falls Count Anywhere (20%) Submission match (12%)

I'd appreciate it if you guys give me some tips for improving this. Thanks in advance. -- Oakster  Talk  15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think the results need to be included for encyclopedic interest, and it seems best to have a seperate table to keep it from making the match results look untidy. I wonder if the table is a little bit on the large side, could it be scaled down any way? Tony2Times (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could look like this:

Poll	Results
Chris Jericho's opponent	Shelton Benjamin (37.48%), Batista (20.11%), Jonathan Coachman (7.01%), Christian (6.69%), Rhyno (5.77%), Maven (4.23%), William Regal (3.81%), The Hurricane (3.77%), Tyson Tomko (2.49%), Tajiri (2.36%), Steven Richards (2.24%), Val Venis (1.69%), Rosey (1.10%), Chuck Palumbo (0.68%), Rodney Mack (0.58%)
Outfit for the Fulfill Your Fantasy Diva Battle Royal	School girl (53.10%), French maid (30.03%), Nurse outfit (16.87%)
Weapon for the Weapon of Choice match	Chain (40.84%), Steel chair (29.93%), Lead pipe (29.24 %)
Stipulations for Eugene versus Eric Bischoff	Loser has to have their head shaved (58.73%), Loser has to wear a dress (20.77%), Loser has to be the winner's servant (20.50%)
Stipulations for Christy Hemme versus Carmella	Lingerie Pillow Fight (56.48%), Evening Gown match (33.22%), Aerobics Challenge (10.30%)
Triple H's opponent	Shawn Michaels (38.72%), Edge (33.42%), Chris Benoit (27.86%)
Stipulations for Randy Orton versus Ric Flair	Steel cage match (68%), Falls Count Anywhere (20%), Submission match (12%)

Looks a little less organised though. That being said, it's not as if the first table is any bigger than let's say a Royal Rumble table. -- Oakster  Talk  15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, it's a lot less organised and harder to skim read. What would it look like with smaller text on the right hand column in the first style? Tony2Times (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

can we make it collapsible? PXK ^T /_C 16:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably it's going underneath the match results table so would there be much point in it being collapsable? Tony2Times (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What Tony said. Anyway, the font size is currently 85% and I personally wouldn't make it any smaller than 80% for readability's sake, which means making it smaller would hardly make a difference. -- Oakster  Talk  08:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose most years won't have that first vote with 10odd possibilities in it so it won't always be so big. I reckon put them in, I can't see anyone taking them out. Tony2Times (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's useful. Put it in! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put them all in now. Thanks. -- Oakster  Talk  18:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dumpster Lid 79‎

This has been adding his backyard crap to some articles. Also looks like he is using his userpage to promote his little yardy stuff. Might want to keep and eye on him. --DanteAgusta (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I caught him adding his 'World' title to the list of recognised World Championships but didn't realise he was doing it across the board. Tony2Times (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User on a category addition spree

[5]

User in question is Dm23avg307 (talk · contribs). Suggest edits may need to be mass reverted. D.M.N. (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would help but I fear I'm being watched since I just got reported for removing unsourced and following guidelines. I'll try to get it protected though or deleted. I'll leave a comment on the user's talk page; all referring to the categories.--WillC 07:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, if you mean this, I never reported you. I reinstate it with a source. D.M.N. (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I was reported for capitalizing Special Referee and Special Enforcer and changing the links to the correct ones, as well as removing unsourced matches that have not been announced and linking TBA on Bound for Glory IV. The user that reported me did not want TBA linked and did not understand I was following WP:SOURCE for the matches. Not you. Check it out at the 3RR report page. Also I do not believe I removed that from Armageddon. I think I was removing unsourced matches.--WillC 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the consistently recreated Category:World Champion professional wrestlers here? DoomsDay 18:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the cat that keeps getting created.--WillC 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Rumble winners category should be gone as well. Winning the event is notable: but I don't see it being a useful category. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I did go through the other day and reverted all the edits i could see, but then he went a re-added them, I'll take another sweep. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you guys want to voice your opinion for this category. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

Can I remind people about the project's cleanup listing? It seems people aren't really paying attention to it. I know people are busy, but even just helping out with one would be good. Lets not forget there are GAs and FAs listed on it, which are supposed to be our best work... Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching it a little. Though I don't have much time now as usual. I think I can do a copyedit or two on a few.--WillC 03:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at it yesterday. There's quite a bit of work there. Sources are hard to find on a lot of these old school wrestlers, but I could probably do some of the smaller bits when I find myself lacking in work. Edit: Here's a question...for some of these wrestlers, good long bios are gonna be hard to find, so would sources like Online World of Wrestling be enough to provide in text citations and such? Cheers, DoomsDay 19:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As the bot has just updated the cleanup listing a few days ago after a three-month hiatus, I thought I'd extract the goods from it:

14th July, 2008

• 3693 articles assigned to project; 1464 (39.6%) flagged for cleanup.
• 5 FA's; 2 (40%) flagged for cleanup.
• 21 FL's; 0 flagged for cleanup.
• 70 GA's; 10 (14.3%) flagged for cleanup.
• 3 top-importance articles; 2 (66.7%) flagged for cleanup.
• 74 high-importance articles' 41 (55.4%) flagged for cleanup.

10th October, 2008

• 3799 articles assigned to project; 1468 (38.6%) flagged for cleanup.
• 8 FA's; 1 (12.5%) flagged for cleanup.
• 23 FL's; 0 flagged for cleanup.
• 93 GA's; 9 (9.7%) flagged for cleanup.
• 3 top-importance articles; 2 (66.7%) flagged for cleanup.
• 77 high-importance articles' 41 (53.2%) flagged for cleanup.

Difference

• DOWN 1%
• DOWN 27.5%
• NO CHANGE
• DOWN 4.6%
• NO CHANGE
• DOWN 2.2%

D.M.N. (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna try to do some work on it, but I just wanted to say that I've added it to the WP:PW-Nav template. That might get it some more attention. Thanks, Genius101 ^Guestbook 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

This article is in horrible condition - has been forever - but it gets worse by the day. I really and truly believe this article would benefit from a transfer to tabular format. The format would simple look like such:

Ring name	Real name	Notes
Batista	Dave Batista	<reference here>

The article is not exempt from being sourced - it needs to contain sources - and their' WWE.com and FCW bios are fine-fitting references. This page would never pass FLC because of the constant edit wars and vandalism - but it should at least meet the FL criteria.

Also - it's not list cruft - there are many other articles out there that are longer than this will ever become. I also may clean the list up and add some prose. iMatthew (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to do. I think a table would make a nice cleanup. Shame about that pesky edit warring business, keeping it from ever hitting FLC. But yeah, I think it'd be a good idea. WWE.com could easily reference the fact that they are a wrestler, the US Patent and Trademark Office can confirm their real name (at least, it did for CM Punk), and FCW has a roster page that could be a cover all. DoomsDay 22:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I beat you too it. Look at User:Wrestlinglover/List of current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees. I've been working on TNA's roster page to get it to FL. I'm almost finished. If I work hard it will take me a day to get it finish. Take a look at what it look likes so far.--WillC 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't beat anybody to it - it's been discussed dating back to October last year - if not earlier. We need a consensus to change the article - and although your table looks nice - we need to discuss it first to make sure there are no objections. Sorry to tell you, but your list will never make it to FLC unless a miracle occurs - as the employee pages are edit war targets - and that's against the FL criteria. iMatthew (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well beating by expanding it is what I mean. I know that, I was talking with SRX about this. He is the one that said to use tables. I was expanding to give a clear example to what the finished product may look like. Go to my archives in my talk page and look at the discussion me and SRX had about this. Plus if the Roster page is worked right it sometimes isn't touched for multiple days. It can also be protected.--WillC 23:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is already semi-protected. iMatthew (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like how when someone uses their real name it spans the two boxes, I think it might look better repeated or maybe with the ring name section left blank. Tony2Times (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If nobody opposes - I shall go ahead and transform the page to the new format - nobody has opposed it yet. iMatthew (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal II

Why don't we remove this article, and merge all information with World Wrestling Entertainment (other personal), WWE Raw (the Raw roster), WWE Friday Night SmackDown (the SmackDown roster), Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) (the ECW roster), and Florida Championship Wrestling (the FCW roster). Why not leave the information with their articles? iMatthew (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you see the current shape of the main Roster list? Many unreliable sources, many formatting issues, and continuous speculation and vandalism to the main list, image it on four different articles?--S_RX 01:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't knock it 'till you've tried it. With the above section - we will add sources because that's what Wikipedia is all about - being reliable. We will add reliable sources and of course watch for vandalism. This shouldn't be held off "because there is a change that maybe possibly there may be" vandalism. iMatthew (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, never said anything about holding it off due to vandalism, I said that respective articles will become even harder to comprehend in the current shape of the main list, but I'm for it. Lets get rid of that speculative thing, but where will the corporate go?--S_RX 01:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cooperate can be included in the WWE article. More opinions? iMatthew (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What would be done in TNA's case or ROH's case? See TNA only has one tv show and ROH doesn't have one.--WillC 22:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA's should be kept in it's own article - because it's one company and one brand. WWE has five sections on it's employee article - which all would be short enough to stick in the main brand's articles. TNA's list is too long for the TNA Impact article, so it'll stay - as well as ROH I guess. WWE's employee article is way more of a vandal playground target than the TNA and ROH one. iMatthew (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Vandal target. TNA's roster page is edited everyday. It gets vandalized alot. Plus it would make no sense to have no roster page for the WWE. Then that argument comes up "why does WWE not have a roster page". All the ips will complain then and I don't think we need more of that right now.--WillC 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

User:Dumpster Lid 79 is obviously just using Wikipedia to promote his Wrestling company. What's the difference in that and having your userpage to promote your "construction company"? SteelersFan94 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Safest thing is to userfy it to a sub page, keeping a deleted page as your userpage is frowned on. (edit) Although on second look he seems to be in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST if you look at his subpages. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This guys whole point to being here is to have a website for his backyard crap. And to try and add it to articles, as he did to World heavyweight wrestling championship and others. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this guy could be a problem. I know hot to use Twinkle but what should I use to warn him to delete it? SteelersFan94 03:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking closely I think WP:UP#NOT covers it with your user page is not a personal website. Since we started this he has added another page. I think I will MfD all his subpages as none actually carry any WP content. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the pages to MfD here via a redirect to capture all the pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PPV Problem

Okay as reported by TNAwrestlingnews.com, PWInsider, and WrestleView (see here) I guess TNA has changed three of its ppvs. Turning Point is now taking place in November, Final Resolution is now taking place in December, and Genesis is now taking place in January. The problem is TNA has already held Final Resolution once this year. Back in January. I'm working on expanding that ppv into a single article. Now Since I've been expanding the TNA ppvs, the December Final Resolution will also be in a single article. I can't have two articles by the name of Final Resolution 2008. What should I name the new article if TNA releases that they are changing the date of the event?--WillC 22:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dag I was just about to post this. http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=34043&p=1. Well I don't know as far as I know this has never happened before. I knew that TNA would move their ppv cause they know they can't compete with WWE yet. I did not expect them to schedule another Final Resolution this year. This is a very difficult situation. JakeDHS07 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I'd use "Final Resolution (Month 2008)" and "Final Resolution (November 2008)" iMatthew (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I got it! Call the one we've already had TNA Final Resolution 2008 (January) and the december one TNA Final Resolution 2008 (December) PXK ^T /_C 22:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with IMatthew, that's a perfect way to title it.S_RX 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree more with iMatthew's idea. Maybe switching though. To Final Resolution (2008, December). That is if TNA does change it. PWinsider hasn't been proven reliable. Hopefully TNA will announce something soon.--WillC 22:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think's Matt's idea will work best. Cheers, DoomsDay 01:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Will, PWInsider has already been proven reliable. Why? Because we've established that WrestleView is reliable, and half the time they're just sourcing PWInsider. Mshake3 (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Half the time we never use PWinsider. Plus it doesn't matter much right now. The articles are made since Viewers Choice has said they changed the events.--WillC 02:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the bottom of the majority of WrestleView's news articles once in a while (for example, the link above, and this link in Matt Sydal's article). You'll be in for a shock. Mshake3 (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pix

I know I said I was done with the project, and I am. The problem is that I will feel very guilty going to this Saturday's house show with a camera and not asking you guys first which pictures of the Raw superstars you need?

BTW... this is the card

• Shawn Michaels vs. Chris Jericho (No DQ; for the WHC)
• Batista/Rey Mysterio vs. JBL/Kane
• CM Punk vs. William Regal
• Kofi Kingston and Candice Michelle vs. Santino Marella and Beth Phoenix (For the IC and Womens)

• Also scheduled to appear:

• • Lance Cade... obviously not anymore
  • Cryme Tyme
  • Cody Rhodes
  • Ted DiBiase, Jr.
  • Manu
  • D'Lo Brown
  • Mickie James
  • Layla El
  • Jamie Noble

Feedback ^☎ 00:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Obviously as many as you can would be good but I think Ted DiBiase needs a better profile shot, his current one is him doing a move. One of Ted&Cody would be good too as I see them being together for a while so will serve the future. Manu could also do with a better profile shot on his own. Maybe one of Chris with the belt. Personally I think Glamarella would be great as it would capture the hilarity that is Santino in photographic form, especially if he's cowering near her looking strong, but that's probably less of a vital shot as the first few I mentioned. Tony2Times (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

One of Cryme Tyme will be good. Since WWE usually puts all the belts on the line. They will have Rhodes and Ted defend the belts against probably Cryme Tyme. Also get one of Afa jr since he'll probably be with them.--WillC 01:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's a pretty good line up because most of those articles need action shots, so anybody doing a signature move would be great. Also I think Mysterio/Kane, Layla/Regal, Michaels/Jericho, Glamarella, or DiBiase/Rhodes/Manu pics would be beneficial as they all seem to be pretty prominent storylines. Nikki311 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with a belt, but I think particularly DiBiase would be great. In the current one you can't even see his face. Hey, by the way, thanks! ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron Killings

Can someone re-word the last two sentences of this section? They sound like something written from a Smackdown preview. I don't follow wrestling any longer, so I have no idea if or what K-Kwik is up to. --Endlessdan and his problem 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, DoomsDay 17:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

With the numerous sources available including WWE.com's industry news I have moved Genesis (2008) to Genesis (2009) as it is now taking place in January. I think I fixed all redirects but am having trouble fixing the one on the TNA PPV template at the TNA Genesis page the one at the bottom. If someone could help it would be appreciated. Cheers. JakeDHS07 18:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done You edit Template:TNA Genesis for future reference. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JakeDHS07 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It was alright to move it but I think we should wait till further notice from TNA. This is their ppv and most of the sources are just rumors. I think it is better to wait till TNA says something about moving Final Resolution and Genesis.--WillC 20:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm really confused and need help with this

I reordered the ppvs to their new order at Template:TNAPPV but on TNA Genesis and TNA Final Resolution and TNA Turning Point at the bottom the template is still out of order. I can't seem to find where else to change it. JakeDHS07 03:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about. Everything is correct. It begins with Genesis and ends with Final Resolution.--WillC 03:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

When I go to the Genesis , Final Resolution or any of the individual ppv articles the TNA PPV template at the bottom does not show the new edit. Its very strange cause when I click the v on the wrong order displayed template it shows the new order one. I'm so confused. JakeDHS07 03:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind cleared cookies and temporary internet files and now its fine. Good lord that was odd. JakeDHS07 03:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay.--WillC 03:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

PPV names

It has come up in Lockdown (2008)'s FAC and Armageddon (2006)'s FAC that we might need a better way to have the PPVs named. In Armageddon the thought was maybe naming them Lockdown (2008) (TNA) or something like that. I thought to come here and discuss like I said I would in the FAC. See if we need to change them or not.--WillC 16:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I would be inclined to use something like TNA Lockdown (2008) or WWE No Mercy (2007).  Hazardous Matt  16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was also thinking we should do if we change at all.--WillC 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Although that would leave is with a great number of redirects when we get into article titles like WCW Great American Bash vs WWE Great American Bash. Sigh. Arguing against my own point.  Hazardous Matt  16:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no ready to change the names of all WP:PW pay-per-view articles because of one reviewer. If WWE Armageddon (2006) redirects to Armageddon (2006), nobody will have trouble finding the article. Do the promotions use the company names when referring to them? "Hello fans, and welcome to WWE Armageddon 2006!"? I doubt it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If the promotions referred to their Pay Per Views using the company names, it'd be redundant and sound stupid. When Bound for Glory is referenced on TNA programming, we automatically know they're talking about their flagship show because we're watching TNA programming. Seeing as how this is an online encyclopedia and not TNA/WWE/etc. programming, it should be a little more specific, right? Ma-Mutt (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What was FAC's problem with the current naming system? Isn't Wiki's naming policy to use the most frequently used name? That would be the name without the promotion's initials beforehand and it's not like there's an ambiguation problem going on for most of them, even ones like Armageddon that have meaning outside of wrestling have their years on there, and the central page saying WWE Armageddon so I don't see what the problem is. Putting two things in brackets afterwards looks rather sloppy especially when there's no real reason to. The first line of the article tells you that it's wrestling and what promotion it is. Are gonna have to start putting (professional wrestling pay-per-view) in all titles too? The FA on Gwen Stefani's song 'What You Waiting For?' doesn't have her name in brackets afterwards, why should PPVs need the company name in brackets afterwards? Tony2Times (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the reviewer at FAC who brought up the issue. The whole point is the article names fail at disambiguation. If I were to look at the title, I learn nothing about what the article is about. Read WP:NCDAB: Among the options for disambig, for titles "the word or phrase in parentheses should be the generic class that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal); the subject or context to which the topic applies, as in Union (set theory), Inflation (economics)." None of these apply here, ergo the suggestion for a name change. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So what about something like Lockdown (2008, professional wrestling)?  Hazardous Matt  19:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Lockdown 2008" or "Lockdown (2008 event)" is what I'm thinking. Mshake3 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I like "Lockdown (2008 event)", actually.  Hazardous Matt  19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the parent article that lists all the events being named WWE Armageddon or TNA Lockdown, etc., etc., is enough. Individual articles being named by their company creates a cumbersome linking problem and unnecessarily complicates the title. Having the parent list to certify what they all are is fine. DoomsDay 20:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But not everyone is going to come from the lists. When someone searches for 'Armageddon', they're going to want some indication that this is what they are looking for; that's why something like Armageddon (wrestling event) would be ideal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. If someone searches for "Armageddon", they get the Armageddon article. If they follow the disambiguation link at the top, they arrive at Armageddon (disambiguation). This lists WWE Armageddon and provides a description (an annual World Wrestling Entertainment event). This would help them understand if this is what they're looking for, would it not? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Armageddon (disambiguation) has the following under the "Other" section. "WWE Armageddon, an annual World Wrestling Entertainment event." If someone searches Armageddon, they hit Armageddon (disambiguation) at the top of the page, and then finds that. Alternatively if they go for typing in Armageddon and then hitting "Search" rather than "Go", you get WWE Armageddon as the first wrestling result. The same goes for No Way Out, Backlash, Judgment Day, and more than likely every other WWE event. I image TNA is the same as well. So either way; if I hit "Go", I find a disambiguation page that sends me to the list, which establishes the necessary information clearly, and if I search the first relevant result I get is the list. DoomsDay 20:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can put it in plainer terms; Armageddon (2008) violates the disambig guidelines, which in turn violates the naming conventions which means the article violates the Manual of Style, which means that reviewers at FAC can oppose the article based on this reason. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

However, the Manual of Style clearly states that common sense and the occasional exception applies under the basis that it is a guideline; therefore, one could hope that an FAC reviewer would understand that this is really a matter of common sense. If the only reason why we're changing it is to blindly meet a guideline, it seems to me that common sense and IAR applies. Cheers, DoomsDay 23:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see common sense; I see editors too lazy to type out a few more characters in titles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If the names are truly against a Wikipedia policy - I'd support a move to WWE Armageddon (2006), or TNA Lockdown (2008). iMatthew (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with iMatthew on this one. It doesn't matter to me anyway, there is no problem with typing in TNA and WWE with the titles.--WillC 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's being lazy to not approve of work that serves no purpose other than meeting guidelines for the sheer sake of meeting guidelines. We should meet guidelines to improve something, not just because the guidelines say to. I fail to see how the article is not distinguished sufficiently from any other article titled Armageddon, in every medium one reaches the article by. The names are not against policy anyway, they're only technically against a guideline which explicitly states common sense and exceptions may come into play. Cheers, DoomsDay 23:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling should not be an exception to the commonly used disambig conventions everywhere else: this is why we have The Mummy (1999 film) instead of The Mummy (1999), Star Trek: The Original Series instead of Star Trek (1966), and Pilot (House) and Pilot (30 Rock) instead of Pilot (2004) and Pilot (2006). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So do you suggest WWE Armageddon (2006) or WWE Armageddon (2006 event) or Armageddon (2006 event)? iMatthew (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just throw it to a general vote and see what the consensus is. Cheers, DoomsDay 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation only needs to be in place when there is ambiguity. What else could somebody be searching for when looking up Armageddon (2005)? Surely not the actual Armageddon that happened in 2005, after all we're still here. The FAC reviewer said that the title Armageddon (2006) tells them nothing about the title, but nor does any of the numerous song titles that are FAs that don't have "(song)" written in their article titles. I feel it would look better to have WWE Armageddon (2006) than Armageddon (2006) (WWE), though. As for event or professional wrestling event or pay-per-view event or professional wrestling pay-per-view event, I don't really know. Tony2Times (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If we must do something, it should be either x-promotion x-event (x-year) format or x event (x-year event). Thus, WWE Armageddon (2006) or Armageddon (2006 event). I suppose the latter would be acceptable. Cheers, DoomsDay 01:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we must do anything. Common sense has prevailed in the project's previous 3 pay-per-view FAs and 46 pay-per-view GAs, none of which have had an unnecessarily clunky name. Since the criteria for passing an FA nomination is based on the quality of responses rather than the number of supports and opposes, I recommend leaving things as they are. If the reviewer actually finds this to be a big enough problem on which to base an oppose, discussing the issue (or non-issue, as the case seems to be) with SandyGeorgia would probably be sufficient to ensure that this doesn't prevent the articles from reaching FA status. Even without getting in touch with SandyGeorgia, I can't imagine that an oppose based on wanting to add excessive quantifiers to an article would hold much weight. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

SRX pointed out a naming guideline once that specifically used wrestling PPVs as an example. I just trying looking for it, but no luck. Anyone remember the link? It might be helpful in this case. Nikki311 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing...if (and I'm not convinced we need to) we rename the PPVs, the video games would also need to be renamed. For example, WWE WrestleMania X8 is a videogame, while WrestleMania X8 is the PPV. Nikki311 22:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have an inkling the PPV may have been SummerSlam (2002) because of The Rock poster but I don't know on what guideline it was listed. Tony2Times (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

@Nikki, the link is here, but I think the reviewer makes a point because disam. main articles, like Armageddon should have a specified title, because Armageddon (2006) could refer to a film in 2006, but WWE Armageddon (2006) specifies that it is WWE's 2006 Armageddon event, this IMO should also be brought up to WP:NAME.S_RX 03:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this point isn't entirely moot seeing as there hasn't been a film called Armageddon since 1998, quite fortuitously for WWE. Neither has someone re-written the first book of the Old Testament in the past 3 years. Nor has there been a book called SummerSlam written in the past 20 years that I'm aware of and if it has, like potentially an independent film called Armageddon, they aren't on Wikipedia and I don't see why we need to discuss this until one of the PPV names comes into conflict with anything else. Tony2Times (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should only add the additional WWE or TNA in the event there is a direct conflict. Although it is rather convenient for WWE at least, in that there does not seem to be much conflict in recent PPV names. Should a direct conflict arise, then I can see value in adding the prefix WWE or TNA, but really there's no good reason to change the names as they are. Cheers, DoomsDay 17:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Our lists...

Just to let the project know, I will be working on the championship lists that are Featured Lists to bring them back up to FL standards before they get removed. As a FL reviewer, many of the lists fail the criteria, but I will help to get them back up to standards, any assistance would help, just state it here.--S_RX 02:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I might help a little if I find time. Just throwing that out there, it isn't official but just thought to let you know.--WillC 02:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for tables

I propose reformatting the tables of the championship lists to make them more organized and comprehensive to meet FL standards.

#	Wrestler (real name)	Reigns	Date	Location	Event
1	Kane (Glen Jacobs)	7	October 9, 2008	Landover, MD	Survivor Series (2006)

Explanation of fields

• # - the reign number of the title itself, will help as it gives how many reigns there were in total.
• Wrestler (with their real name [if applicable] under their ring name) - to coexist with OOU.
• Reigns - the number of times the wrestler has won the title, renamed from Times won.
• Date - self ex.
• Location - self ex.
• Event - in order to eliminate the Notes section: as a FL reviewer, the notes stating how the match was won and where in the little notes section is redundant and is cluttering the tables, should just list the key things, so in this field will go on what event it was won (i.e. Name of PPV, show, house show, etc.)
• To add to this, the references citing specific reigns should be eliminated and the main WWE title page should be used a general reference and specific ones should be used for ones not covered in the general ones, like in the 2008 WWE Draft.

Comments will be appreciated.S_RX 03:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the type of match the title was won in and other wrestlers involved? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it but I agree with Sykes, what about gimmick matches and multi man matches. I think we could place "a standard match involving four wrestlers at Hard Justice.--WillC 04:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the link to the event is enough, but if we made it go the Results section. So that if someone saw the match and was curious as to whether it was a gimmick match, they could hit the link and get the details. It would keep clutter to a minimum. Cheers, DoomsDay 04:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about instances in which a title is vacated (possibly due to injury) and a match is held to determine the new challenger. Eliminating the "Notes" section gives nowhere to add this information. In addition, the big problem regarding the lists is the referencing. Reliable sources, not reformatting, is the main concern in FL reassessments. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What about if it didn't take place at an event? "Event - January 14" sounds wrong. It should just stay the same. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely the event wouldn't be "January 14" but "House Show" or "RAW". Darrenhusted (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the real name in small (this raises an interesting prospect for tag teams, how small can the text get?) and reigns but while the notes section does a get bit sloppy at time, it is handy to note when the title was won in a triangle or four way match, not to mention when it is unified or split, vacated and fought for between two people, neither of which are champion. Tony2Times (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Small font has not gone over well at FLC. Reviewers often voiced concerns about it, as they found it too hard to read. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was for a lot of text in small, this is something minor, so it's an okay.S_RX 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To reply to everyone, yes the main concern is reliable sources, but the tables are out of date and are not FL quality. For the notes, we can either have a separate notes section or add a column but not every reign has a note so the table would look out of place, but with a separate notes section like in the 2008 WWE Draft might work better. For the matches, wrestlers involved and gimmicks, I think linking it to the results section should be enough, the list is to List WWE Champions (or w/e the title is) not who was involved what gimmick matches the title defense took place. Also, for events on a specific date and not televised can be called "Live event" or "House show." For the tag teams, I will have to come up with a way to include the real names.S_RX 13:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So does anyone oppose?S_RX 14:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Something else I'm confused about and would really appreciate help with

Sadly this happens more than u'd think. I have a user page layout that I got from SRX however for some reason the formatting stretches the page across on my page and not his. I tried messing with the px numbers but nothing. Can someone fix this for me and/or tell me what I am doing wrong? JakeDHS07 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You should ask User:IMatthew, he created my userpage and is an expert in areas like this.--S_RX 14:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

Just wanted to inform members of this project that I have a list going here of potential featured and/or good topics related to pro-wrestling. Feel free to add any of your own! Regards, iMatthew (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you gonna do when you've got a load of FT's on there? D.M.N. (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What else is there to do, work on them! iMatthew (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

ANC has got to go

This is really becoming a joke now, especially for User:RandySavageFTW, he lists the proposals and moves them even where there is no consensus, and simply replies with idiotic comments like "lol." He is the main one over there and is just listing simple proposals that need no consensus. Unlike suggestions like renaming World heavyweight wrestling championship or Evolution (professional wrestling), which can just come here. He already moved TNA Destination X to simply Destination X, no consensus was ever reached. Help? Comments? What to do? Argh. --S_RX 14:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is really becoming a joke now

No.

and moves them even where there is no consensus

If I'm able to move the page and no one is going to reply, I'm moving it consensus or not. I'm not just gonna let go into the archive.

simply replies with idiotic comments like "lol."

I think you meant to say, "simply replies to idiotic comments with "lol."

He already moved TNA Destination X to simply Destination X,

No one bothered to reply so I moved it.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to WP:AGF. "No one bothered to reply" is not a suitable reason to move a page. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about the other stuff he did on the article name changes page but moving Destination X is alright. The article was a redirect. No rule was brought up to why the TNA is needed when no other article is named Destination X. The same goes for Hard Justice and Final Resolution. Plus the so called argument that only main ppvs should be referred to in just one name without the companys name, well look up and notice that isn't possible for Lockdown and Bound for Glory.--WillC 17:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. The discussion would have just went into the archive. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WWE Magazine

Hey, does anybody have the WWE Magazine from January or February 2007? iMatthew (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject spam

I received the WikiProject's newsletter this week and have no idea why. I am not listed at the Members list, and have added my name to Newsletter/Nospam. I'm not sure if it is the bot that went wonky, or what, but the project should try not to spam non-members. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's really odd. Sorry about that one, mate. The no spam should probably take care of it. Cheers, DoomsDay 17:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I also got the newsletter - and I'm not a project member anymore - which is weird as well. iMatthew (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants. The bot, as far as I can tell, sends the newsletter to everyone in this category, which includes both yuo Matt, and User:Matthewedwards. I've let a note to this effect on User:Matthewedwards's talk page. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) User:NiciVampireHeart has pointed out the problem. I'm halfway through a userpage redesign by iMatthew, and I copied his WP:PW userbox! Anyway, its all sorted now, thanks! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Additions to library

I finally got around to unpacking some boxes, and I found some wrestling books from the mid-1980s. I added them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Library, but I'm not sure if anyone checks there much anymore. Since they describe so many wrestlers, I made lists at User:GaryColemanFan/Library. The books are old and from the era of kayfabe, but they have some good information. I also found WrestleMania: The Official Insider's Story, which covers every WrestleMania up to WrestleMania 2000, as well as Wrestlecrap – The Very Worst of Pro Wrestling. In addition, I found a bunch of magazines from the mid-1990s (most WWF Magazines from summer 1994 to late 1995, most Pro Wrestling Illustrateds from mid-1995 to mid-1997, and assorted copies of Inside Wrestling, Sports Review Wrestling, Wrestling World, World of Wrestling, Wrestle America, and The Wrestler. I don't have time to go through the magazines and make detailed lists of the contents, but they cover most of what was happening from 1994 to 1997 or so (pay-per-views, profiles of almost everyone, full-length articles on everyone including obscure wrestlers like Well Dunn and Tekno Team 2000, etc.). If anyone needs help finding information and thinks that these might help, get in touch and I'll see what I can do. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone's IP

24.21.172.115 (talk · contribs) - Just made a few edits to the archive and this page... D.M.N. (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we add this to the Style Guide?

I mean why can't we do this?

#	Results	Stipulations	Times
1	Randy Orton defeated Triple H (c).	Last Man Standing match for the WWE Championship	20:25
2	Randy Orton defeated Triple H (c) after an RKO onto the announce table.	Last Man Standing match for the WWE Championship	20:25

I did that in No Mercy 2006 but it was taken off immediatly

I don't know, it shouldn't be added there, but somewhere else.

This SHOULD be reimplemented, IMO. Any other views? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Example 2 provides enough information without throwing out too many details. I like it.  Hazardous Matt  18:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking tables

Was there or was not there a consensus to relink the stuff in the PPV tables in all articles? I though there was, but I want to be sure before I go and start linking everything again. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah there was.--S_RX 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Kayfabe vandalism

Somebody is going into the articles breaking the kayfab and putting the regular names beside the wrestling names. LifeStroke420 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Out-of-universe. This isn't a wrestling website. See a few topics above. D.M.N. (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It's taking the article out of universe, per FA critria. I'm sick of everyone changing it, there's no reason too. If I came back from a wikibreak, I'd check WT:PW before editing a damn thing. Come to think of it, based on what I just had to edit out to stay civil, maybe I need a wikibreak... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I for one dont support vandalism but its whatever vandalise your hearts out.LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

....What? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. What do you prefer? a) Have our articles in-universe and have 0 GA's and therefore 0 FA's OR b) Have our articles out-of-universe and attempt to get FA's? D.M.N. (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I want to point out, it is not vandalism. Does a discussion on writing articles in that way violate WP:VANDALISM in any way?--S_RX 17:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note, LifeStroke is now using IP's to change back to his preferred version, see the Hard Justice 2008 history. D.M.N. (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that LifeStroke is partially right, but not for the reasons he/she gives. First of all, it's obviously not vandalism. However, LifeStroke's concern about kayfabe has no place in an encyclopedia. The fact that it is general information is a problem, as it breaks up the flow of the paragraph. If it was rephrased to clarify what professional wrestling is and who writes the storylines while discussing Hard Justice 2008, that would be a great improvement. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Consider this argument then: Is the real name of actors mentioned like this when they're mostly known under some sort of stage name? No articles on films have the name they're known under and then link it in case someone is interested in knowing more about this person - frankly I don't see why this should not aply to wrestling as well. I mean otherwise we're saying that wrestling is a special case and different than anyone else using a stagename of some kind? 62.253.205.129 (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC) An encyclopedia should be objective: that means that the world is round, the tooth fairy does not exist, and wrestling matches are works. Lafraisne (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The new way PPV and event articles are written

I don't like it. It doesn't provide much detail into how the events played out and how the matches went. For instance..all it does is present the result now.. it doesn't even state that X wrestler won by cheating or use of a weapon. I know there's some whole deal that a lot of people have about wanting to get their articles featured, but why sacrifice the detail, and the allusion of pro wrestling all to get a star on your article? I don't like reading through all that and seeing real names every where... all the brackets make the article look like a mess. As someone said in the Hard Justice discussion page, why not present a disclaimer that the event is scripted and present the article in a kayfabe form? I don't understand why everything has to be simplified and just have things listed as "Todd Grisham defeated Michael Cole" - "Standard wrestling match". It's a given that it's a standard wrestling match in the old way the articles were written if no stipulation or match type was specified. It just seems stupid to me. If these articles now are going to be presented in this manner, will championship articles now present real names in addition to ring names in the title history? If you don't, that's a double standard right there. If you're going to do it for events why not do it for the fake championships as well? I'm just really complaining because there's a real lack of detail in how the results for the event are typed out. It kind of insults my intelligence by saying "standard wrestling match". Not saying any match gimmick for a regular singles contest would be enough for me. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is your second thread on complaining about the new format, if "Wikipedia's best work" is written in that format, other articles should follow the same way it is written so they can be classified as Wiki's "best work." Let me ask you this, do want to read about a sport or subject that is written in a language or in a universe that can only be understandable by those readers who understand that language or universe? --S_RX 20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's only my first complaint on this page and to my knowledge...EVER on wikipedia about the new PW PPV page format. Get your facts straight on that sir. I don't see how the old format for PPV articles was confusing at all. If a non wrestling fan couldn't understand the old articles than honestly they are probably braindead, retarded, or both. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's the second time you complain in a thread, how about they are unfamiliar with the language of wrestling.S_RX 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I always complain. I don't contribute to articles really, but I'm all for improving the way they are done and all for fact checking. Why not complain? You trying to say I can't complain? If no one complained then every article would be shit. And I am complaining because the PPV articles are now so horribly written and a jarbled mess...moreso than the old way they were done which was the simplest and most straight forward way they could be done possible because it gave you every necessary detail..match times, the match type, how a guy won, events that occurred, interference notes etc. This new format sucks. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you are free to express your opinion. Users have the choice to write in the new format if not, their articles will less likely be classified as Wiki's best work. Why don't you think about this, if you were a non-wrestling fan and you came by the wrestling jargon and you did not want to interrupt your reading by clicking on the links, would you want it explained or not?--S_RX 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing I'm pissed about, is that we now have to write like this all the time, even if, in the short term, we are only nominating them for GA status. Like when I nominated No Mercy (2005), I immediately received a message on the talk page saying I should be writing it like SummerSlam (2003). GA and FA reviews are NOT the same. If they were, NONE of our GAs would have passed a GA review. Point is, the is a huge, distinct difference between GA and FA reviews. So, IMO, it should be fine to write "in-universe" if we are only nominating them for GA (in the short term). Once they pass that, then we should take the time to write them in an "out-of-universe" style. --LAX 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what Tony is talking about. Since all of the information he is looking for is already contained in every expanded article, I can only assume this is in reference to non-expanded articles. Yes, they suffer in the short term from a lack of detail. However, once prose is added in addition to the results table, the problem will cease to exist. I do think, however, that the project is making a mistake by dismissing any feedback about the changes. Since they were implemented without discussion, there is room for improvement. Unfortunately, that improvement will not come as long as project members cover their ears when someone voices a concern. Some of the problems could be fixed quite easily, but I have been shut down anytime I have proposed a solution. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

@LAX - the way you say that we should write our articles makes the project look bad, if I am interpreting what you said correctly. From what you said, I understand that you want the project to expand articles in universe and let them pass GA then improve them later on to the out of universe style (even though they already passed GA). IMO, that makes the project look mischievous. Before, the SummerSlam 2003 format was never heard of, so our GAN's passed easily. Literally, GAN's and FAC's should not be treated the same, though, they should have the same format and be less distinctive from each other.

@GCF - Well you've been shut down, and I feel that is my fault. What is your complaints about the new format so the project may discuss them, even though the format is already incorporated to a FAC.S_RX 22:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sentences like "Seven professional wrestling matches, performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real, were featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that took place before, during, and after the event were planned by TNA's script writers." on articles like Hard Justice (2008) are just vapor text. What if on every article about a basketball event, there was something like "48 minutes of play, not including temporary stoppages of play between two teams of equal numbers of a five and five with points that are either worth two or three points. The winner of the game is the team with the larger number of points at the end of the 48 minutes, or failing that, the team with the most number of points after as many 5-minute overtime periods as are necessary to determine a winner."

I don't care what some non-professional wrestling fan peer reviewer says. It's not our fault that they don't know about professional wrestling. If they want to find out more about the nature of professional wrestling, they can read the articles about the subject. I don't know anything about quantum physics, but I don't expect every single related article on the subject to map it out for me and other newbies ad infinitum. General information about a topic doesn't belong in related articles, especially not in the lead. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason this is treated differently from other sport related articles is because wrestling is a work of fiction and acting, which is why jargon and in-universe writing should be avoided per WP:FICTION and WP:IN-U. If we were talking about amateur wrestling, this would be a different matter.--S_RX 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This Jtalledo guy knows what I'm talking about. There are many other articles that are detailed in such a way that normal, not in the know people wouldn't understand...why is it that now pro wrestling articles have to be made easier to read for the mentally retarded? Makes no sense. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles should be written in a format that all readers can understand not just one particular type of reader. The old format, like I pointed above, violated WP:FICTION and WP:IN-U, if you do not accept this or like it, go to our sister wiki, Pro wrestling wikia.--S_RX 01:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the new additions to the professional wrestling event pages are needed, 'an unknown number of professional wrestling matches (performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real) will be featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that take place before, during, and after the event are planned by WWE's script writers.'

I think it gives too much detail, simply because its a well known fact that professional wrestling is scripted, and for those who dont know, they can simply click on the link to professional wrestlins main artical to find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.229.222 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fuck FAs and GAs. There, I said it. Your obsession with getting articles into that level has completely destroyed them. I hope you're happy. Mshake3 (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, I cannot see why getting a GA or an FA is necessary. I am not trying to belittle wrestling, but these are articles on wrestling PPVs, not particle physics. 99.196.39.2 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Kansur

Mshake you know so I'm not even going to say it. This is a encyclopedia, not a magazine or a wrestling site. Do you write a report and just write it to write and not care how good it is. No. You write it to be good and to get a good grade. FAs and GAs show that the project did something good. It shows you did something good. It also helps wikipedia.--WillC 04:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But we're not being paid for this, nor do we get any sort of grade that counts in the real world. Therefore, once this stops being fun for editors, editors will stop contributing. I'm not usually one to agree with MShake3, but I'd rather enjoy editing than get a Featured Article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to come out every few months and state this - wrestling articles are not the domain of wrestling fans rules, lingo or guidelines. Wrestling articles are the domain of wikipedia and must be written in accordance with wikipedia and the assumption that the reader has not been following wrestling since they were five. I can not understand how editting has "stopped being fun" because the articles are now written is verbose and brilliant prose in addition to being incredibly well sourced.

If for some reason you are finding this change to being less of a walled garden of articles and instead a move towards being articles for everyone I would really like to know how it is justifiable? –– Lid^(Talk) 07:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not just "for pro wrestling fans", but seriously. Does every TV show say "This episode featured actors (real people pretending to be other people for the purpose of humor and entertainment acting in a way that is not the way that they would act in real life"? No, of course not, because that would be idiotic. You don't have to smark the hell out of an article, but this has absolutely RUINED every PPV recap that it's been applied to.216.84.35.70 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot help but disagree with Mshake and Kansur. Yes, if you only want to work on an article short term, fair enough just do it to B-class (hell, I'm doing 1995 PPV's and I never even watched wrestling then! - just to fill in the gaps), however if you want to get it for FA, fair enough you have to make extra effort, which means out-of-universe. Mshake, we are not destroying the articles - not everyone knows what a powerbomb or a clothesline is, therefore explaining it to the user for FA is necessary. Remember this rant a user thrown up last December? Back then, some dismissed the users points. Turns out in the long run she was correct. Also, I'm annoyed with the topic above, which is something that is occuring week on week on week at the COTW. D.M.N. (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I think most of us editors realize this is the general, all-purpose Wikipedia encyclopedia, not a wrestling fan site, and yes, we want articles everyone can understand. That said, I attest that most people realize that professional wrestling is a work (i.e., the matches have pre-determined outcomes), and that's why I believe that the disclaimer that has been appearing on PPV articles as of late is not needed. I had stated in my earlier post that most people realize that TV dramas and comedies (e.g., M*A*S*H) are fiction, yet we don't have any extended "disclaimers" with those articles as we do now with the PPV articles; the same goes with an article about a sports team (such as basketball's Chicago Bulls — i.e., no extended intro explaining what basketball is to readers unfamiliar with the sport who just happen to click on the page.

Again, I ask — with all seriousness — do we have readers on here who, by clicking on a professional wrestling PPV page totally at random — would somehow conclude that, absent the disclaimer everything they are seeing in the ring is legitimate (i.e., the wrestlers are actually injuring each other), even if they knew that professional wrestling was composed of matches with pre-determined outcomes and was a work?

As with any other article, we link words to articles that readers might not readily understand; hence, if someone doesn't know what professional wrestling is, all they need to do is click on the link and Wikipedia will take them there. Also, I believe that one requisite for GA and FA status should be to have less-wordy introductions, which is one more reason for my complaint about the "new introductions" — instead of a mere three- or four-paragraph intro summarizing the basics — what (name of the event), where and when (date and venue location) and who (i.e., which organizations the PPV involved) — we also get this several-sentences long explanation of what professional wrestling is, which should be covered adequately in the main professional wrestling article.

I will soon be proposing my own structure for PPV articles, which I hope will clear up some of this recent debate and still allow us to write good, meaningful articles. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)]]

As this is the fourth (fourth!!) thread covering this then I feel maybe I should say something. I think some in the project do not seem to realise that all articles need to explain themselves, and not rely on inside knowledge or jargon. For a time the PPV articles were just results pages, then they expanded to cover events before and after and explain what happened at the event (there are already a thousand pages giving results after all). But when they began to explain they also fell back on to jargon and kayfabe tersm (even kayfabe is jargon). So now they are evolving to clearly explain what happened but also explain what wrestling in the "professional wrestling" context is. This is an encyclopedia, not a wrestling fan forum. I prefer the new way of writing the PPVs, because it should mean that if you have never seen one minute of WWE in you life then you could understand what happened. It is not perfect, and even some TV series episode articles are difficult to understand (try reading an episode of "Lost" if you haven't seen the TV show), but this is not the last stop, no doubt in a year this will change again, but going back to each article be a result page is not the answer. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Darrenhusted — Nowhere have I stated that these should be "results only" pages. And yes, I do agree that some mainstream terms should be used in lieu of jargon in our articles. I just believe that if you say "professional wrestling" in the lead, it should suffice and that most readers would understand that the events depicted therein are a work (i.e., "scripted"). Also, the M*A*S*H and Chicago Bulls examples were just that ... fill in the blanks with any one of millions of other examples. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)]]

BTW — the term professional wrestling is not jargon. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Really, I don't see what the problem is by writing two sentences in the lead explaining that pro wrestling is fake, then just write the ring names (real names) and explain a couple of jargon terms, I don't see how that is hard? Like other users stated this is like the fourth thread about this subject, currently the FAC is going well with 2 supports and no opposes, it's time to deal with it because Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia.S_RX 13:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am fully with you, SRX, on this. And in reply to Briguy, the term Professional Wrestling may no be jargon, but "sports entertainment" is, and kayfabe is and all terms which derive from that are as well. If an article is to be an FA and on the front page then it needs to be understood by all that click on it. Real names, move descriptions and stipulation explanations do just that. GA and FA reviewers understand wrestling is fixed, but if the you have never seen wrestling the some of what project members take for granted needs to be explained. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would avoid using the term "sports entertainment" as it is anyway on PPV pages, because I believe that is irrelevant to explaining a PPV and its background. The "sports entertainment" term, IMO, should go only on a few biography pages, perhaps TV shows from the 1980s-era and a couple of the early "supercard" (e.g., WrestleMania (1985)) articles (because they played on the sports entertainment concept); by the time we get to 2008, it's pretty much a given that professional wrestling is "sports entertainment" and the concept has since been de-emphasized. BTW — what wrestling article is up for FAC (so I can go to it, read it and if appropriate, lend my opinion)? Also, I have not started any of the threads, but rather I have continued them here at the encouragement of editors after beginning a discussion on the SummerSlam (2008) talk page; I sure wish I would have gotten in on this discussion earlier (and kept it at one thread, if it were up to me). [[Briguy52748 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Sports entertainment is not jargon, it is a term used by many subjects not just professional wrestling. SummerSlam (2003) is currently up for FAC, it's on the project page.S_RX 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SRX — thanks for directing me to the article page. Anyhow, I read the SummerSlam 2003 article briefly, and to briefly explain my opposition, I stated that the section for the undercard matches and feuds went into way too much detail, and that such detail was best left for wrestling fansites. A good try, just not FA quality. You can read my full comments here [[Briguy52748 (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)]]

I do not want to explain this again here, so I direct you to SummerSlam 2003 FAC page for my response.S_RX 15:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And you shouldn't have to. Sorry if this upset you. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Folks, this is Wikipedia! What is it that we enjoy about it? The wikilinks! If someone doesn't understand a term in an article, then 99% of the time, the term in question is a blue link, which'll take them to a better understanding. There is no need to explain what professional wrestling is, when a link to professional wrestling will cover it. Mshake3 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So do you support the new style or oppose it? Because if we relied on wikilinks most PW articles would fall foul of overlinking. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MShake's first comment here to a certian extent. While I dislike the new format, I don't oppose as as I want GAs and FAs. However, I don't contirbute to PPV expansion at all, really, I mainly focus on sourcing wrestler articles. I still oppose the tables in the results section, but let's not open up that can of worms again. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Mshake3. Yes, we want GAs and FAs, and yes, some explanation of wrestling terms is necessary to make it understandable and a good article. But most people also understand what professional wrestling is, even if they had never watched one match in their life. Which has been my whole point all along, even if several editors might disagree. If only there were a template that could be placed in these articles ... let me think that one over for awhile. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)]]

No other articles on Wikipedia have templates; nothing is different with professional wrestling. D.M.N. (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then, it may be an idea that could be floated to the general Wikipedia community, but such a discussion would then be appropriate elsewhere, not here. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Having to explain what wrestling is (like being predetermined) would be like having to explain the sames thing about movies or TV shows in every single article on them. The first paragraph on professional wrestling's article already explains that, so we don't need to do it for every PPV article. TJ Spyke 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe we need to get around to actually having a constructive discussion and realize that, if we are to keep the current "consensus", it needs fine tuning, as it isn't perfect. People who dislike it are giving unhelpful criticism without offering solutions (other than going back to the way things used to be) and people who have been involved with creating it are too emotionally invested in it that they are unwilling to compromise. I believe that, as long as the explanation of professional wrestling is written to fit the context rather than just interrupting the prose with a general statement about professional wrestling, it shouldn't be a problem (ie. "The event featured ten professional wrestling matches, performances with pre-determined outcomes between..." works but "Professional wrestling is..." doesn't). It's given minimal space in the article, so I'm not upset about it. I think the explanation of moves does so much to meet Wikipedia's guideline on jargon that it actually goes against the spirit of the guideline. If you take a look at baseball articles that have recently been promoted, jargon terms are not explained in the text (eg. the article on Art Houtteman, promoted on June 22, 2008, simply wikilinks terms like shutout, earned run average, sandlot, pennant, scout, runs, optioned, extra innings, bullpen, no-hitter, relief pitcher, spot starter, World Series, etc. Likewise, J. R. Richard, promoted May 11, 2008, wikilinks fastball, doubleheader, wild pitch, walks per nine innings ratio, ace, fielding percentage, slider, etc.). My suggestion would be that, if an editor feels that an explanation is necessary, to include a "short, clear explanation". I find that some of the explanations being given go on for too long and lose my interest. The setup to the move (eg. twisting the opponent's arm) isn't important. A figure four leglock is better described as a "submission hold that puts pressure on the opponent's leg" than as a hold in which the wrestler grabs the opponent's foot, twists the leg around so that it is bent at a 90 degree angle, crosses it over the other leg, then falls backward, places his foot over the ankle of the first leg and presses down. Both get a point across, but I find the first explanation much more clear and precise. It also avoids grammatical issues that I believe are hurting articles and need to be addressed, but I've said enough for now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GCF and made similar suggestions at Talk:December to Dismember (2006). The move explanations were too wordy to be helpful and made for boring reading. We just need to get the point across. EX:

• "Van Dam was the third person eliminated by Test, as he stood on The Big Show's pod and performed a diving elbow drop, a move which is executed by diving onto a prone opponent with the wrestler's elbow cocked, driving the elbow into the opponent's chest, onto a folding chair." --> "Van Dam was the third person eliminated by Test, as he stood on The Big Show's pod and dove toward Van Dam, driving his elbow into his chest onto a folding chair, a move known as a diving elbow drop."
• "Burke pinned Mamaluke after performing an Forward Russian legsweep on him, a move where the attacking wrestler stands side-to-side and slightly behind an opponent (facing in the same direction) before reaching behind the opponent's back to hook the opponent's head with his/her other hand extending the opponent's near arm, then while hooking the opponent's leg with his/her own leg the wrestler falls forward, pushing the opponent forward to the mat face-first." --> "Burke pinned Mamaluke after pushing him into the mat face-first by performing a Forward Russian legsweep on him."

See the difference? I think that we can definitely incorporate the change without going overboard. We can still link the terms if a non-fan needs more explanation, but it makes it possible to follow the action through the text. Nikki311 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BY JOVE, I think they've got it! Finally a style of explanation that explains it to non wrestling fans (who aren't going to read it unless they are part of WP:FAC anyway, but that's besides the point,) and isn't like watching paint dry or more painful than falling on a razor wire net (this has happened, it's why I don't yard tard anymore) PXK ^T /_C 05:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to change the direction of this discussion to create solutions. Criticizing editors' contributions as "more painful than falling on a razor wire net" doesn't help move toward that goal. Do you have any suggestions or ideas to improve the quality of writing in articles? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PXK, do you have anything constructive to say? Your contributions, quite frankly (and your sarcasm), help nobody. For the record, I agree with Nikki. D.M.N. (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nikki — I think the examples you gave work. It's clearer, more readable and — as you correctly state — doesn't go overboard. For me, the goal with any article in any discipline is readability and comprehension, and your examples are a big step toward appealing to everyone (not just our fellow pro wrestling fans). Keep up the good work. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)]]

I agree with Briguy. I think Nikki's example above works out quite well. It's a happy medium.  Hazardous Matt  13:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I gotta say, as someone who is a casual fan of wrestling and not invested in this argument any more than the effect it has on me reading an article, it is way too wordy. To use Nikki's example:

Burke pinned Mamaluke by a Forward Russian legsweep.

conveys the same exact thing as the long winded explanation, but leaves the article clearer and saves a lot of time if you're using long winded explanations to explain (to actual wrestling fans) simple moves. For the non-fans, they click on the move and get the same explanation. Being concise is a part of an Encyclopedia. -- Me^Holla! 15:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the Survivor Series 08 and WM XXV articles now have that ridiculous explanation of what wrestling is. There is an entire article explaining what wrestling is and that it's fake and it's beyond silly to explain that again in every PPV article. Why not go ahead and explain what WWE is, what the rand seperation is, what a arena is, etc. Why not go to every movie article and make them say something like "The Matrix is a film (a fictional piece of audio-visual entertainment..."? TJ Spyke 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

TJ, its only a brief explanation that explains the background to the event. Per [[WP:FICTION, WP:IN-U and WP:JARGON, this explanation is needed to avoid writing "as part of the scripted events" or "as a part of the storyline" everytime in an article. This was agreed as a good part to a lead per the FAC of SummerSlam 2003.S_RX 17:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so if that notice is there then we never have to use words like kayfabe or booked or scripted or fake? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Only when needed, like if someone fell off the titantron or they tried to run away from the arena, stuff in that nature.--S_RX 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I absoultely hate the new lead in. The paragraph where it states that the match is predetermined is SO horrible. Anyone who watches WWE knows that it's decided before hand, and the identities are fake. Do we need to point it out? Not really. WestJet (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrestlers' real names

Now that we have some sort of compromise about explaining moves, let's talk about listed wrestlers' real names. The more I see it, the more I like it. Let me explain: Wrestlers' gimmicks are (for the most part) fictional or exaggerated to an extreme. They are not exactly the same as the person who portrays the character. Television and movies list the actors who play characters. Does it interrupt the text? Yes. Is it completely necessary for understanding the plot? No. However, this is the way they are written, so I think we should follow suit. Besides, the real names are only listed the first time they are mentioned, so I really don't see how it keeps anybody from reading the article or how it makes the text un-understandable. Now...let's discuss this in a civilized manner. No insulting others' or their work, but constructive criticism is welcome. Nikki311 23:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that the television and movie articles should not do this as well. I feel like it is disruptive and unnecessary. I am very much opposed to it, however if it becomes a consensus, I will not go against it, I just will not agree with it. If it must be done, however, I feel that it like the stage name, ex. Shawn Michaels (Michael Hickenbottom). -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the adding of the names. At first I was skeptical, now I think it is needed. I think the ring names and the real names besides it is fine to add, I want to keep it in there. I kind of like seeing "A.J. Styles (Allen Jones)".--WillC 23:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Come on! I just removed them from the FAC because people didn't like them, argh!S_RX 23:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I wanted to discuss it. The articles need to be based on policy, guidelines, and consensus...so let's figure it out. Nikki311 23:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I liked and proposed the idea from the beginning but people kept complaining that it "bothers you to read." It does not, it's like reading a script you have to know who is who and who is playing what, what if George Bush was playing Diesel 2000? Wouldn't you want to know who was acting his role, Diesel 2000 (George Bush)?S_RX 23:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think it helps with wrestlers who change their ring names. The real names were recently incorporated into Gail Kim's article. Early in the article, it mentions a match with Nikki Roxx (Nicole Raczynski) and later a match with Roxxi Laveaux (Nicole Raczynski). It helps the reader understand that they are the same person. This will be especially helpful in The Undertaker or Shawn Michaels, where their careers are so long that they've wrestled the same people under many different ring names. Nikki311 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in the Gail Kim article it is done alot. Like with Traci Brooks. One point it is Traci Brooks, then Tracy Brooks, then Ms. Brooks, and last Traci. Also with Angel Williams, then Angelina Love in under six months. As well as with Roxxi, it was the two you mentioned, then after Sacrifice she was changed to just Roxxi. It helps on those standards since we can't overlink their names.--WillC 00:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe instead of just discussing the real names, lets discuss everything we've done. From the first new things added to the last. From the adding of Tables to the adding of the PPV box at the bottom of the article. Then we can make a fully new consensus and have no more problems with anything. Then we'll have proof of the new consensus instead of just a few people complaining and being told because of the FA review we are adding this. Then we will actually have a decided vote and not what a FA reviewer's opinion.--WillC 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss one thing at a time, or we are going to have too many opinions about too many subjects flying around. Nikki311 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I hated this edition at first, but have grown to like it and find it very informative. Keep. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take — if a wrestler is so known by his performing name that he/she is credited that way in other pop culture mediums (e.g., movies, television, political events, etc.), then there is no need to use the wrestler's real name in parenthesis. A couple of examples are The Rock (yes, he has also been billed as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) and most notably Hulk Hogan. Otherwise, use your judgement; read the affected wrestler's bio and consider other evidence, for instance "Was said wrestler referred to by his performing name at a political rallly or at another event?"). Yes, I agree that more often than not, the real name will need to be put in parenthesis, but it shouldn't be a hard and fast rule. Yeah, I still don't like it for reasons I stated earlier (mainly, clutter and the fact that people should know that professional wrestling is staged), but I want to make peace so I offer that as my statement, so as to respect the concensus. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)]]

I like the Hogan example, as he even refers to himself as Hulk Hogan on his VH1 shows and American Gladiators. In some articles Trish Stratus is linked as "Trish Stratus (Patricia Stratigias)" and Randy Orton is linked as "Randy Orton (Randal Orton)". Trish and Randy are their real names (and the names that they go by in life) so in those cases, as well, I think the linking is not necessary. When you remove instances such as these, it really cuts down on the "clutter". Nikki311 02:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a good example. So let's say we're talking about Bollea, but he's using a different gimmick. We would write something like "Sterling Golden (Hulk Hogan)." Correct?

Or Mr. America (Hulk Hogan). Nikki311 22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be done by the title of the wrestler's article. The Undertaker and Shawn Michaels are very well established under those ring names, hence why their articles are named after their ring names. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason their articles are after their ring name is per WP:COMMONNAME, they are known in their sport more as The Undertaker or Shawn Michaels. Now to people who have never really watched wrestling they don't know who they are.--WillC 05:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Style Guide/PPV tables

I feel we should make this like a COTW or a group editing process so we can make the WP:PW/MOS an official guideline classified by Wikipedia and make it a policy to be followed for all articles, what do you think? In this way we can cite WP:MOSPW (a shortcut we can create once the page is classified as an official guideline) and it will be easier than to try an figure out what to cite from other MOS pages.S_RX 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I still say there needs to be more detail in the match results summary. I saw people saying "what you want is already listed in the expanded articles." I've looked through the PPV articles for these so called expanded results and show breakdowns and don't see them. I don't get why people have to lie to my face about this stupid shit. My thoughts still stand that the new way the articles are done sucks. It's like seeing seeing the super bowl result on the sports page and only seeing the score and nothing about the amazing plays and drives that both teams put through. It's a joke. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good compromise to add the finishing move used to the results section of the table?:

#	Results	Stipulations	Times
1	Randy Orton defeated Triple H (c).	Last Man Standing match for the WWE Championship	20:25
2	Randy Orton defeated Triple H (c) by performing an RKO.	Last Man Standing match for the WWE Championship	20:25

Would using row 2 instead of row 1 help? As long as it isn't an overboard summary in the table, I don't think it clutters it or anything. Nikki311 13:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But the table would be filled with jargon, wouldn't it? -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the moves will be explained in the text. I kind of see the table as the exception to the rules. I think the names should be linked in the table, too. The point of the table is to be a quick reference, but it defeats the purpose if you have to scroll up to click on a name. I think it is okay to list the moves in the table, too. I'm just trying to think of some alternatives here to make people happy. Nikki311 13:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well its great to see suggestions to improve the style guide, but how are we to improve it to make it an official policy guideline? I also agree and disagree about the tables, I agree that it is for quick references, but I disagree to link the subjects per WP:OVERLINK. Also, what if the finishing move is complicated? How are we to explain it.--S_RX 14:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the names should be wikilinked, as table entries are an exception specifically mentioned on the page you referenced. I agree that it is for quick reference, similar to a Discography for a singer or a Filmography section (both of which are wikilinked, even though the names of the albums and films are already linked in the text). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding the finishing move to the table and wikilinking the names would be a wonderful compromise, IMO. On that same note, I think two rows for each match looks sort of crap. Come to think of it, why is the match time noted. That can be noted in the prose and I sincerely doubt that anyone looking for quick results cares if the match took 8 minutes or 12 minutes 50 seconds... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think she's asking if the example shown in row 2 (with finishing move) is better than the example shown in row 1 (without). I believe that the table is the best place for match times, though, as incorporating them into the Event section would lead to awkward and repetitive prose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. *smacks head* That should have been obvious, but I hadn't had my coffee yet. I like the second example. And that's another fair point about match times. But really, how are they even notable unless it's a very odd circumstance (like a very short match or a very long match)? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well on occasions it's needed, like in Bad Blood (2003), the event did not last the entire 3 hours, so the match times would be something to look at to see why it didn't. I just have a problem with adding the finishing move outcome, what if it was a controversial finish that requires details, you know the table is limited so..how do we that?S_RX 16:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me an example of "controversial" and I'll see if I can shorten it. I think that really depends on the situation itself. If you mean like Backlash (2006) then that's simple enough. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would need an example of a controversial finish to figure it out. For example, though, in WrestleMania (1985), Cowboy Bob Orton mistakenly hit Paul Orndorff over the head with his arm cast, which led to Hogan pinning him, so the results in the table could state "Hulk Hogan and Mr. T (with Jimmy Snuka) defeated Roddy Piper and Paul Orndorff (with Cowboy Bob Orton) after Orton interfered in the match." The details are in the text, but at least it gives you an idea of what happened. If it is way too complicated to describe it all, then we can stick with "so and so beat so and so" (as the description is still in the prose). Nikki311 16:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with Backlash is that it isn't right to list the scoring condition for one match even if it DQ just for one match. Controversial I mean like in a hardcore based environment, like if a person fell of a stage or if the set fell on them or in a steel cage like they were thrown through it and the cage broke, things in that nature.S_RX 16:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"A pinned B after a chair shot." "A and B went to no contest when they both fell off the stage." "A defeated B when B threw A through the cage door." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. A pinned B after interference from C. There just needs to be explanation of how the finish happened, and notes of interference and any other events during the match. I understand the simplicity part, but simply, you're not giving the reader a more complete story of how Edge beat The Undertaker in TLC. How Cena took Edge out of the picture in their TLC match, etc. That's the main reason I really don't like the new articles. Just the who won and who lost and or what the score is is not really what people just want to read. If it's an article people want a story. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want that much detail, we should think about a seperate wiki for wrestling,(Actually I think that would solve a lot of problems that WP:PW is having: the kayfabe question, the question of assumed prior knowledge, etc. I'm pretty sure that people who e.g. do not know who Brian Danielson is and believe that C.M.Punk is a genuine practitioner of Muay Thai would not go on it.) as pages would simply become too unwieldy. A description of the various moves used, in sequence, is not that interesting. What would be interesting, however, is a description of what happened viz. people being put over/people being buried: i.e. if someone had a squash, or if a match was obviously rushed, or if someone heel-turned, or did something unexpected: (for instance, the main event at Victory Road 2008, or the World Tag Team Championship match at Night of Champions 2008) Lafraisne (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a separate wrestling wiki [6]. I suggest everyone who wants to read in kayfabe go there. Nikki311 18:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"An unknown professional wrestling matches, performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real, were featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that took place before, during, and after the event were planned by WWE's script writers." I think it is just implying that it's only pre-determined on PPV's, which is, of course false. Also, it is getting weird on PPV's why can't we just put it on the Professional Wrestling WikiPage? Because it'll cause all the complaining from users about it being "vapor text" and also it'll be more useful there just to say "In professional wrestling, the performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real, are featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that took place before, during, and after such events are planned by each shows respective script writers." I'm just throwing it out there. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 01:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2003) FAC Restart

So the FAC was restarted for voting purposes as it was difficult to distinguish what was going on in the FAC. So it was restarted, maybe this time it has better fate.--S_RX 17:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

SRX — I left a note back at my talkpage, but I think I'm going to sit this one out for the time being. No disrespect or anything, but I want to be fair and I think new and different opinions need to be heard. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)]]

This has got to stop, this is ridiculous

We need a way to let these newbies and IPs know about the new format, I am sick of every thread on the upcoming PPV's complaining about the new format, we need to think of something..--S_RX 19:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the world doesn't need every wrestling PPV to be a featured article, we all notice it. --WestJet (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FA does not matter, its policy to be written that way FA/GA or not.--S_RX 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but seriously, I have no issue with it besides the ridiculous lead in paragraph. Come on? Really? That's my ONLY qualm with it. --WestJet (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No it's not ridiculous because the lead is to give the overview of the event and it's nature, and that's exactly what the lead is in that way we don't need to write in every sentence that it was scripted, a small sacrifice for a big deal. Plus, I did not create this thread for complaints.--S_RX 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Look why don't we just put how the match ended example

Match - CM Punk defeated John "Bradshaw" Layfield after a GTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothers of destruction (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that above makes absolutely no sense. Where exactly? D.M.N. (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of this particular thread is not to discuss changes to the current criteria for writing a PW article, but the possibility of formulating a solution to avoid the commotion that occurrs on every PPV talk page. Not to say that you can't bring this point up, you'd just want to branch it off.

As for a proposal for a method to alert IP edits and those who have been against the new method, we have to take into account the numerous times they've already been directed to WP:PW and have not even contributed to the discussion. I don't believe there is a significant desire to adapt to the new style by the vocal majority of that faction.  Hazardous Matt  19:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me a lot of the previously ongoing 'when to add SmackDown announcements' argument that raged for months. Like then, I don't think there is a way to stop people not accepting on it. Other than directing them to WP:PW I can't think of a way. Tony2Times (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, what you have done with the Summerslam 2008 article is needless. If anything, describing the matches as staged and scripted is demeaning to the business. Just link to Pro Wrestling if anyone does really need to be assured wrestling is scripted. As wrestling fans, I'm sure you know, it offends wrestlers when their trade is bashed and kayfabe broken. Also, if this happens, then surely every TV show and movie page also needs to be described as scripted with a predetermined plot. From Anon (views expressed by many on other wrestling forums). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.142.62 (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, Wikipedia is not a wrestling newsite, it's an encyclopedia. It should cater to all readers, not just wrestling fans. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles needs to be written with a real world perspective. Nikki311 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

These Ips and newbies are now removing information, if this continues it could may as well be counted as Vandalism as they have been warned and redirected here already.S_RX 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If they keep doing after several warnings, it is disruption. Nikki311 23:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel we should explain for the benefit project members and IPs alike, why we can't apply WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR to this instance. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am fully behind this new way of writing, if it gives the project a chance to be seen as something other than a bunch of wrestling fans writing articles for each other. We have been merciless in deletion, we have applied strict levels of notability, now we need to reach out to all readers, not just fanboys (or fangirls). I say use 3RR to our advantage, n00bs and IPs will run through 2RR quickly, hit them with a warning then report them to 3RR. Or go to RFPP quicker. We know which PPV is going to be next to be vandalised, we all have extensive watchlists, I don't want to fall foul of OWN but either we are working towards a common goal or we are not, and if not then why not just let the vandals run the asylum. I will contact all members of the ultra secret wrestling cabal or USWC (remember the secret handshake) to inform them as to how we can conspire to control this project. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%, I almost got blocked for reverting 3 times at Unforgiven (2008).--S_RX 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, it seems that all these anon editors don't like your new format. And yet, you continue to shove it down their and our throats. Mshake3 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Well they should deal with it because its new policy and consensus."--S_RX 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

@Mshake, I shall pass your opinions on to the Cabal. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If they feel so strongly about the project they should also voice their opinions, reasonably, and offer ways to enhance the articles as well, not just revert articles to what they prefer.  Hazardous Matt  14:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mshake, most of the anon's love professional wrestling and want to see it here portrayed as real. We must portray our articles in a out-of-universe style. Why don't you agree with that? D.M.N. (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, who is going to a page called "WWE Unforgiven" that isn't a wrestling fan? Thus, why is it necessary to explain that it is predetermined on every page? I am not suggesting that these articles be written in a "shoot" format. But by the same token, it needlessly adds superfluous and redundant text to every page. Look at episode descriptions of TV shows on Wiki (which are there for better or worse). For example, you won't see a Heroes episode description stating, "Sylar was then scripted to chase the cheerleader." There clearly has to be a better middle-ground than this. --ECWAGuru (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"superfluous and redundant" made my day. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason you don't see it on television articles is because with the exception of reality shows, television shows are not passed off to the viewers as real. NBC doesn't try to pass of Heroes as a series of real conflicts, whereas Pro-Wrestling is in a far more gray-area, trying to pass off a scripted program as spontaneous and legitimate.  Hazardous Matt  19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

True in the 60s, but not now. Many wrestling matches are now self-referential (watch some PWG, please), and all organisations now realise the existance of smarks, and are changing approach as a result: i.e. Batista being referred to as 'Dave'. Yes no-one watching Thesz-Rikidozan knew it was worked, but promotions have given up all-out preserving kayfabe for 15 years. Lafraisne (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering Vince McMahon has openly called it "entertainment" on numerous occasions (including in front of a court of law), I don't really think this argument holds water anymore. In fact, take a look at Beyond the Mat, where McMahon matter-of-factly states, "We make movies." The secret's been out for quite awhile.--ECWAGuru (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since you have sources that say it is openly-admitted by Vince McMahon that it is fiction, then there should be no trouble stating it is fiction. The issue is that he only says this in behind-the-scenes documentaries or on interviews. This is never said on television. In fact, the exception that proves my position on the issue is Jim Ross from Over the Edge, stating that the situation regarding Owen Hart was not part of the "entertainment" and "as real as it gets". They intentionally blur a line between reality and fantasy, and it comprimises the integrity of the article by keeping it In-Universe.  Hazardous Matt  19:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the intent? Look at last year's Raw episode after the Benoit tragedy. McMahon stood in the middle of the ring (mere weeks after being "blown up" in a limo), and openly stated that the initial "intent" of the episode was to solve the mystery of who blew up the limo of the "Mr. McMahon character". In terms of only saying this "in behind-the-scenes documentaries or on interviews," how many sitcoms have there been where an actor/director breaks character mid-show? Are they misleading their audience because they don't offer constant reminders that what they are viewing is entertainment? I have no problem stating that it is fiction in the main professional wrestling article. Heck, in each of the articles, I don't even have a problem with coming up with some (very) brief description of the "fiction" of professional wrestling. Again, to borrow an example from Heroes, Episode 1's article begins, ""Genesis" is the pilot episode of the NBC science fiction drama series Heroes. " If there can be some brief descriptor along those lines, I think that would be a fair compromise. And even as such, I would limit that descriptor to the introductory paragraph of a particular event. Saying, "The main rivalry written into the pay-per-view on the Raw brand is a Championship scramble for the World Heavyweight Championship..." is just beating a dead horse. Ok, it's scripted -- we got it. --ECWAGuru (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can this stop being WP:PW 'policy', since it is insanely controvertial, and less people seem to like it than dispise it?

It's a little more complicated than just WP:PW policy. It's been adopted as WP:PW policy. It has to do with rules for writing about fiction and writing out-of-universe.  Hazardous Matt  20:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC) As far as I know, there is no rule that you must point out that Superman comics, for instance, are fictional, at every possible opportunity until every possiblity of maintaining a crisp, professional, and more importantly, comprehensible style of article has been ruthlessly eradicated. Of course it's fictional, only a child could think it wasn't. We're not trying to sabotage attempts to get most wrestling articles to GA status, we're trying to aid them. I hope I speak for most dissenters for this over-pessimistic, naive policy when I say that we are not opposed to presenting pro-wrestling as worked, but opposed to doing so in a style that is unbelievably condescending. Lafraisne (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. For example, look at this statement on the No Mercy page, "The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that take place before, during, and after the event are planned by WWE's creative staff." To expand upon Lafraisne's previous Dark Knight example on the Unforgiven talk page," this would be the equivalent of saying, "The events before, during, and following the climactic battle between Batman and The Joker were planned by Christopher Nolan." It spells out the scripting process which, yes, is condescending to your readers. Again, those of us respectfully disagreeing with this policy are not insinuating that pro wrestling should be written as if it is a legitimate, "shoot"-style athletic competition. The style of writing is the main source of contention; as it is written now, it simply comes off incredibly condescending.--ECWAGuru (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But wait...it does just that. Quoting from The Dark Knight (film), "The Dark Knight is a 2008 American superhero film co-written and directed by Christopher Nolan." You don't seem to have a problem with a writer being named in this article, so why can't an explanation of the writing process be included in No Mercy (2008) as well? Likewise, the Dark Knight article gives the real names of the actors next to the roles they play. Come to think of it, the Dark Knight article goes much farther than the No Mercy article, as it dedicates a full section to production (development, filming, and design). It even includes much of the information (writers, producers, director, lead actors, editor, cinematographer, and distributor) right in the infobox. By comparison, the No Mercy article does very little to "spell out the scripting process" (and, by extension, should be considered far less condescending). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Very fair and reasonable argument. And please note I have not argued against the use of real names of the wrestlers (though I admittedly removed them in one of my edits for Unforgiven). However, not one of these in-question wrestling postings notes who the writer of a specific storyline is. We know who wrote The Dark Knight. Productions of movies vary greatly from one film to another -- and the behind-the-scenes processes for each individual film are often made public through the internet (AintItCoolNews), television specials (HBO Behind-the-Scenes), and periodicals (Variety). The production information you mentioned is essentially public (and often published) knowledge. In wrestling, very few are privy to such intricate details of the backstage inner-workings (unless you subscribe to the Wrestling Observer and, even then, you're not getting the same level of detail that you will find in Variety). Therefore, perhaps the argument really lies in the notability/specificity of such information. In the case of The Dark Knight, very specific details are provided, almost all of which are notable to the process of making the movie. In the case of professional wrestling, the same, "Such-and-such was scripted beforehand, during, and afterwards" line is hardly notable enough to be repeated ad nauseum on every PPV or event posting. That would be like saying, "A scriptwriter wrote this movie" for every Batman, without detailing WHY that's important. A Tim Burton Batman is much different than a Christopher Nolan Batman, just like a Dusty Rhodes-written storyline is likely to be quite different than a Brian Gewirtz-written storyline.--ECWAGuru (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to script readers, we would indeed specify who wrote what if there was anyway to find out. But WWE tends to be quite secretive about that. If you can find an reliable source, feel free to add it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That is my exact point. If that information were readily available and (more importantly) specific to that particular event, then by all means, it should be included. WWE may be secretive about who writes what. But, like I said in a previous post, I highly dispute that WWE is "secretive" about its predetermined nature. Their book division sponsored, promoted, and helped to distribute Mick Foley's various autobiographies. Each of those autobiographies would very specifically and openly discuss the backstage inner-workings...many of which came at the total expense of kayfabe (example: Mick's before-and-after discussions with both Terry Funk and The Undertaker regarding the infamous table bump at King of the Ring 1998). We're no longer in the territory era where heels and babyfaces dressed in separate dressing rooms and were banned from socializing together in public. Finally, as one more bit of proof that WWE literally CAN'T be secretive about its predetermined nature -- it is a publicly traded company. Look at any press release over the past few years. Listen to any conference call. They openly use words such as "characters" and "storylines." Therefore, I argue that pro wrestling needs to be treated like any other scripted medium. It doesn't need to be beaten over people's heads anymore. And if someone truly is confused as to whether or not wrestling is "real" or "fake", all he needs to do is head over to professional wrestling. The information is easily accessible to anyone who wants it.--ECWAGuru (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to consolidate the discussions

So, I figured since most of the contention regarding the new MoS for WP:PW is showing up at just about every recent PPV article, we could at least try to consolidate the discussions by using a talk page header (and only on the talk page) directing those who wish to discuss the issue to this very page. I've worked something up in my sandbox. Agree? Disagree?  Hazardous Matt  20:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree but why redirect them here? All they will do is complain.--S_RX 20:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Still claiming guys are "complaining?" Thats getting old, fast. And I agree, that box is a good idea, it'll keep the clutter off of the talk pages and bring them to where they should be discussed. Killswitch Engage (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course they complain; they're dealing with something they don't agree with. Personally, it seems like a lot more people are against these new guidelines than for them, which completely defeats the purpose of Wikipedia's base in consensus. There should be a page created now formal discussion on this new policy, and all the "complainers" and "vandals" should be immeadiately redirected to that page and asked to voice their opinion. Also, I'd just like to note....people in support of the new policy like to point out that the "complainers" don't offer any alternatives to what it is already there. This isn't because they're lazy, it's because they think what's there is not needed and an alternative is unecessary. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that as a "complainer," I have offered both reasons for my argument AND alternative suggestions which, while not fully fleshed out, are at least starting points to get an intellectual compromise going. Since I posted my feelings last night, they have since gone uncontested...which, to me, indicates that the alleged willingness to compromise has fallen on deaf ears.--ECWAGuru (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What comprise? To summarise you previous posts: who is going to a page called "WWE Unforgiven" that isn't a wrestling fan? are you suggesting that only wrestling fans read the wrestling pages, if so this is not what Wikipedia is for. why is it necessary to explain that it is predetermined on every page? because every page may be a persons first page, if you found Wikipedia today your first page may be Usain Bolt, could that page assume you know he holds the world records for 100m and 200m? I don't even have a problem with coming up with some (very) brief description of the "fiction" of professional wrestling., but there already is one, and you have made no solid suggestion of an alternative, and an alternative that will be approved for FA. The style of writing is the main source of contention; as it is written now, it simply comes off incredibly condescending., so says you, I find it to be quite dry. Therefore, I argue that pro wrestling needs to be treated like any other scripted medium. It doesn't need to be beaten over people's heads anymore. Any more? This has literally started a month ago, are you suggesting every person who reads Wikipedia now knows that wrestling is fake and we can simply assume everyone is up to speed? As a self confessed "complainer" you have made no credible alternate suggestion on how articles can reach FA standard, neither have any of the other complainers. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said but this is an encyclopedia not a newswire. If you are not interested in working towards that goal then don't bother editing. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You guys win. Clearly, I'm in the wrong, and I concede to those bastions of encyclopedic integrity who think "any more" is two words and that "pre-determined" is hyphenated. Oh, and let's not forget that we must stick to using wrestler's real names -- yet the main page for Ricky Ortiz (real name: Richard Young) is still Atlas DaBone (a gimmick that few outside of OVW fans and smart marks will be aware of). Now, you can go ahead and blast me, or you can see that I made the suggestion for said change weeks ago on Young's talk page. --ECWAGuru (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's at Atlas DaBone per WP:COMMONNAME. However, you're right the article's name should probably be changed, since that being his most commonly known name is not true anymore. And in response to the typos, they happen, and rather than firing at us for it, why not go and fix the ones you see. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have consistently been doing as such. I just find it ironic that the crux of the argument for this policy is, "It's an encyclopedia, not a fansite." Yet, I see the same typos and run-on sentences in said encyclopedia, often made by the very people defending this policy. I agree -- we're all human. We all make mistakes, and said mistakes often include typographical errors. But if we as run-of-the-mill editors are expected to be held to some encyclopedic standard, then those individuals making this policy should hold themselves to the same standards. --ECWAGuru (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone can point me to an IP or complainer who has raised a WP:PW article to FA or GA standard then I'll listen, otherwise the moaners are doing nothing but clogging up talk pages with the same discussion repeated over and over. I like Hazardous Matt's banner but the existing WP policies should be enough, were are here to make an encyclopedia, not a wrestling fansite. If IPs want results then google "Wrestling results" there are thousands of sites that will cater for them, Wikipedia is not for that. As I said before, revert, warn, revert, block. Any page under FA upgrade can be protected, I think the nature of what this project is doing has evolved and those who don't want to come down from the trees and walk upright can stay up there picking the insects of each other's backs while grunting their complaints (to stretch a metaphor to breaking). If they want to help then feel free to join in. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just kind of throwing this out there because I find it interesting. Both sides of this argument ("for" and "against") have pretty good arguments. The "for" people are arguing that this is being done because its Wikipedia policy. But the "against" people's argument is pretty interesting, since it's essentially "Wikipedia policy is detracting from the quality of these articles". I personally fall into the latter category. Would it really be that awful to have a policy for Pro Wrestling articles that doesn't fit Wikipedia policy? I'm pretty sure it even says somewhere that if something is keeping you from improving the encyclopedia, then ignore it. Let me take the new leads for example. We don't need all these disclaimers about wrestling being staged when it's already written out much better in the pro wrestling article. I've shown the PPV articles to a couple of people just to see their reactions; I find it condescending, and 3 out of 3 friends read it and laughed at it. Is that what we're trying to go for here? 70.105.164.43 (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of "Ring Name (Real Name)" is being missed here

I really don't think we need the "Ring Name (Real Name)" guideline to appear in pro wrestling articles. I haven't seen the argument I'm about to make anywhere else, so I hope you'll all take it into consideration. The main argument for this policy seems to be that movies and TV shows do it. My argument is that music articles do not. Before you say "Wrestling is more like movies/TV than music", hear me out. Yes, wrestling itself is more like movies/TV than music, but articles on wrestlers look a lot more like those on musicians than those on actors and characters. A few examples:

• Ex. 1 - Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) - In this case, it is necessary to link both names because they link to two separate articles. The Harry Potter article has no info on Radcliffe's personal life, and the Radcliffe article has no info on Harry's fictional bio.
• Ex. 2 - The Love Guru (Mike Myers) - In this case, it is again necessary to separate the names. There is no info on the Love Guru on Mike Myers' page because the article is about the person, not the character he plays.
• Ex. 3 - 50 Cent (Curtis Jackson) - This one is a no-no. The article on 50 is about both Curtis Jackson's personal and professional lives, and thus no split is needed.
• Ex. 4 - Kane (Glen Jacobs) - Here's the controversial one, to which I say...no. The Kane article is about Kane and Glen Jacobs, so no split is necessary here.

Unless the intention of this project is to split pro wrestling articles into the character and the wrestler, it is simply unecessary to do the "Ring Name (Real Name)" deal. Articles on wrestlers are much closer to articles on musicians than to those on actors/characters, so they should be treated more like those on musicians when linking. Remember, articles on wrestlers here are about the wrestler and the person. No split in linking is necessary. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

An aside — Actually, the Kane article the above IP contributor links to is to a disambiguation page, with links to numerous articles with people, places and things with the name "Kane" in them. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)]]

THANK FUCKING CHRIST! Finally someone explained that those things are redundant as well as horrible! Personal attack removed - D.M.N. PXK ^T /_C 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you, fucking Christ. And you, User:70.105.164.43, deserve a round of applause. --Endlessdan 16:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

PXK you need to stop attacking others. Now my response, the IP makes a point, but the real purpose of the ring name (real names) was because of WP:IN-U and WP:FICTION, because many wrestlers in their career have gone under different ring names and having this in the article makes the reader aware that the different ring names are in reality the same person, which is the "Real purpose being missed here." Plus its a guideline accepted by WP:FAC, and is now written into WP:PW/PPVG.S_RX 16:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one person would go under two different ring names in the same pay-per-view. If they did so, I don't think anyone would be opposed to indicating Wrestler A and Wrestler B are the same person. But I can't think of one single pay-per-view where one wrestler has gone under two different gimmicks. The only other places where I think it would help is if it's a case like Fake Undertaker/Real Undertaker, or like Mr. America. Other than those three very rare situations, there is no need. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been several instances of wrestlers appearing under different gimmicks at the same event. Cactus Jack, Mankind, and Dude Love all competed in the 1998 Royal Rumble match, and Eric Young and Super Eric both appeared at Lockdown (2008). GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Except in those instances, it was even understood in wrestling reality that it was one person playing all those characters. Cactus Jack, Mankind and Dude Love were passed off as the three sides of Mick Foley, while the whole Eric Young/Super Eric thing, although idiotic, was centered around claims that Super Eric was really Eric Young's alter-ego. So yes, there's examples of wrestlers appearing under different gimmicks in the same show, but those only show exactly why you should not go the "ring name (real name)" route: because the audience was already in on the joke. Drjayphd (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think User:70.105.164.43 missed the mark. Taking the "50 Cent (Curtis Jackson)" example, 50 Cent = Curtis Jackson. They are the same person, with the same backstory and same characteristics...so there is no need to explain about his real name. Kane and Glen Jacobs are not the same person. Kane is the brother of the Undertaker, was burned or something as a kid, and is mental disturbed. Glen Jacobs is a regular guy who is married, has kids, and just happens to play the character of Kane on television. We have to show that they are separate, which is why we need to write it as "Kane (Glen Jacobs)". Nikki311 16:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for forgoing the blasphemy in my response, but I'm not sure I follow. Both names are not linked. The only link is to the person who portrays the characters. I will, however, agree that that the real name thing could be dealt with more effectively. My suggestion is to keep the real names out of the lead section, where they are simply overwhelming (especially when describing matches with 8-10 competitors). Give the real names in the first mention of each after that (whether it be in the background, event, or aftermath section), where they will be spaced out and not clutter a small space. As an example, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, a Featured Article, gives plot details in the lead as follows: " Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia Organa, and the rest of the rebel forces are being pursued by Darth Vader..." Although this is the first time each of these characters are mentioned, no real names are given at this point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That article was passed a year ago, and more recent articles I've seen pass have the real names in the lead. I agree that have the real names spaces out within the article itself would be more ideal, so I think it might be worth asking somewhere (WT:FAC maybe?), whether or not that would fly. Nikki311 17:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't want to look through all of the featured movie articles to find the most recent, so I just picked one. Asking SandyGeorgia (or posting a general question in SummerSlam 2003's FAC) might be a good idea. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My point was that whether you are looking for information on the mentaly disturbed character that is Kane, or the Ron Paul supporter that is Glen Jacobs, you will find it in the same article, which eliminates the need for "Kane (Glen Jacobs)". I'm not saying they're the same person, I'm saying they're covered in the same article. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

They may be in the same article, but they are separate within that article. Personal information is regulated to "personal life" or "early life" sections, while character information is available in the "professional wrestling career" section. Linking names just makes it clearer that wrestlers aren't the same person as the character they portray, whether or not they have separate articles. We could (in theory) make separate articles for character vs. person, which would make things infinitely more clear, but I think we can all agree that it would be impossible to do that (not enough personal life for an entire article in most cases, plus we'd have twice as many articles). So...instead, we do it like this. Nikki311 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nikki311 — I was thinking the same thing, as to why the character a professional wrestler plays is relegated to a separate section in the wrestler's biography (hope I said that OK). Besides, an individual wrestler can sometimes adopt several gimmicks (i.e., he plays two or more distinct characters) during the course of his career, and having X-number of pages for each character/gimmick would be way too much, IMO. With the exception of Doink the Clown and possibly a few other gimmicks adopted by more than one wrestler (not aware of any, but stated so that the possibility isn't ruled out), separate "character" pages are something probably better left for a wrestling wiki. BTW — the blasphemous remarks should be removed altogther, as add nothing to this discussion (and with the first blasphemous statement being capitalized, it amounts to shouting); if you want to agree with a statement, simply say, "I agree," and you'll have made your point. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)]]

They are still located within the same article. There is simply no need to say "Kane (Glen Jacobs)". The entire reason it's done for movies and TV is that there are 2 separate articles: actor and character. Even if there is no character article, the actor one does not cover the character. Pro wrestler articles do. That eliminates any need for the "Ring Name (Real Name)" policy. And if there is no need to do it, it shouldn't be done, because it looks and reads horribly. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the character and actor have separate articles is not the only reason why names are linked that way in movie/TV articles. It is done that way to have a real-world perspective, so that fiction isn't portrayed as real. Nikki311 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How is that even remotely giving it a "real-world perspective"? A real-world perspective would be sections on production, development, reception, etc. Pro wrestling is very different from movies and TV...it's a gray area between fiction and sport. You can't just go with the standard fiction guidelines, you have to adapt it to what pro wrestling is, something in the middle. We need our own unique policy which doesn't necessarily conform to Wikipedia's fiction policy. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It gives it a real world perspective because it separates the character from the person who portrays the character. How many times must I say that? As for things likes production, development, and reception...those sections are being added in, as well. Nikki311 18:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we put this to a vote and end this debate? Both sides have made their points, all valid and good, but it doesn't look like we're gonna get any further. --Endlessdan 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You can !vote as much as you want...that doesn't change policy. Just as in an AfD, RfC, or any other Wikipedia debate...policy pretty much trumps everything else. Nikki311 18:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument can be made that pro wrestling needs its own policy. What I want to know is why you guys are doing this to the articles....outside of policy and trying to get everything to featured, is there any reason? 70.105.164.43 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy will over-ride any pro-wrestling policy we make. D.M.N. (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The pro-wrestling articles and their editors have been looked down on in the past. The other editors of Wikipedia seem to think that we try to cater to ourselves, are creating a walled garden, and writing in-universe instead of catering to every reader (as an encyclopedia should do). We're trying to show them that we aren't just a bunch of moron red-neck fanboys/fangirls, but that we are intelligent and willing to follow Wikipedia policy to better our articles. It is about earning respect for the project and bettering the encyclopedia as a whole. We've been going to great lengths lately to tighten up notability, create Good and Featured Articles, and write in a way that makes the articles more accessible. Nikki311 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to IP if (s)he wishes to comment in the future: Do you think December to Dismember (2006) is a good example of an article or not as it is currently classed as a "Featured article" on Wikipedia? D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Being featured does not necessarily make the article "good", it just means it is well-written. That being said, I like the reception section...the results table could have some more detail, and the "Ring Name (Real Name)" aspect makes it look incredibly choppy (and is it really useful to say "Montel Vontavious Porter (Alvin Burke, Jr.)" when the Alvin Burke, Jr. just links to Montel Vontavious Porter?). There needs to be a better way to portray a real-world perspective than that. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Also, look at this sentence: Jeff then performed a Swanton bomb and pinned Nitro, a move which sees an attacking wrestler leaping off the top turnbuckle keeping their bodies straight and arms out-stretched, making it resemble a swan dive, and then waiting until the last moment to execute the flip, so that they just barely complete it when impacting with the opponent. Are you kidding me? Good writing is concise while giving detail. That gives a lot of detail, but is not in the least bit concise. The fact of the matter is, it may be a featured article, but it's badly written. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an alternatives? We really are trying to make everyone happy here...although it may not seem like it. We want to follow policy and guidelines, but still make the articles readable for pro-wrestling fans. It is still a work in progress, so any alternatives you can think of may help us in the long run. I have to go to class right now, but I'll be back in a couple of hours to read any suggestions. As for the move description, I agree. I've tried to be way more concise that that in SummerSlam (1988) and WrestleMania (1985), which have been my pet projects lately. What do you think of them? Nikki311 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, what if we put up a list to the right of the article, something under the info box, that would list the real names and stage names of those performing? (Mock-up of it here.  Hazardous Matt  19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I read over the SummerSlam article, and I think I've figured out my main problem. The Background, Event, and Aftermath sections are essentially names for "Plot". In the movie articles, we don't constantly see then, this was scripted to happen. I still don't like the explanation about what pro wrestling is in the lead, Wikipedia has links for a reason. We don't see constant reminders about how movies are scripted in their articles, so we shouldn't have them in pro wrestling articles. And to Matt's idea, I think that works. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than interupting the article's flow. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The main reason we have to state the scripted nature of the performance is because it is not acknowledged by the production team itself. For instance, the entry for the Tommyknockers says "It's a 1987 horror novel by Stephen King". You don't need to state everything was scripted because it's already in the lead. Whereas Pro-Wrestling not only tries to pass of predetermined events as actual happenstance, but do not credit any writing teams in an attempt to further the illusion. Thanks for the feedback on the name box.  Hazardous Matt  19:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. If you're saying the words "horro novel" in the lead tells that it is fictional, the words "professional wrestling event" should tell the exact same thing. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New Addition to Style Guide

I'm sure it's not just me, but the addition to every PPV about the predetermined nature of matches is both cumbersome, unnecessary and ridiculous. If it is necessary to mention that the outcome is predetermined (which i believe it isn't) surely this can be done in a way which is more succinct. The mention of the wrestlers playing characters with ring names that are not their real names is information that can be surmised from their individual wiki pages. There is also an example of where the outcome of a PPV was not scripted and not determined by the writing staff, and i think it's been mentioned on the main page...80.177.2.156 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the above threads for a more detailed answer, but in short: Yes, it's necessary and if you can think of better way to word it, please feel free to speak up. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How about simply saying at the beginning of each article: "<insert PPV name> is a professional wrestling event" and then contain the predetermined nature in the header of that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.2.156 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded

"These matches are planned with predetermined outcomes by WWE's creative staff and feature wrestlers playing a character for the entertainment of the audience. The buildup to these matches and the scenarios that take place before, during, and after the event are also planned by WWE's creative staff." This is completely ridiculous. I know there was a discussion on this, but no one was informed about this. Adding this to every PPV is unneeded and totally trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degenerate-Y (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how to link to specific conversations, but take a look in the archives and see debates that are longer than your average WP:PW talk page combined, as well as peer review and the like. Everyone who could have been informed, was informed. Tony2Times (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont really understand wht its needed, as it is a well known fact that its scripted, but can it be changed to something else. How about, " the matches and storylines leading up to and after the ppv, are scripted. then performed by the wwe superstars (wrestlers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.194.247 (talk • contribs)

Looking at your contribution history you have made 14 edits in the last 12 days, all of them to complain about the new style. If you had actually made any contributions maybe someone would be willing to listen but you keep telling us you don't understand 12 times and doing little else. The new style got the project an FA, your complaining has not. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

well actually most of them were to correct the spelling mistakes i made when i was writing them. i complain a few times, and you cant say you cant see why. but i didnt make 14 different complaints. whats a FA? anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.194.247 (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured article, and if you keep having to make minor spelling corrections may I suggest changing from IE to another browser with spell check, and using the preview button before you post. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"keep having to make spelling mistakes". you think i want to? ok. and i normally do that. the fact im dyslectic has nothing to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgenerationxcena (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody was even aware that you're dyslexic. The suggestion regarding spellcheck was not malicious, it was intended to assist in resolving repeated, multiple and minor edits. That being said, if you have suggestions on how we can improve the project going forward, please share them.  Hazardous Matt  18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

it just seemed that way. i said what i thought would make a better introducion to the page. and i was told i wont be listened to because i did not like the new style, and i was complaining. which isnt really suprising. i suggested an idea, which explains that its scripted, and it doesnt ramble on about how everything about it wasnt real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.194.247 (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Change?

I'm not to happy about the new format, but since there is no point arguing i thought i might help. Considering what happened with Cena this week do you think that you should change

An unknown number of professional wrestling matches (performances with predetermined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real) will be featured on the event's card.
To
An unknown number of professional wrestling matches (performances with predetermined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real) that are subject to change, depending on a wrestlers physical condition and/or status with the WWE, will be featured on the event's card.
Or something like that?Spongemaster0 (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a old excerpt, which has been altered already, see SummerSlam (2003).--S_RX 14:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

New Article Format

It's absolutely atrocious: excessively verbose descriptions of things unrelated specifically to the article, such as an overview of what professional wrestling is (beating people over the head that professional wrestling is, in fact, WORKED! in the process), excessively describing moves with their physical actions instead of just their name and a link to an article describing or referring to professional wrestlers by their stage name, with their real name in parentheses immediately following.

Specifically, the article for No Mercy (2007) is the worst offender here, with lowlights such as using 8 grammatically weak words to describe a leg drop or an entire sentence to say that Triple H (Paul Levesque) hit Randy Orton with a clothesline.

This new style of writing articles is ugly, unwieldy and honestly, more than a little patronising. To me this just comes off as a petty, but subtle attack on professional wrestling by some pseudo-intellectual with entirely too much time on his keyboard. I know that comes off as harsh, but there's no possible way that anybody could think that this verbal diarrhea is quality editorialism.

Ryot 124.184.93.80 (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See the above topics. Suffice to say, this new style complies with Wikipedia policy. It's not meant to be an attack on pro wrestling - all of us are fans of it. But we want the project to be a good one, comply with policy and allow us to get good articles and featured articles. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well then the policy should seriously consider a revision then, as I'm pretty sure that articles with ridiculous prattling on are hardly what constitutes as "good".

Ryot 124.184.93.80 (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone that disagrees with you about the need for some change. The new format is a work in progress. At present, it complies with Wikipedia policies, but we recognize that it needs some fine-tuning. Do you have any suggestions on how it can be improved? Thanks for your input, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's depressing that common sense is an apparent rarity on Wikipedia, then, but addressing the issues I had already brought up would be a good start: referring to moves by their actual name and then linking to the description rather than posting "idiot-proof" descriptions of the move, getting rid of the rambling, generic preface that makes absolutely sure it has to instill that professional wrestling is NOT a legitimate sporting contest *GASP* and the whole ring name (stage name) policy has to go.

Ryot 124.184.93.80 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, the suggestions you have made will take us straight back to in universe writing. Next you will tell me that everyone knows that Christian Bale is Batman in The Dark Knight, so we don't need to say that. That The Dark Knight is a film, so we don't need to say that. The problem is that in thirty years time (assume the Earth isn't a ball of heat and we're not all dead), then someone born in 2015 may not even know who Batman is, let alone what a film was and may have never heard of Christian Bale. The obvious is obvious when you know it, to others it needs explaining. You sign Ryot and yet post from an IP address, so far all your contributions to Wikipedia are seen on this page, you are welcome to make suggestions but until you actually make a contribution to improving the encyclopedia then your ideas will meet with resistance. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy using The Dark Knight is supremely flawed on numerous levels. For one thing, you're telling me that referring to a wrestler by their ring-name is in-universe writing? That's kinda weird, considering that the only time a wrestler will ever be referred to by their real name, even outside of kayfabe, is usually whenever they want to. You didn't see "Paul Wight" getting interviewed on talk shows prior to WrestleMania XXIV, you saw The Big Show. Let's not forget that guys like Raven & CM Punk consider it extremely disrespectful and rude to be referred to by their real names when discussing wrestling. Incidentally, notice how Raven's article is titled after his real name but CM Punk's isn't? Points for consistency.

Gotta love your ridiculous assumptions as well. I'm not so arrogant as to assume everyone knows The Dark Knight and its cast or what-have-you. However, I'm just curious as to what you would make of that article if it were written so that after "Batman" was first named, there was a sentence or two explaining who and what Batman is? Don't forget that we need one for each character as well, along with an explanation of a few sentences to define what a "superhero film" is.

And of course, you had to give me a total surprise: unjustified snobbery and laughably misguided arrogance. So what, I don't have an account and my IP address seems to change with every edit I make? Suddenly my opinions are less valid than yours now?

Your behaviour is precisely the reason why I was even reluctant to bring this issue up in the first place, because I know some pseudo-intellectual would immediately disregard my statements for reasons not based on validity or merit, but rather some ridiculous online bureaucracy. I can't even begin to fathom what trash you would spew forth if I hadn't bothered to "sign" my Talk.

Finally, (not that I give a rat's what you think) but I'll have you know I've been using and contributing to this site before your oh-so-special account even existed. For some reason Wiki likes to randomly assign me a new IP address at its own whim. Off the top of my head, I wrote a significant portion of the Blue Comet SPT Layzner article (some of which isn't there today, unfortunately) and was a part of the whole Gundam SEED Destiny editing "RAGES" back when the show was in its original airing. The article is a shell of its former self nowadays.

Looks like I went on a bit of a rant, eh? Maybe you should learn to not post like a self-righteous wannabe next time. Not entirely certain why I bothered writing up rebuttals to your points anyway, I mean: my opinion counts for less, I don't have an account! Who needs intelligent arguments when you can try to discredit people simply because they didn't sign up for something that they can already do without registration?

Ryot 124.184.93.80 (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not having an account doesn't mean your suggestions are discredited. All that seemed to be suggested on your part was reverting to a MoS that was not going to help the project reach its goal. That's where the conflict resides.  Hazardous Matt  12:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a few points, guys like Raven & CM Punk consider it extremely disrespectful and rude to be referred to by their real names when discussing wrestling but this is not a kayfabe fansite, it is an encyclopedia. Incidentally, notice how Raven's article is titled after his real name but CM Punk's isn't? Points for consistency. Then do something about it. my IP address seems to change with every edit I make, then get an account, your IP address has stayed consistent for these comments, but if it does change then get an account and it won't. Your behaviour is precisely the reason why I was even reluctant to bring this issue up in the first place, because I know some pseudo-intellectual would immediately disregard my statements for reasons not based on validity or merit, but rather some ridiculous online bureaucracy. I'm not disregarding them based on the fact that you have an IP address, all your suggestions point towards assuming that everyone knows everything about wrestling and writing article based on that. Which would mean taking all the article back in universe which is the exact opposite of everything that this project is against but also that this encyclopedia is against. The two articles you link two being a case in point, they are both written in universe and having never watched either of those programs I cannot understand anything in those articles, now if you want to write articles for people who already know a subject then by all means keep writing about Gundam and Blue Comet SPT Layzer, but the wrestling project is not writing article for just wrestling fans, it is writing the wrestling part of an encyclopedia, and if you don't want to add to that then you don't have to. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the part where you tell me things you assume that I don't know.

I'm aware that this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Still, when discussing Raven or CM Punk, it makes far more sense to use the name that they do and are famous for: after all, the [Babe Ruth] article isn't named "George Herman Jr.", is it?

And I never assumed that everyone knows everything about wrestling. Using the actual names of wrestling moves rather than a description and linking to the already-existing article that does describe them. Why, it's just as stupid as having to define the names of punches in a description of a boxing match.

Ryot 124.184.93.80 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Destruction Crew/Beverly Brothers

Why does the Beverly Brothers moniker have its own article when the team was much more successful under their AWA Destruction Crew gimmick? In the AWA, they won the Tag Team Championship and PWI's Rookie of the Year award - the only tag team ever to do so by the way. In WWF, however, they were not highly regarded and never won any championships. I will probably rename the article to The Destruction Crew and partially rewrite it to suit this title if no one has an argument. Cale (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sheepherders/The Bushwackers have the same problem. Some knowledgable wrestling fans may remember Enos & Bloom may best remember them for their AWA stint, but I would say most folks and wrestling fans (current, former and casual) remember them as the Beverlies. Also, the period where they were most successful was also AWA's least successful period. --Endlessdan and his problem 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This new policy needs a major rethink

What is the point of putting all of that useless jargon on each pay-per-view page about what professional wrestling actually is? Surely if somebody wanted to know this information they would look at the professional wrestling article instead of going to WWE Unforgiven 2008. The reason most people look at the Wikipedia entry for WWE and TNA pay-per-views is to check out results, event information and upcoming matches. They do NOT look at them for information on what pro wrestling is. What next, a full explanation on the history of film everytime somebody looks at the entry for Star Wars or The Godfather? --Bravo Plantation (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot something, Wikipedia is not an online news source, but simply an encyclopedia. For the results of the PPV's, you should go either to WWE.com or any other website to check the results. The changes are made for individuals who are not familiar with how wrestling works. Yes, its true they can go either to the wrestling pages and see what wrestling terms, moves, or other stuff, but, how a PPV or anything related to wrestling should have somewhat of an explanation to them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, writing at the beginning that "wrestling = scripted" keeps us from having to write it after every match result. We have to make sure people understand that it is scripted per WP:IN-U, and that's just easier and less intrusive. Nikki311 23:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Except the entire policy applies more to descriptions of media that don't present themselves as real. Comic books don't claim to be newspapers, so in that case, reminding people that they're in-universe is appropriate. Wrestling presents itself as a legitimate competition, even though it's basically common knowledge that it isn't, so bludgeoning readers over the head with the stick of WP:IN-U really doesn't make a whole lot of sense; telling people that wrestling's scripted is much more appropriate for the article on professional wrestling, not every single article relating to professional wrestling. Drjayphd (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling does NOT present itself as legitimate competition, and has not done so since the early 80s. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the above. I mean why did this new policy come into play anyway? Was Wikipedia receiving complaints from non-wrestling fans that it wasn't being explained enough on each PPV page? I would highly doubt it To me this appears to be change for the sake of change. As for calling Raw, SmackDown and ECW "storyline divisions" this is completely inaccurate and definitely does not belong on Wikipedia. As "scripted" as wrestling maybe, there is no disputing the fact that these brands (not divisions as WP seems determined to call them) are very real. When a wrestler signs with WWE, the company assigns them to work on one of their brands. Where exactly is the 'storyline' there? This whole new policy seems to have been dreamed up by people with too much time on their hands. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The new policy came into being when the WP:PW project was told "Follow these guidelines if you want anything to reach featured-article status". The policies aren't just those of WP:PW, they're WP-wide. If you're not happy with out-of-universe articles, it needs to be addressed to those who make the process for WP, as that is what is being followed.  Hazardous Matt  12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So wait, does every TV show say "This episode featured actors (real people pretending to be other people for the purpose of humor and entertainment acting in a way that is not the way that they would act in real life"? No, of course not, because that would be idiotic. You don't have to smark the hell out of an article, but this has absolutely RUINED every PPV recap that it's been applied to. Is "FA" status really THAT important that you absolutely ruin the articles?The Todd (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Ruined" is a subjective term. I feel the articles are now more approachable by non-wresting fans. And yes, FA status should be the goal with as many articles as possible.  Hazardous Matt  13:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want a wiki for wrestling fans, in wrestling terms, go to The Pro Wrestling Wikia Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I was engaged with a bit of an edit war on Wrestlemania IX, and I was having the same discussion with GaryColemanFan that's apparently been going on here for quite a while. It seems to be that the majority of the editors here would prefer having well written articles without the stupid disclaimer than be a GA/FA candidate, so what's the problem? Couldn't a non-fan just click on professional wrestling in the articles and learn how it works, if that's the problem?

If this is how all pro wrestling related events on Wikipedia HAVE to be formatted, I'd rather just have them all deleted than make them look this stupid. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Precursor to Vandalism Warnings?

Given the recent change to the method of style for WP:PW articles, I think it's reasonable to accept that some making the edits casual editors may not be aware of the new policy. I've been guilty of putting level 1 or 2 warnings regarding vandlism on a page or two, as I'm sure others have done the same. The only issue I see with that practice is if the editor is in fact aware of the new style. I threw together something I'd like some feedback on: Pre-Vandalism Templates that could be used just to inform the editor. After they have been made aware of the change, then good faith can be brought into question. Agree? Disagree?  Hazardous Matt  21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I sorta agree/disagree with warning them. You see, when they delete the stuff from the articles, if its there first time doing it, I give them a General note. But, if they keep deleting the stuff, I give them cautions/final warnings. I know it may not be good faith of me, but not warning them might just sent them to continue deleting the new stuff in the articles. The template looks alright, it may need a little tweaking, though. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to warning someone for rampant abuse, but I think immediately assuming vandalism comes off as bad faith. I felt comments would be good, as you mentioned above, hence the possibility of a template. It would save someone the trouble of having to write everything out. If you or anyone else thinks it has promise, feel free to give it the tweaks you think it needs.  Hazardous Matt  03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we put this to a vote?

Can we put to a vote whether we A) Adhere to the (ridiculous) new policy for PPVs in order to try to get FAs, or B) remove the disclaimers, which would negate chances for FAs but make the pages look far less stupid? --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You know a vote still will not stop someone from writing out of universe. If someone wishes to make an article an FA they can go right a head even if the project does not want he or she to do so. The vote could be to not write out of universe. I could write an article out of universe and still take it to FA because I have the ability. No one would banned me or block me from trying to improve an article to a higher level. It all comes down to whether a user wants to write out of universe or not.--WillC 05:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about writing in/out of universe, I'm talking about the disclaimer saying "The buildup to the pay-per-view consisted of feuds scripted by the WWF's writers, and the matches that took place at the event had pre-determined outcomes that had been decided by the promotion." That apparently needs to be on every PPV page. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There are more than one type of disclaimer. Would you rather that or throughout the entire article explaining the storylines more in depth and explaining the Raw, SD, and ECW brands alot more?--WillC 06:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1st, "smart" mark, it's WWE, and had been for a long time. And 2nd, i would like to draw your attention to my previous suggestion. "the matches and storylines leading up to and after the ppv, are scripted. then performed by the wwe superstars (wrestlers)" It shows that it is scripted and doesnt ramble on describing how everything is scripted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgenerationxcena (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say this, voting to reach a consensus as such is discourage per WP:VOTE and WP:POLL.S_RX 20:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody feel like reading it and telling me what they think, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgenerationxcena (talk • contribs) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and willc, are you going to answer mark's question or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgenerationxcena (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

He actually did, he just asked for more information.  Hazardous Matt  13:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys consider wrestling fake because you say its a work of not real so shouldn't that be said for the UFC as well since most of their matches are permade as well or how about TMZ half of the stuff they mention are fictions too. Let not stop their what about big brother that all acting as well and made up feuds. Football and Baseball should fall under these as well since player are told what games to win and what games to lose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your whole rant about well these other articles should be wrote like this because it isn't fair if they aren't wrote like this, is very poor. You tend to not want to actually read and research. This is Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. UFC falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Baseball falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports. We have nothing to do with them, well a little but we do not decide how they write certain articles. There are multiple policies we have to follow. When you go read all of them and understand them, you will then see this is one of the best options. Now quit complaining because you aren't helping the cause. Are you writing the articles? Are you taking them to GA and FA? Why is it that people who have technically nothing to do with the article besides reading it and wanting to know who won, complain the loudest and most? While I had to convert two articles to this new format when I was trying to get both of them to GA. I'm not complaining about the format. Why are you? Did you lose your girlfriend because of the new format? Maybe did you lose your mother to it? What? In a few months (around WrestleMania 25) you will not even notice the out of universe writing. So get over it and quit complaining. When you come up with a new format that multiple FA reviewers like we might change. I welcome you to take an old unexpanded PPV article; Maybe Lockdown (2005), that would be a good start; expand it, write the background, event, Aftermath, reception, and production section, whatever you want. Add sources. Do it entirely by yourself. Take it to GA or FA. Get it reviewed. See if it passes. If it passes GA, then take it to FA; GA and FA reviews are very different; and lets see if you know what is the best way to get an FA. After you either fail or succeed, you will understand where we are coming from. It is easier for people to complain when they are on the otherside looking in. I mean this all out of respect but I'm tired of the drama and everyone in this project is as well. Crap if all the main people left, I don't know what would happen to the project.--WillC 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No matter how many articles you "improve" to get them to FA status, the fact remains that non-wrestling fans still won't read those articles. I'm sick of this stupid Asperger policy of trying to get articles to FA by destroying them in mountains of unnecessarily verbose descriptions rather than making an article that reads well to those who will actually read it. Tnova4 (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just thinking about other people beside myself and usually what a group of people want outweight what one person wants I mean if people want to have Travis on there PPV site I don't see what the big deal is not like Wilipedia a real encyclopedia [[User:Supermike|Supermike] (talk) 1 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC).

Who is Travis?  Hazardous Matt  18:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Idon't don't you mean Note like for exsmple Y2J won the IC title for 8th time in the same building he lost it 3 year ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I need help editing

I need help editing List of current Pro Wrestling Unplugged employees —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecwfan123 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Use List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees as a reference.--S_RX 00:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Should there really be an article for the promotion's roster if the promotion itself doesn't even have its own article? RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. It seems it was just overlooked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Unplugged. If someone doesn't AfD it sooner, I can get to it in a couple of days. Nikki311 01:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current Pro Wrestling Unplugged employees. D.M.N. (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WWE Judgment Day

More IPs adding unsourced locations. Can't revert it anymore. Someone help, even though he'll just change his IP again and continue to add it over and over. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We might need to get some of these ips checked. No way they are all different people all showing up at the sametime and reverting.--WillC 22:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See if he does it again, if he does report him down to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. Edit: Tricky, it's a different IP every time. Can't block 'em all. Might call for semi protection, we'll see if it keeps up. Edit X2: Rules say no semi protect for this case. Best we can do is post a message on the talk page and make sure no individual user goes over 3 reverts. Cheers, DoomsDay 23:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I placed it up for protection. Maybe this will stop it.--WillC 23:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether they'll call it appropriate for semi protection, because it's not vandalism, it's a content dispute, and the semi protection policy states, "In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." See which way they call it. Cheers, DoomsDay 00:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it got protected.--WillC 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA World Heavyweight Championship

An ip has removed reigns from the article. I can not revert again and he is challenging consensus so it isn't vandalism. Can someone please undo his edits.--WillC 03:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC