Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

Prod noms

I nominated Wade Keller, Ernest Roeber and Hergeleci Ibrahim for deletion. You can read why at each. If one of my reasons were ridiculous or untrue, please keep it to yourself. LOL, I'm joking, please tell me here. I nominated them because I felt each didn't meet WP:N, please tell me if you disagree. Raaggio 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

While I don't know if Keller is notable or not (although the page could cover both him and the website since it is a notable site), but the article doesn't meet speedy criteria (especially not the patent nonsense one since the article is written pretty well). I suggest taking it to AFD. TJ Spyke 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I contest the prod of Keller's article. He is widely notable, almost as much as Meltzer. He was interviewed by many media outlets regarding Benoit's death and other related areas. He is also the editor of a over 20 year old highly regarded newsletter. This to me establishes his notability.--₮RUCӨ 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

...? Highly regarded? Truco, are you joking? It's a dirtsheet for crying-out-loud. And the man has absoulutely no right to be commenting on Benoit anyway, and it's not like if random people aren't interviewed all the time. When any important event happens, the news outlets interview the first person they can find with any relation to the subject, like when there is a shooting in a neighborhood, they'd interview the people from around there (though most would know nothing about it). It's the same thing here, he's just a dirtsheet reporter who happened to be interviewed because of the death of a wrestler. That's it. Raaggio 01:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter is notable website and newsletter, so your personal opinions about it and the people who write on it should probably be kept to a minimum when judging content. — Moe ε 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Do people on here release its no longer the 1980's and promotions don't really care about newsites and/or "dirtsheets" being out there? Nenog (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the prod on Roeber He is notable, he's held several titles in the early days of pro wrestling history - proof of existence is on the title pages where he's listed and they're not hoaxes, I checked a printed source and they list him holding the titles. He's from a time where sources are hard to come by and the articles are generally cut more slack on that account. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no PW Torch is not a dirtsheet. It was found reliable at FAC because it is one of the few sites that is not a dirtsheet and that has accurate fact checking. Its a newsletter and website running since the 1980s, which establishes its reliability as a source. He was interviewed because he is a respected interview personality like Dave Meltzer, the founder of the WON newsletter (Don't tell me that's a dirtsheet as well :O).--₮RUCӨ 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're both dirtsheets. And when i say dirtsheets, I mean they are "news sites" dedicated on the postings of "insider information" in the WWE & perhaps TNA. But other than that, they don't have much news to post. The fact of the matter is, they're just glorified fans like Matt Hardy said in an interview. These men make their living by the curiosity of fans to get spoiled. They aren't more notable than [kryptonsite.com KryptonSite]. Sure, Dave Meltzer should be considered a source for factual information, but of what? Of PPV results, injuries and creative plans? How, in your right mind, could you call that notable? Raaggio 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You have your opinion about it, but they are notable in the sense that they have media coverage and exposure more than other personalities. Their websites are reliable because they have accurate fact checking and do not post as much (if little at all) of rumors and speculation.--₮RUCӨ 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Truco, did you just say Meltzer doesn't post rumors (if little at all)? Are you blind or are you just talking basing your fact around something someone else said, because that is bluntly untrue. The WON is the king of rumorsites, and sure, you may say they are reliable, but really, can you prove it? Can you prove Meltzer actually has an "inside source"? Of course he won't tell names, and you know why, because the insider is strictly breaking the law (contract law with the WWE) by going against his contract. So yeah, wouldn't anything illegal, suspicious and unverifiable be banned from uses as sources? I think the veriafiable part is the most important, because the guideline is strict, and you nor I, nor anyone except Dave Meltzer himself can PROVE his reliability. Raaggio 00:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How about you stop putting words in my mouth? WON and PW Torch are reliable for results and news that is not speculation or info that cannot be verified. Since Meltzer and Keller both own these sites and have media exposure that can establish their notability, which is what is mainly needed to warrant an article at an at least stub-class rating.--₮RUCӨ 00:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Media Exposure? Create a census for all the media-conscious residents of the United States, and ask them "Do you know who Dave Meltzer is?", or "Have you read WON or PWI Torch?" or how about "Do you even know what the PWI Torch and WON are?"... I think we both can predict their answers. But, lets assume they hypothetically had (key word) significant media exposure, how is it relevant to citing sources. Sure, you say it establishes notability, but this guideline only specifies that only notable information be published in the articles. So, if their notable, they get an article. But what about verifiability? Or reliability? How does media exposure have ANYTHING to do with verifiablity and reliability? And if it does, specify in which part of WP:SOURCE, WP:V or WP:RL does it mention it. Raaggio 15:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, media such as CNN, other sites such as Canadian Online Explorer, are considered reliable, and his own official site is reliable to verify his information, and any other information relevant to him. Having a 20-year old newsletter published several times every year is notability, and being featured in many media interviews like Meltzer establishes his notability. I don't see what you have against Keller, but he meets WP's guidelines, like it or not.--₮RUCӨ 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Truco, you're confusing WP:NOTABILITY with WP:VERIFIABILITY. The first one has to do with what qualifies a subject to be mentioned or to have his own article, while the second one has to do with sources. I agree with you, that Meltzer and Keller might be notable, but in no way are they reliable. And, why don't you answer my above questions? Like, citing where in WP:V media exposure is mentiones? Or how about the hypothetical US census? Of course, answering them, would just prove me right. Raaggio 16:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

See you weren't clear enough when you asked me that. FAC reliability source checker User:Ealdgyth found PW Torch reliable (thus Keller being reliable for results, facts, and news that can be verified). This is only for Wikipedia, I don't know how you want to interpret it outside of Wikipedia, but here on Wikipedia they are reliable. Meltzers WON hasn't ever been used for sourcing in FACs, which is why Ealdgyth hasn't checked its reliability, yet, but I will ask her and see what her input is, more than likely it will be reliable since its an established website with fact checking like PW Torch and WrestleView. I meant media exposure to be reliable in terms of notability, they are reliable in terms verifiability by their fact checking they use on their sites for results, facts, and news that are not speculation or rumors or that can be verified.--₮RUCӨ 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So, you are trying to say that if Ealdgyth, the Almighty lord of FACS, finds a website reliable, it officially meets the guidelines? Well, in all honesty, until you can cite where in Wikipedia's vast ammount of guidelines, the PWTorch and WON might meet the criteria for verfiability, they are not reliable. You can never, ever prove if Meltzer or Keller are saying the truth. Why? Because they are tabloids.

Also, you should read Wikipedia:V#Questionable_Sources, and why, because WON and PWTORCH require much information on rumors and unverifiable "insider reports", they're considered questionable. Raaggio 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. Ealdgyth's opinion does not matter, and it can be enforced as erroneous, just because he/she found WrestleView, a renound dirtsheet site, as reliable. And if you want to debate WrestleView as a dirtsheet, then you are basically wanting to debate that 2 + 2 = 5 \ Raaggio 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Heel/Face terminology

Why are we changing heel/face to villian/crowd favorite or whatever? (See Shawn Michaels for an example.)

I don't really see why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.181.244 (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves, it's due to an old Wiki rule on terminology. PCE (talk)

Supposedly it's because of WP:JARGON. Nevermind the fact that the term "heel" has been used plenty of times when not talking about wrestling (and is even in the dictionary).

Wouldn't the proper way to say something like "Who works as a heel (bad guy)", that way you use the term, you can link it and still put it in a way where even non-fans instantly know what it means. It's okay to use terms if you figure out a way to make them accessible even to people that don't have knowledge of the subject. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not by the jargon rule's standards. PCE (talk)

Hmm I could have sworn the guideline said the following about jargon "avoided or explained." (straight quote) - how is my suggestion not within the jargon guideline? MPJ-DK (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Then go ahead and go for it. Then, wait about a few hours to a day later and presto! Change-o! It'll likely be reverted by one of the group's higher ups. PCE (talk)

Well isn't that nice, you're saying that "higher ups" (whatever that's supposed to be) basically ignores the guideline and changes it to whatever they want. Oh and thank you for your "kind permission" on something the guidelines already say I can do (and have done for years). MPJ-DK (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

All the changes that have been made with jargon and the like haven't been arbitrarily made by the group's higher ups, they've been struck upon when taking the articles to FA review. So if anything MPJ you should try out the way you said with brackets (which I support) and then see if the review accepts it. Tony2Times (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say that I didn't think someone went "rougue" and just changed stuff around ;) and to be honest, I have been doing that lots of places in the articles I've worked on over the years and its' never really gotten any kind of negative remarks from people. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In the reviews I've had done, the terminology is okay if it is explained, but when you add in other terminology (like moves, matches, etc), all the terminology is a little overwhelming to people who are not used to it. That's why, for the wrestling terms that can easily be replaced by more common terms, I like to do that so I can save the explanations for more difficult jargon. It isn't a rule or anything, but it does, IMO, make it more accessible to non-fans and potential reviewers. I know that I tried to review a cricket article at WP:GAN once and had to give up because every other word was one that I didn't know and all the explanations made the article harder to read. On the other hand, words like face (good guy) and heel (bad guy) are quick explanations, so I don't mind them being explained instead of replaced, but I do prefer it the other way. Nikki♥311 19:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally with you on that one, heel and face are easy to do, there are a lot more tricky stuff to handle than those two concepts. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the idea of "heel (bad guy)" is, it isn't brillant prose. It is decent, all articles should live up to the good or featured (mainly featured) criteria. Heel (bad guy) doesn't role off the tounge or make you think this is written very well. As for villain, it can be used and is understandable very quickly. Plus pipelinking works better and we make sure not to use jargon. That way it is universal. Heel (bad guy) just gets in the way IMO.--WillC 04:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dale Oliver

I was wondering, could we possibly split the covers section of the Dale Oliver page to it's own? I mean, it's kinda long. I think it's a good idea to have the songs listed, however it should be sorta like a discography page, in my opinion. What do you think? Crash Underride 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That whole section is unsourced, so I don't know if it should even be in the article and it definitely should not have its own article. TJ Spyke 19:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Even more WWE Hall of Fame

I was considering completely redoing the notes sections, because they seem to insinuate that championships = importance. I'd like to instead make it a few sentences on why they were inducted and this would involve re-formatting the table and losing the sortability. The big problem is that this could lead to rampant POV, but we could limit it to a few choice quotes from WWE.com. Here's what I'm thinking:

Ring name (Birth name)	Year	Notable championships	Inducted by
André the Giant (André René Roussimoff)	1993	One-time WWE Championship (one-time)	None
	"the largest athlete the world had ever seen, and was sports-entertainment’s most famous attraction throughout the 1970s and much of the 1980s. [...] nickname[d the] "The Eighth Wonder of the World."" Posthumous inductee. There was no ceremony, only a video package that was played on an episode of WWF Superstars in 1993 that announced his induction.
Bobo Brazil (Houston Harris)	1994	WWWF United States Championship (one-time); NWA United States Heavyweight Champion (one-time)	Ernie Ladd
	"Bobo Brazil was able to transcend issues of race. [...] participated in the first racially-mixed match in Atlanta sports-entertainment history. [...] Achieved success everywhere he went, holding numerous regional NWA championships in the Detroit, Toronto, Florida, San Francisco and Mid-Atlantic regions throughout his career."
Jim Ross	2007		Steve Austin
	Worked as a commentator in Jim Crockett Promotions, NWA and WCW] Hired by WWE in 1993, Ross is a current play-by-play commentator for SmackDown! Was the "voice of Raw" for two months in 1994, from 1996-2005 and 2006-2008. "A walking wrestling encyclopedia, [Ross] takes great pride in knowing all the stats and inside info on WWE Superstars giving fans a wealth of knowledge and passion when calling some of today’s most electrifying encounters."
Arnold Skaaland	1994	One-time WWWF United States Tag Team Championship (one-time)	Bob Backlund
	Long-time manager in WWF, "had a hand in nearly every aspect of the business during his career. From wrestling to managing to promoting, Skaaland found success in every avenue of sports-entertainment."

If anyone dislikes having the names in the large column, I could switch it around to having years in it. By the way, this method would be sorted alphabetically. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I like, but my main concern is for the future Featured topic of all pro wrestling hall of fames, that format would not work with the other Hall of Fame FLs, like WCW (which is now dead) and the NWA (which does not have sub websites like WWE does).--₮RUCӨ 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but that shouldn't stop us from making this list as good as possible. If this format works for this page, we should use it. If it doesn't work elsewhere, we shouldn't use it elsewhere. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the ringname section needs to be so wide, there is too much uneeded white space. TJ Spyke 00:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I just picked 250px because without a minimum width the column was too small. Once all the names are in I'll find a width that works better. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This really will lead to too much POV and potential endless listing. If people really want to learn that much about them they can read their articles. This is a list and while it's a good natured endeavour, this much detail is a bit removed from what a list is. Tony2Times (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, in addition, FT's need to be consistently formatted.--₮RUCӨ 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But people are already going crazy with listing championships. The way I see it is if we're going to include notes on why they were inducted, we might as well include why they were inducted instead of just a list of titles. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why people are going crazy, only their most notable championships should be included (such as top-tier title wins, multiple wins of a certain title or accomplishment).--₮RUCӨ 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I assume that this is referring to me? If I have "gone crazy", please point out where. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who Scorpion was referring to, but I was just stating it in general. Top-tier title wins in a promotion, highly praised achievements (e.g Royal Rumble), or multiple wins of a certain title should just be included. Not every title they could have possibly won.--₮RUCӨ 18:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that you edited the page. I was mainly referring to this IP: [1] and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_Hall_of_Fame&diff=275027803&oldid=274881764 Odin's Beard]. I agree with Odin's comment: "Pat Patterson did more with his career than just be the first I.C. Champion" so why don't we say what he did, instead of just listing some of the titles he held? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That can be stated without all the new formatting. Unless you can find a way for the format to fit the other Hall of Fames, then for now, it should remain how it is and you can still list other things certain inductees have done, not just their title. There is no need for a new format just for that, that's why there is a "Notes" section.--₮RUCӨ 19:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the article and the title additions are hardly excessive, just a few additions here and there. For example, Harley Race was the first NWA United States Heavyweight Champion and a three time AWA World Tag Team Champion. Not to say that being an eight time NWA World Champion isn't enough, but he did win other presigious titles and two of the more well known are named. In the notes section of some of the inductees, it mentions if they've won a number of regional NWA titles but those titles listed by name.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bryan Alvarez

can people please help me with this article as I'm close to the 3r rule, IP's (at least 1) keep adding "2009 King of the Board" to his championships and Accomplishments section, surely everyone agrees this isn't notable. Skitzo (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Title templates

Should we place a limit on which titles can have navigation templates? This one user he gone and created templates for several titles (including the ROH Championship, TNA X Division Title, and WWE IC Title). This seems to be going overboard and will be a problem on wrestler articles where the person has won lots of different titles. CM Punk, for example, has 4 title boxes. This will be a even bigger problem for wrestlers like Triple H and Shawn Michaels who have wons lots of different titles. 02:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

How would we decide which ones should be able to have one? Nikki♥311 02:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think its best not to even have templates, they really don't add to the list, as it not mandatory for FLs to have a template linking all the champions or related subjects.--₮RUCӨ 02:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I quite like the templates but I don't see why the ROH Championship shouldn't have one, nor the other two you mentioned. As long as the lineage is long enough to be important, I don't know if the Million Dollar Championship needs a template. Edge's page may end up very saturated but so do cricketers who have appeared in multiple World Cups. That's why they're hidden by default if there are too many. Tony2Times (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured/Good Topics require a template linking all of the articles, which is why one was made for the WWE Women's Championship, because I'm working on making it a GT. Nikki♥311 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the criteria states that its preferred but not mandatory. I think just for F/Gts is that it should be added to.--₮RUCӨ 03:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well all three templates should be deleted until a Featured or Good topic is even remotely in the works for either one. As that for all of them. No one is making one on Evolution or the New Breed in stable articles. There seems to be no use unless it is important and needful, otherwise if there is no topic, then delete them.--WillC 04:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Grand Slam Championship and Triple Crown Championship a point of reference by WrestleView

Looks like WrestleView.com has pointed Wikipedia's articles of the Grand Slam and Triple Crown Championships here. They say "supposed official" lineage, but my question is, how legit is our representation of the articles? Where are we getting this information from?--₮RUCӨ 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just the few WWE.com articles sourced in the Triple Crown, page I believe. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I mean like for the WWE United States Championship not being able to complete it when WWE always considered it a equivalent title to the Intercontinental Championship.--₮RUCӨ 15:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the logic was that since WWE never officiayl said it can be used as an IC replacement in the Triple Crown, we were forced to assume that it can't be. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess, I was just worried about how legit it was since another site is reporting news using WP's articles.--₮RUCӨ 15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

At least we have something to point to when they want WrestleView to be considered a reliable source. Tony2Times (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? It appears to be little more than a blog entry (sent in by a reader). They are not reporting is as being official. They come right out and just say they found this info on Wikipeida and that it is supposed official, they are not coming out and saying it is true. As Gavyn said, we are just going by the few references WWE makes to the Triple Crown. I have no doubt the US Title is considered equal to the IC Title, but we have yet to find a reference to WWE saying it can be a substitute for the IC Title in the Triple Crown. TJ Spyke 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked Wrestleview is considred more reliable than a vast majority of other sites like WrestleView and LOP. I remember Ealdgyth saying so. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Championship renaming

Since we go by what WWE now calls defunct championships, like the ECW World Television Championship is now the ECW Television Championship. The WCW World Heavyweight Championship (and its related pages) needs to be renamed to WCW World Championship, the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship to the WWE Light Heavyweight Championship.--₮RUCӨ 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we go by what they say for defunct titles? I think for defunct titles we should go by what it was best known as. I especially object to the Light Heavyweight Title. It was defunct back in 2001. Its name is only listed as WWE because they can't use the "WWF" initials anymore. I think they only did the WCW one to avoid confusion with the WHC. TJ Spyke 17:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why did we rename the ECW TV Title?--₮RUCӨ 17:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I didn't know the article had been moved. TJ Spyke 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It was always the ECW World Television Championship so that's what the article name should be. The article is a bit of a mess, it clearly shouldn't set a precedent. Tony2Times (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)\

Someone moved it a long time ago without a set consensus. Don't assume anything Truco. The article should be moved back.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction. Instead of moving it, User:Secretaria redirected ECW World Television Championship to ECW Television Championship without an explanation. Check it out [2] There's 3 years worth of lost edit history.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it, since we want to go by their most common name.--₮RUCӨ 23:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For those of you watching the Sarah Stock / Dark Angel article.

I saw a while ago that some of you are watching the Dark Angel article over rumors of her signing with TNA. Well I just found an article where she states they've been in talks but nothing is signed - if you speak Spanish read here - I thought you'd like to know so that any rumors of her already being signed can be kept off the page. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this again

Regarding the situation regarding recognition of singles world championships, we've gotten way off base. Let's leave out all the secondary, divisional, women's and whatever potential category there is for them and get back on track. We can talk about all that at some other point. Let's not worry about which world title is more prestigious or deserves to be called a world championship more than others or any of that because we're not going to get anywhere. Now, when last I heard the criteria was as follows:

A)The title must have (or have had) the name "World" in its name.

B)The title must have been defended in at least 2 countries.

C)The title must be the (or one of the) top-tier championship(s) of the promotion (or brand of a promotion).

On the other side of the issue, some feel that PWI alone has the standing to decide which championships should be determined as "world" titles and which shouldn't. So let's give it another shot, we've heard everyone's side of the arguments. We've heard reasons upon reasons why some secondary titles aren't really secondary titles and reasons as to why some titles really aren't division titles and so on and so forth. If anyone has anything new to add to the discussion, not just re-hashing everything that's already been said to death up there already, then please, by all means, bring it up and let's hear it.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in creating a new section for this. PWI should have no authority over it because promotions give scripted/storyline names to their titles, so they have the authority in deciding their status for titles as World Heavyweight Championships. Now "World" means that it is a international title, so at least being defended in 2 countries exemplifies that. Also being the top title in the company concludes that.--₮RUCӨ 23:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Truco, being defended in two countries is too narrow. I already said that the two countries must be outside of the continent of origin for that criteria to be fulfilled. Travelling from the US to Canada and Mexico is not international recognition, which is what's needed in the criteria. Further, it shouldn't just be the title. It should the promotion touring said country. !! Justa Punk !! 02:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

People know my opinion. I'm fine with the criteria, as long as the above only effects world heavyweight championships. While another is needed for lower titles. I kind of agree with Justa Punk on it needs to be on a different continent. That still makes the ECW, ROH, TNA, both WWE, WCW, and NWA Titles world titles.--WillC 04:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Will, NWA and WCW are in the past and not the present. ECW is part of WWE and is BEHIND the other two and not an equal, so the criteria of it being a top title is failed. The WWE title as I said before is a special case and should be an exception to the criteria. The ONE top title otherwise should stand as is for a promotion - not a brand name. ROH I haven't had the time to look into that further yet through the links above. !! Justa Punk !! 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that criteria, the ROH title fits. A) It is the ROH World Championship, B) has been defended in Austria, Canada, England, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Mexico and Switzerland, and C) is the top title in Ring of Honor. Nenog (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter if it is the past, it is still a former world title. The NWA Title has been defended around the world. You can't take that back. It fits all the other criteria. It is a world title. You say ECW behind, but look at WWE.com. It is the top title on the ECW brand. When it first came into WWE it was called the ECW World Championship. Main evented December to Dismember and is a title the Royal Rumble winner can pick from. WWE even say it is a world title. There have been new talent and vets on ECW. Just because it is a higher OVW plus FCW mix, does not stop the truth that it has had world in its name twice in the past. WWE say it is a world title. Been defended in multiple countries. And is the top title on the ECW brand. Just for you to understand. the WWE Title's real name is the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. They shortened it. Also from earlier, the World Heavyweight Championship in WWE, is not the WCW Title nor does it have its history. WWE even state that on the title's description on wwe.com.--WillC 05:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nenog - did ROH tour in those countries? If they didn't then it's irrelevant.

Will, if WWE isn't recognising the WCW title then why do they say Ric Flair has 16 world titles? As for the NWA, it WAS a world title. Note; WAS. Not "is". The fact that (as you rightly said) ECW is a higher OVW/FCW mix is precisely why the title is NOT a world title. A point. What a promotion says is not what's real. That's a key here that every one is missing it seems. Just because a promotion says it's a world title does not mean that it is. That's why we have to get the criteria right, to prevent bogus claims from being recognised and make sure genuine claims aren't missed. December to Dismember was an ECW pay per view so that doesn't count. Just like the first two One Night Stands. !! Justa Punk !! 06:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

One, its not irrelevant. Another country is another country. Whether ROH toured there or not it doesn't matter, since if they didn't the champion was brought in by another promotion and booked to defend the ROH World Championship against one of their wrestlers. The title defense is recognized by ROH and the promotion that brought in the champion, and therefore counts. Two, Ring of Honor toured England in 2006 and 2007, Japan in 2007 and 2008, and now regularly runs in Canada (lets see that one, two, three different countries outside the United States). Nenog (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Because he has 16 world titles. A world title is any title, not just the big gold belt in WWE today, because there are three big gold belts in the history of pro wrestling that are widely popular. The NWA Championship once had the big gold belt outlaying. It is a world title today because it has been defended around the world and is the most pretigous title in the history of pro wrestling. The WCW Title had the big gold belt outlaying. The Title created today that is defended on SD was created in 2002 and the first champion was Triple H. It is called the World Heavyweight Championship because it is to show respect to all past and present World titles. Matter of fact there is no such thing as a world title. The belt you see on TV means nothing. I can order a belt that look exactly like the World Heavyweight Championship today on the internet. Not a plastic one either. One as real as the one on tv. They are props that mean nothing. Just used to show "hey you need to watch this guy". Only to wrestling fans today do they mean anything. To people in the sport they are only there to get over with the crowd. To make a name for themselves. They aren't legit titles like in Boxing or MMA. The fact of it is, today's big gold belt is not the same as the WCW Title or the NWA Title. It even says that on WWE.com. The NWA Title never lost its world status. How can a title lose the made up world status? If it has been defended around the world then it gains the idea of being a world title. No matter what PWI say. No matter what wrestling fans say. In this thought we use common sense. What is a world title? A title that has been defended around the world. It is in the title of the title. So, just because a promotion no longer tours activly in Japan on England, does not grant the wish of taking away its world status. TNA don't even tour actively around the world. They are stuck in the US. Only rarely do they leave. They been to Canada and England in their past tours. Soon to be in Germany. But never in Japan, Russia, etc. They didn't even leave the US officialy until 08, but even PWI gave them world status. The NWA and ROH both have TV deals. The NWA is shown on local tv stations like it always has. They sell DVDs and have working agreements around the US. They also work with Japanese promotions. They aren't no local indy fed that no one has heard of. This is the NWA, the company that has given birth to all the top company's in wrestling today, besides ROH. The WWE was once apart of it, WCW was, ECW was, TNA, etc. There is no reason to not think the NWA Title is a world title. ROH also tour more than TNA. ROH have been to Japan multiple times and other places around the world. Both titles are world titles (ROH and NWA). As for Flair's 16 reigns, they actually add up to 22. WWE just like to rewrite history. Any title with world or Universal in its name that has been defended in multuple countries is a world title.--WillC 07:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Will, the NWA as a body has no TV deal. Individual members might, but that's the individual promotions. Not the NWA as a whole. The NWA is a controlling body and not a promotion. It's title is not a world title because it fails the criteria further down in it's current form. That is since it was vacated in May 2007. The NWA title WAS a world title. Not any more. TNA has toured as they expand. They've been to the UK at least (that was fairly recently) and I know I've heard talk about Japan and even down here in Australia and New Zealand although I'll believe that when I see it. !! Justa Punk !! 12:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Will. And if you argue any of these points, then you are just trying to force your opinion though it's not even true.

1. If a title has world title status, and a TV Deal is part of it, what would've happened before the TV? Would there have been no world titles? 2. Just like Will said, a "world title status" is made up. Doesn't matter by who it was made-up, but who has the right to take it away? Us, here on Wikipedia? For the record, no, i don't think we have that right. 3. If defenses around the world is what defines a world title, let's take a minute and think this over. When a champion like Rob Van Dam won the WWE Championship, he didn't defend it anywhere out of the continental United States. However, I bet you'd still consider him a world champion because his title HAS been defended around the world. Wouldn't that count the ECW, IWGP and NWA titles also? Raaggio 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is violating WP:POINT with this - it's you, not me.

1. No promotion in history has a TV deal because of a title. Not even WWE has that honour! TV deals involve the whole product and promotion - not just a title (world or otherwise).

It was mentioned that TNA and WWE have TV Deals, so their titles should be world titles, because they have exposure. What I am asking is, if the world ceased to have TV sets, would there be no more world titles, just because there is no televised exposure?

2. I am not and have never proposed WP be a end-of-discussion judge on the matter. I am merely wanting accuracy for the term "world" consistent with both WP:CORP and the simple fact that this is an encyclopedia where accuracy is a core requirement.

Well, the accurate and consistet and simple fact is that the term is fictional and doesn't have criteria, because honestly it doesn't need. A Boxing title is an actual title contested in a real match. A wrestling title's holder is chosen by the promoter. It's just like an Oscar being chosen by the AMPAS for actual achievement while the Razzie is chosen by some writer who wants people to laugh. Raaggio 00:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Your comparison is wrong - certainly in respect of the NWA title. You forget that the NWA title underwent a major status change when TNA ceased to be involved. A MAJOR status change. That didn't happen to the WWE title when RVD won it, and later lost it. I have already stated that WWE doesn't treat the ECW title as a world title and hasn't done since Johnny Nitro (now John Morrison) was given the belt in June 2007. !! Justa Punk !! 04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, what convinces you that the ECW title stopped being a world title when Nitro won it? Raaggio 00:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Lashley (the previous champion) was the last champion under Paul Heyman's watch, and Heyman pushed it as a world title - despite the fact that there was a ridiculous reign as champion by Vince in between. Heyman was gone by then anyway. The vacancy as a result of Lashley's move to Raw and the draft created a fresh start - not disimilar in a way to the NWA change in May 2007 except that the NWA change was far more pronounced. !! Justa Punk !! 23:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So even more original research. I would like to point out that Heyman was dismissed the day after Lashley won his first ECW Title, and that Heyman was strongly against them giving the belt to Lashley. TJ Spyke 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that Lashley being ECW champion is original research? You're saying that Heyman leaving as a result is original research? Which was my point incidentally. Everything I said was verifiable fact. !! Justa Punk !! 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The original research is your opinion that the ECW Championship lost world title status because Heyman was fired as booker for the brand. TJ Spyke 02:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove that the ECW title was called a "world title" after Paul Heyman left? I never said it was why. I said that was when it happened. !! Justa Punk !! 04:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Kayfabe stories are not proof. As stated below - I'm done. !! Justa Punk !! 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think its best to just have the term "World Championship" as slang term.₮RUCӨ 02:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. !! Justa Punk !! 04:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

New proposal for World Heavyweight Championship classification

Its really irrelevant if the promotion tours the country or not, sometimes promotions send wrestlers to compete in other countries without the company touring. Back in the 60s and 70s, the WWWF World Heavyweight Champion would defend that title interpromotionally in different countries without the WWWF actually touring. In addition, the WWE Championship is not an exception because as the criteria states A)It had the "World" bit in its name during the WWWF and WWF B)Has been defended in many other countries and C)It is the top-tier title of the SmackDown brand (as of late). The only way for it not to be a World title is if it wasn't one of the top-tier titles of WWE. But I think the criteria should be revised once more, because referring to the definition of a world championship, the top achievement of a sport or contest, a World Championship is not required to have the name bit "World" in it, although it must be an international title and be the top achievement of a company to be a "World Championship". The World Series is based in the U.S., and is not counted as a World Championship. The Speedway Grand Prix is also a World Championship and does not have the "World" bit in its name but its the top achievement of Motorcycle speedway and it is international. So the criteria for World Heavyweight Championships of Professional Wrestling should be as followed:

---

A)The title must be regarded by the promotion as its (or one of the) highest ranked championship(s).

B)The title must be an internationally contested title.

• It must have been defended in at least two different continents.

C)The title is not required to have the name bit "World" in its name, as long if it meets A and B.

---

For A)There is no need to state the brands, because WWE regards all 3 top titles of the brands as their highest achievements. B)All three titles have been defended internationally, and thus meets C, and thus 3 World Heavyweight Championships. Its best if we follow the formula of other World sporting Championships.--₮RUCӨ 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC) --₮RUCӨ 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is better as long as ECW fails 'A'. NWA definitely fails B as this has een written as "current" and not "former". !! Justa Punk !! 03:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Except neither fail. WWE considers the ECW Championship as one of their top 3 belts and the current NWA World Heavyweight Champion (Blue Demon, Jr.) won the title in Mexico. TJ Spyke 03:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE treats the ECW title as secondary to the other two, TJ. It's a practical fact. Mexico is on the same continent as the US, so the NWA title has not been defended in a second continent since at least May 2007 when the NWA title dropped out of TNA. !! Justa Punk !! 12:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I just noticed that WWE does not consider their title to be a "World" Title anymore after CM Punk won it in 2007. Since then, WWE has not treated it as a top-tier championship, and on their current RAW results page, they say Both World Title matches were set on Monday night..., this to me states the obvious that the ECW Championship is not regarded this highly anymore. Yes the criteria states that it does not have to have the "World" bit in its name, but in this case, WWE ranks their championships by "World", "Mid-Card", "Tag-Team", and "Womens". "World" being the highest. In addition, WWE did not consider the ECW Championship when Randy Orton won the Royal Rumble, which to me states that it is not a top-tier championship anymore. Now for the NWA Title, its still a World Championship because even if it was defended in 2 different continents almost 2 years ago, its still intercontinental. Now I think for the criteria we should also add, that after being defended in at least 2 different continents, if it is defended internationally, it can still remain a World Title because from the US to El Salvador or Costa Rica isn't that far either. Or even to South America. --₮RUCӨ 13:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Truco, the NWA title changed completely when they lost the connection with TNA. As has happened before - they made a brand new start with the tournament that finished with Adam Pearce's win. That was when it lost it's world title status. El Salvador (if I remember my world map) is still North America. Islands like Costa Rica probably need clarification, but I would be leaning towards including that in North America as well - technically (like including Tasmania in Australia and I don't mean politically either). South America - where the NWA title has NEVER been - is definitely a fair distance. In fact I think the only promotion that can claim to have travelled there is WWE. Of course I could be wrong about that. But it doesn't alter the root point. Don't assume that titles can't lose their world status. They can. And in the case of the NWA title - has. !! Justa Punk !! 00:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Um. Clearly El Salvador is in Central America my friend. In addition, just because the NWA title was stripped from TNA does not make it a new title, unless the NWA officially stated something along the lines that it was a revamped title. If not, then the title is still the same NWA Title that existed for all these years. I think we need to rethink the "geography" of this, not every promotion is going to go to another country (especially overseas) just to get their title to be a "World" title. A country is a country, and if a country based title is defended in another country (regardless of where it is) the title is still "international". Not every promotion has the finances like WWE does to travel overseas, they are best traveling on one hemisphere.--₮RUCӨ 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick geography fix, "Central America" is just a term for an area of countries (like "Middle East"). Costa Rica is part of North America. I don't think we need to re-think this though. If a promotion is so small that they don't even travel outside their country, how can they have a "world" title? 00:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, CA is part of NA, but from the 'states to CA is a bit far. I said we should rethink that going overseas to defend a title is the only way to classify it as a "World Championship", clearly going from the US to Mexico is an international "flight" :P--₮RUCӨ 00:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this new criteria is non-biased and follows the formula of other national World Championships.--₮RUCӨ 03:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is definitely an improvement.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonbiased? Are you joking? This criteria is the same as the other criteria, except it's been edited just to force the NWA and ECW titles to fail the criteria. And you call this non-biased? This is extremely biased and an insult to all encyclopedia and consensus-forming decisions and criteria in Wikipedia. Raaggio 01:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it biased? Clearly, the ECW Championship would meet the criteria if WWE considered it a top tier title of the promotion, which they don't. Clearly, the NWA Championship meets the criteria, I don't know why Punk is denying it. So I don't see how its biased, in addition, we're going by mostly what the promotions themselves see their titles as (Criteria A) and in order for it to be a world title, it must be internationally defended (Criteria B). Thus, unbiased and no problem.--₮RUCӨ 01:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The ECW Championship DOES meet the criteria though as WWE has made it clear they consider it equal to the WWE and WHC titles. TJ Spyke 01:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It really is questionable since on the Mynetwork TV debut of FNS, they had all 3 champs fighting, and when Orton won the Royal Rumble, they didn't consider the ECW title as a choice.--₮RUCӨ 01:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This "defended in at least two different continents" crap has to go. Another country is another country, just ask the UN. Promotion A defends their championship at least once a year in the Canada, Mexico, England, Germany, France and Switzerland as well as regularly in its home country of the United States. Promotion B defended it once in England 5 years ago, once in Japan 3 years ago, and rarely leaves the same building in the same city where they run their one show a month. Of those two, which is the true world championship? Nenog (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was considering. Both are.--₮RUCӨ 02:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Truco the first proposal was better. The ECW and NWA titles need to be listed. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No - the second proposal is more realistic. Nenog, it's not crap. Another country maybe another country, but just using two (as originally proposed) allows for unrealistic classification. AS in Canada and Mexico. It is not truly international. Now with the example you gave, I would query Promotion B's claim on the basis that was there a major change after the visit to Japan? If not then maybe the claim could be valid. If there was (as is the case with the NWA) then there is a definite problem.

Ragio, it is not biased to set realistic criteria to prevent unrealistic claims to being a world title. It is in fact the most unbiased way to go. That's the whole point of this. The fact remains that the NWA - as it is now - does not have a world champion. Neither does ECW. Neither should be listed. Truco was right about Orton - the ECW title wasn't even noted as an option. It says plenty. !! Justa Punk !! 07:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. There's no point in arguing. You are clearly wrong. You don't have a any foundation to your argument. ECW is a televised cast that gets more viewers than shows like ROH and TNA iMpact, and WWE considers it a seperate entity (brand) than Raw and Smackdown. If ECW was a seperate company, you'd clearly change your mind, but because it's in WWE's company, you rapidly state it's less than the WWE title. It's irrelevant if it's less than the WWE title or not, its a championship for a DIFFERENT roster. For example, the TNA title is obviously less prestigious than the WWE title, but both are world titles. IMO, the ECW title has the same prestige (if not more, because of its history) than the TNA title. Oh, and yes, it was really biased, and again, it was obvious. A criteria was created, and those who disagreed, edited the criteria just to remove and add certain aspects they disagreed with. Again, this is obvious, no point of you arguing this post. Raaggio 22:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a point in debating because YOU are wrong. My points have every foundation. It is perfectly relevant that ECW is a secondary title within the WWE structure. It is TREATED as a mid card title on pay per views. You can't contradict that fact. And you also can't insert opinion re ECW v TNA. The reality is that the ECW title has not main evented a pay per view since 2006 and that pay per view was an ECW pay per view - not a full WWE pay per view. Like the first two One Night Stand's. The TNA title is on every pay per view they have. Those facts make the TNA title more prestigious than the ECW title. The criteria as originally created was wrong and I stand by that with foundation. And talking of "rosters" remember that ECW wrestlers also appear on either Raw or Smackdown. Doesn't happen the other way does it? The ECW title is clearly of lesser value to the WWE and World titles in WWE because of the way it is treated by WWE. As I said, when the ECW title main events a WWE pay per view AHEAD of the other two titles - I'll change my mind. Until then.... !! Justa Punk !! 01:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You were actually starting to make sense til you said that the TNA title is more prestigious just because it main events more PPVs than the ECW title. FYI, the Intercontinental, Tag Team, and X-Division titles have main evented PPVs, and that doesn't make them world titles. And no one, and nobody, can take the prestige from the ECW title away. It doesn't matter at all if Sting is the current TNA Champion, the title was created in 07 and the ECW title was created in 1994. Legends like Jimmy Snuka, Bam bam Bigelow, Terry Funk,, Shane Douglas, The Sandman, Don Muraco, Tito Santana, Sabu, Mikey Whipreck, Tazz, Tommy Dreamer and even Mr. McMahon himself has held the title. Which prestigious name has held the TNA title? Sting and ... Angle? The fact is, the TNA title has been along too little time for it to even be considered in the same league as the history of the ECW Championship and stating otherwise is WRONG. And I don't understand yet why you don't consider it a World Championship, is it because Swagger holds it? Well, if tomorrow night, Jimmy Wang Yang would win the World Heavyweight Title, would you strip it of its world title status? Just because its a mid-card wrestler? Well you know what, Swagger holds wins over veterans like Tommy Dreamer, Finlay and Christian, and main events every night on ECW. Yes, it does count if ECW has its seperate roster, and its irrelevant if they can appear on other shows. And if it were, you would also have to accept the fact that the WWE Champion and World Champions can appear on ECW shows, however, the ECW Champion is still booked in its main events. The fact is that it's still a world champion, and though a relatively new superstar holds the title, it still is the prestigious world title we've seen since 1994, and you have no right to change that, nor does anyone [especially not some editors on a wiki]. And saying that the TNA title is more prestigious than the ECW one is original research, just because the statement is completely wrong. Raaggio 01:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This could go on forever and ever, but for now the ECW Championship is a World Championship. Lets say, however, that tomorrow WWE got rid of the ECW brand but kept the ECW Title, but ranked it the as the same level as the US and IC Championships, then that's when the ECW Championship would be "former" World Championship, in which it would be listed on the main page under the "former titles" section. So this applies to all World Championships, they must meet the criteria in the present, not the past (unless the title is no longer active).--₮RUCӨ 01:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding to the Swagger note and him being new not mattering. I would like to point out that The Big Show (at the time known as The Giant) won the WCW World Heavyweight Championship in his very first match. Kurt Angle won the WWE Championship about 10 months into his pro career and Goldberg won the WCW World Heavyweight Championship about 9 months into his career. So experience as a wrestler doesn't matter when it comes to prestige of a title (meaning it doesn't make a title less important just because a new-ish wrestler wins it). TJ Spyke 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I never asserted for one second that I was judging the ECW title on the individual wrestler! And I will make this clear. Is it not fact that the ECW title has NOT main evented a pay per view at all since December 2006, and has NEVER main evented a WWE pay per view at all (the DEC 06 example doesn't count because that was an ECW PPV)? The fact is - and this not original research and I resent the accusation - the ECW title is being treated as a mid card title in the WWE structure. Right now the practical fact is that indeed - the ECW title IS on the same level as the IC and US titles on their respective brands. There is nothing that anyone can say to contradict this. If it wasn't, the ECW title match would be in the last three matches of the show (depending on the individual marketing of each match and the wrestlers involved as well as practical purpose like No Way Out for example with the WWE title match opening the show) every time. You always book your big matches late - show booking 101.

Now look at the TNA title. Okay, granted. It hasn't main evented every single pay per view. The IC title in WWE has main evented at least once (Summerslam 92) but that was out of booking practicality per who was involved in the match and where they were. See what I just said about marketing above. The fact is that TNA pay per views revolve mostly around their champion. WWE it revolves around not three champions. It revolves around two - at present Edge and Triple H. Jack Swagger isn't even on the WrestleMania radar yet. Now think about why that is, and it has nothing to do with Swagger being new to the trade (indeed like the Big Show, Angle and Goldberg. And actually Brock Lesnar as well). !! Justa Punk !! 04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Truco, Will and I got to thinking... If we can agree that a "world title" in professional wrestling is an accomplishment that only exists for storyline purposes, is there really a need for such article? ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to delete the article, as it could discuss the concept. Some examples could be given, although it shouldn't claim to be a comprehensive list. Information about the PWI classification should probably be included, although it shouldn't imply that Wikipedia endorses their definition (or any definition, in fact). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, like Gary stated, it describes the concept. In the article, we can state that the definition of a "World Achievement/Championship" means that it is internationally contested for and that "World Heavyweight Championships" are usually the top-tier titles of a promotion (the titles they decide to make a top tier is based on their storylines), thus what makes a World Heavyweight Championship.--₮RUCӨ 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Then in that case I agree. Since there seems to be a majority here that concurs with the proposal, when will the changes be administered to the article?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if anybody want to start rewriting the prose on how it was proposed here and updating the list of championships, be my guest.--₮RUCӨ 03:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that since the proposal came from you, you could probably define it better than anyone here can. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll start it in my sandbox, I will just need help from the project to generate a list of titles that meet the criteria.--₮RUCӨ 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Right off the bat these 5 are listed.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a minute. Who is saying we have a consensus? Admins who are involved in the debate I don't believe should make that call because of potential COI issues. I ask that an uninvolved admin make the call. !! Justa Punk !! 04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah dude its just you who has any issues with this deal. Unfortunately you are in the minority. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just eliminate the article and add world title to List of professional wrestling terms explaining its for storylines only. Raaggio 04:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also support this proposal.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually so would I, given that if we do that it takes WP:CORP out of consideration. !! Justa Punk !! 23:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

CORP was never a factor in any of this since that applies to companies and articles about the companies. I think it should stay as a seperate article (oh, and please stop claiming certain titles are not world titles and then coming up with your own personal reasons why they aren't). TJ Spyke 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that WWE, TNA, ROH etc aren't companies? And I state facts - not personal reasons. Provide evidence of this insulting claim, please. !! Justa Punk !! 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

How are you stating facts? Why is the NWA title no longer a world title? Because it was removed from TNA television? What source do you have that states the removal of the title from TNA television caused it to lose its world title status? PWI? PWI has been declared irrelevant. Yet you continue to follow it due to your own personal opinion. Thus, you use personal reason for your argument.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Justa punk, CORP is for article about companies and organizations. That means it would apply to the article on WWE, or TNA, or ROH, etc. The article on a world title would fall under the general WP:N guideline. Bulletproof is right, you are just stating your opinion on why the NWA and ECW titles are not world titles. You know the expression about opinions and a--holes? Everybody has one. TJ Spyke 02:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

CORP applies to companies and organisations. Not just the article - everything associated with the running of the company. That includes it's promotional products.

I have already made the cases described as facts, so here we go again just for the record;

The NWA title is no longer a world title because it is not defended on a world wide scale. It has not been proved otherwise. That is the only reason at the root.

And it is from that base that I have made the other commentary. That might be opinion but the fact is that it is based on a verifiable factual root argument that NO ONE has contradicted.

How is that a personal reason again?

As for the ECW title, it is quite clear from the way it is being promoted secondary to the main titles that it is not a world title as far as WWE is concerned.

This is starting to resemble a personal attack. I ask that you back off, please. !! Justa Punk !! 04:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states a world title has to be "defended on a world wide scale" or is that your own personal opinion? If it is, then I'm sorry to burst your bubble but it's not fact. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source to prove that it's not? Come on - use a dictionary and translate accordingly. It's easy.

On second thoughts, stuff it. I'm done with this. You lot don't care about accuracy. Destroy this section with unverified opinion. I don't care. I'm taking the NWA title off my watch list. !! Justa Punk !! 05:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how this works. Because it was you who brought this entire argument up, the burden of proof is yours, not ours.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the thing Punk, you have no source stating what is a world title, what gives that title world status, or that the NWA and ECW Titles are no longer world titles or that they ever were. Accurcacy is based on reliable sources and common sense. There is no common sense in this debate because we don't know what a world title really is or what makes one. We are just blowing smoke. You have yet to give proof what gives or removes world status. If there is no proof, then what are we supposed to do? Fall down and agree with you because you know everything. No, that is OR on your part with just opinions in your eyes. This project is probably the most rule based project there is. In ways that is bad, but we have a repretation to uphold damn it (lol).--WillC 05:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been gone for a while, maybe I can help. Okay I'm for the second option. One: because a world title can be any title, second: we have no way to list what a world title is, third: a world title is fiction not fact, fourth: the article is useless. The only notable part about a title can be mentioned in the terms article. We don't know what gives a title the fake world status, we don't know what type of title has to be or if it can be any to be a world championship. We also don't know if world status can be taken away from that title, if so what gives it and what takes it away. We have no answers to those questions. Otherwise we have nothing. Just opinions from companies and our's as well.--WillC 05:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

World status is ultimately granted to a championship by the company or organization that owns it. I've been reading over some of the boxing articles and the various organizations such as the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, International Boxing Federation and World Boxing Organization. Those in control of the WBC, IBF and WBO were simply of the mind that if the WBA had "world" champions, then so could they and that's exactly how it went. It's the exact same in professional wrestling. Just as various wrestling companies have done, those boxing organizations simply bestowed world status to titles under their control. The status can't be stripped away by any magazine or publication. No other governing body can come along and tell them "no, you can't call your title a world championship". In fact Ring Magazine has it's own criteria for recognizing a world champion, but their opinion doesn't overrule the various sanctioning bodies. There is no universal decision which grants world status to any championship that I can see, no matter which sport it is. How often have the winners of the World Series been called world champions? But are they really world champions? They didn't beat every other team from every other country tht plays baseball, so how are they world champions? It's all ultimately about opinion, plain and simple. WWE has theirs, TNA, the NWA, the WBA, MLB and so on and so forth.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Money in the Bank table

I was thinking of hopefully improving the Money in the Bank ladder match article and bringing it to GA status. Looking at the match history section, I can't say I'm a fan of its current three table setup. So I'm proposing a new table that will incorporate all three into a tidier format, based off Scorpion's table for the WWE Hall of Fame:

Year	Event	Winner	Other competitors	Time
2005	WM 21	Edge	Shelton Benjamin, Chris Benoit, Christian, Chris Jericho, Kane	14:17
	Successfully defended his contract in a Loser Leaves Raw ladder match against Matt Hardy at WWE Homecoming on October 3, 2005. Cashed in title shot at New Year's Revolution (2006) on January 8, 2006 for a WWE Championship shot. Defeated John Cena to win the WWE Championship.
2006	WM 22	Rob Van Dam	Shelton Benjamin, Ric Flair, Finlay, Matt Hardy, Bobby Lashley	12:21
	Successfully defended his contract against Shelton Benjamin at Backlash (2006) on April 30, 2006. Benjamin's Intercontinental Championship was also on the line and as a result, was also won by Van Dam. Cashed in title shot at ECW One Night Stand (2006) on June 11, 2006 for a WWE Championship shot. Defeated John Cena to win the WWE Championship.
2007	WM 23	Mr. Kennedy	King Booker, Edge, Finlay, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, Randy Orton, CM Punk	19:10
	Lost his contract in a match against Edge at Raw on May 7, 2007.
	Raw	Edge	N/A	0:07
	Cashed in title shot at SmackDown! on May 11, 2007 for a World Heavyweight Championship shot. Defeated The Undertaker to win the World Heavyweight Championship.
2008	WM XXIV	CM Punk	Shelton Benjamin, Carlito, Chris Jericho, Mr. Kennedy, John Morrison, Montel Vontavious Porter	13:54
	Cashed in title shot at Raw on June 30, 2008 for a World Heavyweight Championship shot. Defeated Edge to win the World Heavyweight Championship.
2009	WM XXV	TBD	Shelton Benjamin, CM Punk, Finlay, Kane, Mark Henry, Montel Vontavious Porter, Christian, TBA	TBD

Any information from the old tables that aren't included here can easily be placed as prose into the history section without any problems. Any thoughts? -- Oakster  Talk  16:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I tried experimenting with an event column here. Perhaps the "other participants" section should be left aligned and re-named. After all, "participants" is a loose term and could also refer to the likes of Sharmell, Tyson Tomko or Hornswoggle. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I quite like the event column. It's worth keeping in, thanks. I've changed participants to competitors to hopefully solve the other problem. -- Oakster  Talk  17:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the redundant WikiLinks. There's a rule about wikilinking too much to the same subject. I'd write it, but don't want to waste the wikilink XD Raaggio 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it, too. It condenses it all into one easy to understand table. Nikki♥311 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added 2009's. Also, I believe King Booker goes alphabetically under K, because Booker isn't his last name. Also, I added the managers to Christian and Booker, because they are listed in the actual article. On a side note, I removed N/A from Edge's second MitB win, because there IS a match length; we just don't know what it is. And no one has protested against your fantastic table idea, so I believe there's a consensus. I think you can implement it. Raaggio 19:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of changing it to "competitors" was to avoid managers being listed. As for King Booker, I think it should be listed under "B" (would you list Queen Elizabeth II under "Q"?). TJ Spyke 20:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For the naming issue, I think about it like so. In a sortable table, would you sort it by K or B for King Booker? How would a commentator call him, could they just call him by Booker and just by King? if they can only call him by his full name, then it must sort by K. If he can be called by both, then he has to sort by B.--₮RUCӨ 21:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, the announcers always said "King Booker" or "Booker". I don't remember them just saying "King". TJ Spyke 21:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll hopefully place it in tommorrow. As for the N/A by Edge's second run, I placed it there as Edge did not win it via Money in the Bank ladder match, hence the N/A by other competitors as well. -- Oakster  Talk  22:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the naming conventions, stage names (or in this case ring names) do not have a first and last name nor can you assume a first or last name for them. They should be listed alphabetically by the first letter they were called on-screen. The only real exception to not using the first letter is when it uses the word "the" (as in The Undertaker, alphabetized by U). — Moe ε 23:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why King Booker should be by K. Also, the "N/A" doesn't make any sense. How does not winning it in a Money in the Bank match not have a match length? All matches have match lengths. Raaggio 00:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I just watched the match through this YouTube video and the match starts at 2:40 and ends at 2:47, meaning the match was exactly 7 seconds. PS. On a side note, that's less than Chavo and Kane's match at Mania. Raaggio 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Beer Money, Inc. re-visited

I know this has been discussed before, but isn't it time for them to have a article? Since the last time this was discussed, they have even started their own recurring segment in TNA (the Off the Wagon Challenge, which has been used to explain the released of Petey Williams and Lance Rock). They have been the main focus of the TNA tag division for over 7 months, held the tag titles for most of the time, been in feuds with most of the notable teams in TNA (including LAX, the MMG, and Team 3D). I can't think of any reason they don't deserve their own article now. TJ Spyke 03:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was decided a while back for them to have an article. Simon was supposed to be writing it. I guess he has been too busy to finish it. I was working on one but I'm quitting pedia until I finish other stuff so one will not be done by me until further notice. Though don't be surpised if one comes out of no where by me and is on GAN.--WillC 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:SimonKSK/BMI, I haven't gotten to the Off the Wagon thing yet. I've been wikibonked a bit. I'll get to it. Simon^KSK 13:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of ECW

Why is one article called WWE Friday Night SmackDown while the other is ECW on Sci Fi as opposed to ECW on Sci-Fi? Raw and SmackDown begin by saying they are a television programme, and also a name of the brand whereas ECW just says it's a brand, not a television programme. I don't understand the inconsistency, any help? Tony2Times (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know. Is the name even "ECW on Sci Fi"? They seem to use both that and just "ECW". TJ Spyke 19:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm these articles should be about the brands not the television shows. Because again, the television show is a portion of a brand, not what the brand is entirely. WWE Friday Night SmackDown should be moved to WWE SmackDown to reflect that as the other two articles are named after the brands. Why has SmackDown been the exception?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes the name is ECW on Sci-Fi and they regularly use that when talking about the programme itself, certainly on Raw & SD, I don't watch ECW that much but when they advertised See No Evil being on they said ECW on Sci-Fi and I've heard it used in the past too. If the articles are about the brands and not the television shows then why do they list anything that happened before 2002? The brands didn't exist before then. SmackDown isn't the exception, Raw also introduces the article as "a television programme". Tony2Times (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The articles are indeed about the shows, but also include the brands. I think the current names for Raw and SmackDown are fine. No opinion right now on ECW. TJ Spyke 20:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The ECW article name has been discussed SO MANY TIMES and a consensus is never reached. But, i think this might help. SAVIOR_SELF.777 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bullet. The articles should be about the brands, and have a separate section for their broadcast. So like the ECW article, it should be called by the brand name and have a section for its TV broadcast. So the FNS article should be called WWE SmackDown, whilst WWE Raw can remain where it is.--₮RUCӨ 23:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Like 90% of the article would need to be re-written. The articles are about the shows and thus are written that way. The brands are barely mentioned. TJ Spyke 23:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Then the ECW on Sci Fi article needs to be moved to ECW on Sci Fi .--₮RUCӨ 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer is pretty obvious:

• Television shows = Raw, Friday Night SmackDown and ECW on Sci Fi
• Brand = Raw, SmackDown and ECW, respectively

The articles themselves are about the television shows, not about the brands. The brands themselves is just the way WWE chose to split its roster for the three television shows. The closest thing we have to an article on brands and who appears on them is the WWE Brand Extension and List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees articles. — Moe ε 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I finally agree with you Moe :). This is why the ECW article should be moved.--₮RUCӨ 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See, stars didn't have to align after all! >_> But yes, ECW on Sci Fi needs to be moved to ECW on Sci Fi , as it is the name of the television show. — Moe ε 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. The articles should all be consistent. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 00:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with this, before I ask an admin to move it?--₮RUCӨ 01:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If it's about the brand, it shouldn't be named after the television show. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about the brand (I will fix the wording). WWE seems to more and more consistently refer to ECW as "ECW on Sci Fi", so I don't oppose a move anymore. TJ Spyke 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Does an article need to be written about the brand, then? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Only in so far as the other two programmes have information about them being brands. IE "It is also the brand ECW". Tony2Times (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Remember, WWE Raw was the name of the program way before it became the name of the brand. Brand is just a term to explain the division of the roster, the articles should just be about the television program.--₮RUCӨ 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So when will someone move it? Tony2Times (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to and it was blocked, an admin needs to do it (is Nikki online?). TJ Spyke 22:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'll ask an admin (any) to do it.--₮RUCӨ 23:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Truco's request,  Done. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks J!--₮RUCӨ 23:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No Pain, No Gain (2008)

Is this notable? Because I don't think it is.--WillC 06:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

hmmm not sure, how notable is the promotion in England, notable enough that individual shows could be notable? Also it's definitly not a PPV so the info box is wrong. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it was only available on DVD, not pay-per-view. It was created by a user who doesn't seem to know what encyclopedic means and went on a spree of adding uncited and unverifiable information but seems to have stopped, for a while at least. Tony2Times (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say apply the "ROH" thinking here where individual non-PPV shows aren't given articles. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem notable, I say PROD that and the other RQW events. TJ Spyke 15:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I would have already done that but I'm too lazy and thought we needed to discuss it first.--WillC 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit of potential FL

I've recently started working on getting some of the mexican championship pages up to "Feature List" standard and after some input from various people (thank you all) I've got the format ready and I'm pretty happy with it but I would really appriciate if someone could use 5 minutes to read the intro and help me out with a bit of copyediting - I've been looking at it so long I'm having a hard time doing it myself. the article in question is List of Mexican National Heavyweight Champions (recently split from Mexican National Heavyweight Championship on advice from Truco). Thanks, if this one works out I plan on putting all Mexican titles that have more than 10 reigns up for FL over time. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick bit of work on the lead, but I'm sure that someone else will find more things to change. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick copyedit as well, and gave a pre-FL review on its talk page.--₮RUCӨ 21:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania?

Is anyone going to WrestleMania this year? There are rumors of which past Divas will participate in the Diva's Battle Royal, with names like Wendi Richter and Debra Marshall being thrown out. Both of those women need pics for their articles, as do quite a lot of the older generation of female wrestlers, so I was hoping someone could get a few pics for me. Anyone? Nikki♥311 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're willing to pay for my flight and tickets then I'll gladly get some pics. If not, there's always a chance someone'll post them on Flickr. Tony2Times (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's if they are not copyrighted by the author.--₮RUCӨ 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

At which point you ask them if they'll release them. Geez. And no, I won't be there. Although I will next year. Mshake3 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, I've seen so many pictures from Flickr I thought there was some sort of reciprocal agreement or copyright waivering policy involved. Tony2Times (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Professional wrestling navigational boxes needs to be gone through

I see boxes for things such as the Holly Cousins, La Familia and so on that probably should be deleted. RobJ1981 (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently its because for an article to be a featured article it has to have a navigation box. I said the same thing after visiting Brian Kendrick's page and seeing a navbox for Paul London and Brian Kendrick and thought it was extremely unnessisary. Nenog (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not for FA. It is meant for Good or Featured topics. Knedrick and London are a future Good Topic. The Holly Cousins you'll have to ask Nici. She said somethinmg about doing one.--WillC 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That just seems stupid. A seemingly useless navbox just for featured or good article status? When a navbox has a tiny amount of things (2, 3 and even 4) it's not helping the article. I noticed some in deletion already, perhaps the others should be nominated for deletion. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to bring it up at WT:FT. I agree with you that it is dumb and clutters the pages, but right now some of the reviewers prefer it. Nikki♥311 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not required to have a navigation box to become a Featured Topic or Good Topic, just recommended: Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. TJ Spyke 02:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case (and because the few templates that are up for deletion look as though they will be deleted), I expect nobody to be offended if I delete Template:Vince's Devils. Nikki♥311 02:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is someway to link them together. The exact line (for those who don't want to bother to click on the link): "All articles in the topic are linked together, preferably using a template, and share a common category or super-category.". So it's not required to have a template as long as all the articles in a Good or Featured Topic are linked together somehow. Come of the templates wouldn't become GT or FT anytime soon anyways (La Familia for example. Vickie Guerreo is not a Good Article, and a articles in a Good Topic or Featured Topic have to be at least GA's). TJ Spyke 02:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone want to nominate the other templates (DX; Dudleys etc) for deletion? D.M.N. (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well DX and the Dudleys could be useful. I believe if a Good or featred Topic is made out of them one day that template would be useful seeing if it is renamed the Dudley Family or something like that.--WillC 22:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the DX one could be useful too because it's a large and important stable. While it might get a bit excessive for every tag team to have one, it would be a helpful addition larger and long running stables (nWo, Horsemen, DX, Hart Foundation, Evolution, maybe MEM if they last longer) to have. Tony2Times (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Speaking of ECW

Because of the above Speaking of ECW post, I was pondering:

Why don't we separate the brand from the program?

For example, Monday Night Football is very different than National Football League, as it is a broadcast of each of the NHL's events. Well, WWE Raw should be very different than WWE Monday Night Raw, WWE SmackDown should be different than WWE Friday Night SmackDown and ECW on Sci Fi should be different than ECW. One article should speak about the brand's history and be more like a biographical article on the brand itself, while the other should be the tv article showing the production notes, the on-air talent, it's main cast *ahem* wrestlers, its TV ratings, and TV history. I think 2 extensive articles can be done for each Smackdown and Raw, however, I believe the ECW BRAND part should be included in the Extreme Championship Wrestling page, because of its relatively small history, lack of impact, and because it is an extension to the original promotion's history (mainly because of its ex-trademarked names and style).

Another reason for this, is because I feel we are cheating a reader when we redirect them to the ECW brand (like in here), yet it merely is an article about the TV program. I think these 3 brands deserve articles about themselves and not just about their broadcasting. Think of it like Total Nonstop Action Wrestling and TNA Impact! Raaggio 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The MNF/NFL comparison isn't valid. That is more like WWE Raw and WWE articles. I don't think their is enough info to warrant separate articles for the brands. TV ratings are more about the show itself, their is already a page for the WWE roster, and the draft lotteries and history of the brand split also have articles. TJ Spyke 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there'd be much to say that's not already on the Brand Extension page really. Tony2Times (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, split the WWE Brand Extension article in the WWE Raw and WWE Smackdown articles, and rid yourself of this article. The brands itself are notable, not the idea of them happening. Imagine an NHL Entry Draft article AND an Idea of NHL Entry Draft, because basically, the Brand Extension article is an article about the PROCESS and IDEA of the draft and not the article on the draft itself ([[WWE Draft]). IMO, all brands deserve their own article, just like every NHL team has their own article. And the TV Show deserves their own article, because in reality, they have long history on PrimeTime television, and both the brand and the tv program are notable. Raaggio 00:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The brand themselves do not have enough information to warrant an article because the brand itself is just a term and concept in which wrestlers are assigned to wrestle on a specific show (which they want to refer as a brand). Where do they compete? On the TV show. The term is just used to state their assigned brands, its not like Professional wrestling and World Wrestling Entertainment. A brand article would merely state the roster and how it became a brand, and possibly championship changes, other than that, it would be in the TV show.--₮RUCӨ 01:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if we lose the Brand Extension page, where would we link to easily explain the idea of the brand extension? Tony2Times (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if brand is just a "term and concept", then List of professional wrestling terms would easily define what a brand is. WWE Smackdown and WWE ECW are just spin-offs from Raw, just like Frasier is from Cheers, and Joey (TV Series) is from Friends (TV Series), so they can all have their own mini-sections in the Raw brand article, but link to their full articles for more information. And how can you state that the brand itself doesn't have as much history? That's ludicrous. ECW is the only one you can use that argument with, because Raw has almost 850 episodes of climactic events, championship changes, different styles of programming, different stars, and a hell-lot of different venues. Raaggio 10:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Raw programme has 850 episodes. The Raw brand has maybe a third of that. Tony2Times (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about Eric Young

My question is very simple ¿Why do you count the Young's X Division regin if all your references said that this egin isn't contabiliced?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.219.7 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He was stripped of the title, the results for Final Resolution say he won, so using common sense he is a former X Champion.--WillC 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not true, if a company reverses the decision, then the reign doesn't count. For example, if, during an "open invitational" match, a fan would jump the barrier and pin the champion, we wouldn't consider it an "UNOFFICIAL REIGN". The company would take him down, throw him out, and continue with their plans, and we can have a small footnote regarding the fan, but in no way we would count it as a reign. Raaggio 22:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

True we wouldn't include the fan reign, but in this case Cornette stripped Young of the title and then vacanted it. He didn't say he didn't win. To strip someone of a title means the reign actually existed and TNA has no history on their site anymore so we don't know if they include it at all. This is alot like Angle's first TNA world title reign and Jericho's first WWE Title reign.--WillC 22:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have said this because no reference said that his ragin was official, like his fist unofficial regin. Also, if he will win the TNA whc, ¿Will he become a TNA Triple Crown Champion? Also, he won the match, but won cheating, because Shane kicked Bashir, maybe Cornette make unofficial as a consequence of this interference. And look, http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/e/eric-young.html OWOW said that his two regins are unofficial. --81.34.219.7 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Young is not a former X Division Champion. The company reverses the decision. There's a lot of other cases like the Benoit's WWF Title reing and the RVD's World Heavyweight Title reign... Also, TNA don't count Eric Young as former X Division Champion... and all the references of the List of TNA X Division Champions says that Young is not a X Champ... [8] [9]. For now, there's no ref of what you're saying. --KingOfDX (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Internet Wrestling Database

I'm not a WikiProject member but have made edits from time to time to wrestling pages for a year or so now. Can I ask you if they feel the Internet Wrestling Database would be a useful external link for readers? The match listings (particularly those on the wrestlers' pages) appear to fit into the scope of "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material [...] such as professional athlete statistics" criteria at WP:External Links.

Sample pages:

• Ric Flair profile and match listing
• WrestleMania XXIV
• Randy Savage Facts & Stats
• Matches at the ECW Arena.

Any thoughts? Poker Flunky (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, so no. D.M.N. (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well its being used as an external link, so that really doesn't count, but then again the only relevant external links would be official pages. So I'm sort of with DMN on this one.--₮RUCӨ 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it's not a reliable source, so I was considering the external links criteria. Just to clarify so I understand: the criteria for official sites to be included as external links (#1) is separate in the criteria to the one I mentioned (#3) which doesn't say it has to be an official source to be included. After all, the key thing would be to add value to the page in question. Whilst I know comparing other pages isn't reason to do something, isn't it as valid as the links to Online World of Wrestling profiles on several pages? Poker Flunky (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough I stumbled upon this page tonight and noticed it's really lacking in information, doesn't have anything about house shows or many indie promotions. Doesn't seem too great. Isn't OWOW considered unreliable too, though it is used an awful lot? Tony2Times (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think OWOW is considered to be reliable to cite non-controversial matieral, such the use of a move that's executed in a lot of matches. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Jay Reso

Is this really his most common name? Obviously Christian has disambiguation issues, but he wrestled for 4ish televised years as Christian Cage as well as his pre-fame indie days. Wouldn't that be a more suitable article name? Tony2Times (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, he has gained more prominence as just Christian in WWE. This is why we use his Middle Last name (which he prefers to use). However, I would like to discuss moving his page to his actual name, which is William Reso. I don't know what source states he prefers Jason, but thats what Wrestlinglover told me.--₮RUCӨ 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets see what Edge calls him. From the dust cover: "For Copeland, 'anything' meant becoming a wrestler, an ambition shared by his 'Getalong Gang' of friends in Princess Elizabeth Public School (among them Jason Reso, who would eventually form the indie tag team Suicide Blonds with Copeland, then join him in WWE as Edge's 'brother', Christian)." Nenog (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt he has gained more prominence as Christian. After the rumors came out he was returning to WWE everyone continued to mention him as Christian Cage. He became a two time World Champion as Christian Cage and became a legit main eventer under that name. Plus he had his first DVD release under Cage and had a 2 year undefeated streak in TNA under that name. I've always thought about asking to move it to William Reso as well but haven't. I guess I was waiting to re-write the article to take it to GA before bringing up the discussion.--WillC 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick statement, "2 year undefeated streak"? What kind of BS are you talking about? Even if you only go by PPV (not TV or house shows) he lost his firs match after about 7 months (the King of the Mountain match was Slammiversary 2006). I love TNA, but TNA is not even close to competing with WWE (their best rating for Impact has been 1.3, and that was only a couple of weeks ago they reached it). Christian may have won 2 world titles in TNA, but he became far more famous in WWE. Sorry for getting off-topic, I support keeping it at Jason Reso. Even just going by Google search supports Jason Reso, not to mention TV.com [10], IMDb [11], Edge's book, etc. TJ Spyke 03:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think, Cage wasn't pinned or made to submit for two years. Just like Joe lost the Three Way at Unbreakable but wasn't pinned or made to submit until Genesis 06. I'm talking about that. Yes WWE is bigger, but Cage still used Christian Cage alot and won the NWA Title which could be the most famous championship in all of wrestling. But I'm saying I would rather go by real name than nick or middle name considering we are supposed to name articles by the person's real name unless they are known more by another name.--WillC 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also TJ, the TV and IMDB links even state his birth-name is William Jason Reso. Check both biography links. IMDB is here, TV's is right in the link you gave.--WillC 03:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I know they state his real birth name. I was just pointing to sources that use "Jason Reso" rather than "William Reso", even his friends (from what we can tell) call him Jason. TJ Spyke 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME the article should be entitled Christian. Since that would bring in a quantifier, a substitute can be used. Not many people know him as William Reso. In fact, I wasn't even aware Jason was only he middle name until a few days ago when I read the top of article. I think the article should stay Jason Reso, be moved to Jay Reso or to Christian Cage. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But that is his friends. I'm called Will or Willbert by some of my friends but if I become a notable person one day my article will not be Will or Willbert Chaudoin. It would be titled William Chaudoin unless I have a ringname of some sort. We should rename it his real name since there is no rule that says we go by what he or his friends perfer to call him, and Jason nor Christian is a common name. He has no common name now considering he has used Christian and Christian Cage near equally and won titles under both.--WillC 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although his friends call him Jason, we don't know whether he explicitly prefers that name over William. In addition, he has gained prominence equally as Christian (9 World Tag Team Championship reigns) and Christian Cage (NWA World Title).--₮RUCӨ 21:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually Will, if you ever became notable your article could be at Will (unless you became notable for William). As for his name, I see no reason to be at William since there is no indication that he uses his first name. TJ Spyke 21:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

When has he had the chance too? I've never seen him use Jason or William. Just his friends call him Jason. Willbert was one of my dumbass friends ideas, not mine. We don't know what he likes to be called. His friends could just like calling him Jason like mine likes calling me Willbert.--WillC 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So a large number of his friends are calling him Jason just for the hell of it? How about this, you find proof that he does go by William, because most sources that use his real name refer to him "Jason" or "Jay". Nenog (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Two have already been given. IMDB and TV.com. Also here is IGN and Slam. The slam one is the only one that gives Jason but half the time they short hand it and give nicknames. Like with Jarrett it says Jeff Jarrett when his full name is Jeffery Jarrett.--WillC 08:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you proved nothing right there that says he should be moved to William Reso. IMDB has his article listed as Jason Reso and in a subsection, not the main article itself, stating his first name is William. Same thing with TV.com. And SLAM Wrestling only has him listed as Jason Reso with no mention whatsoever about his first name being William. So Edge's autobiography, IMDB, TV.com and SLAM Wrestling (i can't access IGN from this computer so i can't check it) have him listed mainly as Jason Reso, so it is safe to assume he goes by Jason and not William or at the very least is better known as Jason Reso. Nenog (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they named it. It is his biography, it states his birth name is William Jason Reso. We must follow guidelines, not nicknames from friends. If we follow nicknames then we would move The Undertaker to demon of death-valley. Or Kane to big red machine. A.J. Styles would be named The Phenomenal A.J. Styles.--WillC 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidlines state to go by his most common name. If Christian (wrestler) or Christian Cage can't be decided upon, the next one is Jason Reso. It does not have to be their legal first name (see Bill Clinton). Nenog (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, to name the article the common name it must be the most common name. If they are widely known by more than one name, their article is to be named their legal birth name. In Bill Clinton's case he is widely know just as Bill Clinton, not as William Clinton. He has no other names. Cage here has two: Christain and Christian Cage. He was never referred to on TV as William or Jason. Just his friends calls him Jason, and they play no part in this.--WillC 10:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

They call him Jason. Most websites refer to him as Jason. He is better known by Jason than William. His real name has no bearing since if it can't be decided Christian (wrestler) or Christian Cage, then the third most common name for him is Jason Reso, not William Reso. Nenog (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No third runner up in common name. It is either most common name or no common name. Since he has more than one common name it is named his birth name. That simple, it is per common name.--WillC 11:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. When choosing a name for a page, as a rule of thumb ask yourself: What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine? Refresh my memory, what do IMDB, TV.com and SLAM Wrestling have him listed as, and exactly how many people refer to him as Jason over William (we know several wrestlers and fans do)? Nenog (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If a person were searching for William Jason Reso they wouldn't use William or Jason. They would type in Christian or Christian Cage. Maybe even Edge and Christian. If they didn't even know his real name they would still use what they know him as, Christian or Christian Cage. That determines their common name. Jason nor William are even a selection. That means he has no common name. He is widely known by two names. It is named his legal birth name as a result. If you were to go up to a wrestling fan and show them a picture of Cage and ask them who that was a picture of, they would reply Christian (Cage). They wouldn't say Jason Reso, nor would they say William Reso.--WillC 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think given that he spent his indie years and then 5 years, winning two World Championships as Christian Cage, not to mention that his current ring name is Christian, a shortened form of Christian Cage so it is partly linked, that it would be a more suitable article name. Tony2Times (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I as well.--WillC 04:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. How can something this minor be debated for so long? Regardless of where it's put, redirects will help anyone find it. Problem solved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew "Test" Martin

Apparently folks in the know (like Tammy Lynn Sytch on her facebook page) are reporting that Andrew "Test" Martin has passed away. Might want to keep an eye on his article for the next bit, to keep the speculation and "breaking news" factor down. 128.222.37.21 (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

we will need to watch this article as although it's unconfirmed by the Police it's being reported here that he has died. Skitzo's Answer Machine 10:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've requested full-protection. D.M.N. (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That came as a shock to me (yes I know forum talk). But probably the shock would have driven IPs and other crazy.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this article, police have confirmed his identity. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Further confirmation from WWE: [12]. Sad news indeed. I was never a fan of him but he was only 33. TJ Spyke 22:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Also a note from TNA: [13]--WillC 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that old at all, pretty shocking in a way, it would be interesting to know the course of death also. Govvy (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am ashamed to say it, but it's probably a good time now to do a review of Andrew Martin's article to see what needs to be cleaned and fixed up. Govvy (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, a lot more people are likely to look at his article over the next few days, it would be very good for his memory for it to be decent.

On the subject of deceased wrestlers, I was thinking maybe a topic to make Good/Featured could be The Radicalz as, with two of them passed on, one MIA and one retired their own articles won't need to be updated once they reach GA/FA and they're also recent enough wrestlers that there should be a fair amount of online sources. Tony2Times (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Myself and Juliancolton are about to copyedit the article and make it look decent. Take a look at this, it's crazy. iMatthew // talk // 14:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks you guys.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm mainly done. After it calms down, I may look into making it a GA. Also, check out some other page histories: Andrew Martin, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit (and a few other dead wrestlers, while you are there. iMatthew // talk // 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to borrow sources from Stacy Keibler for the parts of their careers that overlap. Nikki♥311 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

PWA Championships

Are the recently created PWA championships notable, like the PWA Elite Tag Team Championship? I don't believe they are, but thought to ask before putting them up for deletion.--WillC 07:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My take: If the promotion is notable then I'd say championship pages for the company are alright too, they have the notability of the company. Does the PWA fullfill the Notability criteria?? MPJ-DK (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is run by Booker T and has received coverage from several reliable sources, including SLAM! Wrestling, WrestleView, and the Miami Herald. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the only reason it's gotten any of that coverage is because it's owned by Booker T, but that still counts I guess. I don't think the titles need their own articles though (at least right now). TJ Spyke 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

For some promotions, the title lists have been merged into a single article (separate from the promotion). That might be the way to go on this as well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the promotion is notable and the titles are but I don't believe they need their own articles. Would be better if they were just mentioned in the main article or a seperate article called PWA Championships that lists the history for each.--WillC 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Grand Slam City?

[14] The highlight in that article is this:

...having already played host to WrestleMania (twice!), SummerSlam and Survivor Series, come this Sunday, Detroit will have completed hosting the prestigious "Grand Slam" of WWE events.

Did WWE state official criteria for a city to complete a "Grand Slam" of WWE events? Raaggio 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like they just did. We all knew those were the Big 4 for WWE (used to be Big 5 when King of the Ring was a PPV). I never heard them use that term for PPV's though. TJ Spyke 00:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

World Titles

I don't see any "consensus" gained from the above discussion (and archived discussions) about the "World" status of titles. Should it be like the criteria was proposed above will classify a World Title or will the term "World Championship" be merely a slang term?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it just Justa Punk who was disagreeing? TJ Spyke 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets just place it in the slang article and get it over with.--WillC 02:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it was just him. I wouldn't mind either or (proposals), one that we can all agree on is what I want.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the article, but lose the lists. They'll never be comprehensive or universally accepted. Use the article to discuss the idea in greater detail than just moving it to the slang terms list would allow. Include the PWI debate and so forth. I've got some sources from old PWI magazines that can help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Championships of WWE

So recently I created the List of former championships in World Wrestling Entertainment in hopes that the project can get another FT off of former championships. I wanted to take the list to FLC, but when I took it to to FL Director Scorpion, he suggested merging it and the List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment list since they are related. To avoid conflicts, I wanted to see what the project thought before I opened an FLC. I personally oppose merging them because that would ruing the FT for the current championships and merging the two (seeing the size of both leads) would lead to a much bigger article that would be harder to navigate through. I would rather see another FT made from the former titles, but that's IMO. Comments/Suggestions?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be separate. I agree with your reasons, especially that it would ruin the Featured Topic since the majority of the former titles do not have Good Articles. TJ Spyke 20:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree to keep them split and not because of Featured status or anything like that but just because Former Championships is a historical document in a sense and not particularly relevent to Current Championships. They're two very different topics. Personally, I think the intro to Former Champs is far too long as it is; have you thought about making it an article instead of a list? Seperating the prose into a sub section on each belt with a short history of the first winner and where, the last winner and where with any notable events also. I suppose they would be pretty short paragraphs but it just seems like there's more to be gained from that information than a list. Tony2Times (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

TNA makes questions with Destination X 09

Suicide won the TNA X Division Championship tonight. It is said that Christopher Daniels is filling in for Kaz as Suicide. Who should we put the win under, Kaz or Daniels since I'm not sure who is playing Suicide anymore. I have an idea of making a Suicide character article since he is a character played on TV and in a video game. So I don't think there would be a problem there. I would like some opinions on this matter.--WillC 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would go with Kaz since he was verified as the person originally portraying the character, and Daniels is no more than a sub for him while he heals. But I would wait until TNA or a reliable source verifies the status of the title and as to who it belongs to.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Though Daniels is the one who was playing the character while he won it, it makes a big mess.--WillC 02:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Until we know for sure who was under the mask tonight (Kaz, Daniels, or someone else), I would suggest either leaving it unlinked or linked to the Impact video game (since that is where the character started). TJ Spyke 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering more about who to put the win under. Which article should the reign be added too. Because I'm going to use a little common sense here and state that you can clearly see the difference between Kaz and Daniels. So seeing it was Daniels, if Kaz takes over the gimmick then we'll have a big problem. They both played the character during the reign.--WillC 02:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Since its unknown at this time, its best not to place it under any article because of the uncertainty.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I see is if Kaz does come back during the title reign. I can't think of any similar situation before. I know multiple people played Doink, but Doing never held titles (the real Doink, not one of the dozens that pop up on the indy circuit). TJ Spyke 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I say since the video game project has articles regrading certain characters in certain games, that we can make one for Suicide and place the win under that article. State that he was played on TV by Daniels and Kaz. Also have a back story of who created the character for the game and such. I'll be gald to make the article. I was already thinking about about doing it when I worked on the TNA game.--WillC 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For now that would work. For PPV articles we should link to who played the character at that event (it's what we do with Doink. For PPV articles we link to who played Doink at that event, when we are just talking about the Doink character in general we link to the Doink article). TJ Spyke 03:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, since that was just a character. That would be like creating an article just for the Diesel character.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't do the character article at the moment anyway, but there are enough sources. When the TNA game was featured on Spike TV's video game show or whatever it is called (I don't watch it that much) Suicide was one of the main features of the show. The game has been under development for years, so multiple sites will have sources regrading the game and the character. So it will not remain a stub or start forever. Suicide has enough build that he is notable and the main focus of the entire TNA game. Also came to life (lack of better phrasing) in TNA. I feel it would be notable and now the character won a title, I believe it would be useful.--WillC 03:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we know Daniels is just a sub for Kaz? I'm trying to get out of the smarking world so I haven't heard anything. But even if rumours say it, that's crystal balling anyway. Daniels won the belt so I reckon it should go on his page. Also for all we know, he could drop the belt before Kaz takes over, if he ever will, and then Kaz as Suicide could win it giving it to them apiece. Whatever happens, working in the here and now it's Daniels who was playing the gimmick that won the belt. Tony2Times (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's hoping some reliable sources will verify who was under the mask tonight. Tony2Times (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe WrestleView, Slam, and PWTorch have already released articles stating Daniels is Suicide and that Kaz is filling in for him. Though we still have a problem with the switch.--WillC 03:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean Kaz is Suicide and Daniels is filling in for him? I meant specifically articles stating who was playing Suicide last night when the belt was won because I think that's the main thing that matters, who physically won the belt. If the wrestler behind the mask changes we could always list it on both of their pages with a note saying "won by Daniels, defended by Kaz" or to a similar effect. Tony2Times (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I messed up. I was probably doing four things at once and didn't know what I was writing. I should have payed more attention.--WillC 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmkay, I was just checking it was a typo and not that they'd switched back again. I wouldn't be able to tell. Tony2Times (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure numerous reliable sites have noted that Daniels is under the mask since the character redebuted (there was a several week absense following Kaz's injury) some weeks back. Mshake3 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Beer Money

Why don't have their own article? I tried to create one but it was reverted immediately. They should have their own article as they have 2 TNA tag team title reigns and their own match type. Downwardspiral203 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

They will get an article. Somebody's working on it now, but I think they're waiting until there is more to be said. Personally, I'd like to see it moved to the mainspace. Regardless of whether or not it's a stub, it would be a useful article and would put an end to frequent discussions about why the article doesn't exist. Note: When this is done, be sure to nominate it for a DYK. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should be moved to the main article so that something is there at least for people to read with stats &c. Tony2Times (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Coach"

His article says that Jonathan Coachman is also known as "The Coach". However I'm sure I remember another "Coach" character earlier in the WWF (1992-ish?). However I can't find any mention of him on the PPV articles from around that time so maybe it just my memory playing tricks...? --Jameboy (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. John Tolos, as "Coach", managed Mr. Perfect and the Beverly Brothers. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Pro Wrestling Promotions Timeline

I'm looking to help expand Professional wrestling promotion#TimeLine of major promotions and I thought that it would improve the article greatly if we moved removed the Template already in place and added a table along the lines of This and I was wondering if I could some people's opinions on this idea. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, timelines are preferred in that format. See FLs like Timeline of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Source I have no idea how to find and one that is reliable even harder.

Considering this involves wrestling I'll just ask for help here. I'm working on Destination X 2005 in a subpage. TNA built the main event off of an incident at a Best Damn Sports Show special, in which DDP, Kevin Nash, Monty Brown, and Jarrett all appeared on in 2005. I have no idea how to find a source for this show. Does anyone have anyother ideas to source these actions?--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You could site the show itself using Template:cite episode. Nikki♥311 00:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem is I don't know what day it happened on. I guess I could search pretty hard for it, plus cite episode was my back-up if I can't find a reliable written source.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be February 4, 2005. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I found the video of it on Youtube. It was something about the superbowl. I remember DDP saying that Nash was going to beat Jarrett this Sunday, meaning it was closer to Against All Odds 05 which happened on the 13. I believe it was probably on the 12, I'll check IMDB for the date.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the incident is described at http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2005/02/18/935466.html, so that would work as a good source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it would, thanks. This will help me finish Against All Odds and most of Destination X.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how far you are along with this, but I thought I might point out the results are on OnlineWorldofWrestling for the 2 Events [15] [16]. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't use Online World of Wrestling considering it isn't reliable for everything. I just really needed an in-depth telling of the events and what day it happened.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

When nothing else can be found, OWOW is better than nothing, in my opinion. I have no qualms about citing the use of wrestling moves with it though. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well I don't need it now anyway. I have it finished: Against All Odds (2005).--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag Team Titles

Tonight on ECW, they announced that Carlito and Primo will face John Morrison and The Miz at WrestleMania to unify the 2 tag belts (about damn time). I know it may be early, but any ideas on what we should do for the articles? Assuming the titles are kept unified (which WWE has been consistent with, the only titles I can think of that they unified and later brought back were the IC and US Titles), what happens if they name the belts WWE Tag Team Championship? I think we will probably have to wait and see if WWE considers it a continuation of the World Tag Team Championship (which is what would cause a problem since we would have to move that article and try to find a new name for articles related to the WWE Tag Team Championship). Of coarse, it could have a whole new name as the wwe.com re-cap of ECW calls it Unified WWE Tag Team Championship (which would still cause a problem if they consider it's title lineage to be that of the WTTC). TJ Spyke 02:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets just wait till after mania. I don't believe they will actually unify them, though that seems like a smart idea since they don't give a shit about the division or either belts, but I see a weird finish. A draw or no contest maybe. Plus if it is called the WWE Tag Team Championship, which is doubtful since they will not leave World out of the name. Then we'll have to use a quantifier. Not much of a problem here. It depends on which belt they keep using afterwards. They'll use both for a while, but like the Undisputed title, it will become just one.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The WTTC was called the WWE Tag Team Championship for 5 months (from May 2002-October 2002) and even before that they usually just said WWF Tag Team Championship (they had phased out calling it the WWF World Tag Team Championship). I guess I am just wondering what we would move WWE Tag Team Championship to if they do unify the belts, and call them the WWE Tag Team Championship but have the lineage of the WTTC. I agree that we will probably need to wait until after WrestleMania to find out for sure, just thought I would bring it up. TJ Spyke 02:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the lineage. It was once named WWE Tag Team Championship. We could use a quantifier giving the years of said championship. WWE Tag Team Championship (1971 - present) and WWE Tag Team Championship (2002 - 2009) if we have too. Maybe WWE Tag Team Championship and WWE Tag Team Championship (Smackdown). The new one will be called the WWE Unified Tag Team Championship or the WWE Undisputed Tag Team Championship. Maybe World will be involved in there somewhere. No reason to worry at the moment. The chaos will come WrestleMania night when all the ips make their edits and we have complete insanity with edit conflicts left and right. Lets enjoy the piece at the moment. Wait until Vince gets the dumb idea to have one world title and wants to unify both of those. Then no one will have the chance to be world champion since Stephine is booker and Trips will be champ, and they will get the great idea of making a brand new world title to have both histories. That is when we should worry. Right now, the only chaos is to figure out who is Suicide. Hey, I just remebered Who is Suicide.com. TNA wanted to make that site actually mean something lol.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as they don't treat the tag belts too importantly I think they're more likely to unify them through deactivation rather than creating a new belt so I reckon the Raw belts will stay and they say World on them so World Tag Team Championship will probably stay. Even if they do start shortening to WWE Tag Team Championship, they will probably refer to it as World every now and again so we could keep it there/move it to WWE World TTC and then just keep the current note about the SmackDown variant to redirect people. Though what would the problem be with Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, surely we just rename the World TTC page? (This argument takes it for red that should they unify, they'll keep the World belts rather than the new ones, regardless of who wins.) Tony2Times (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"and they say World on them". Actually, they don't. Both sets of tag belts say "WWE Tag Team Champions". TJ Spyke 02:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember before thinking how silly that was. But yeah, what Mshake said. Tony2Times (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's..... just...... wait! Wait for the unification. Wait for the naming convention to be announced. Wait for the title history to be kept, and for the title history to be dropped. Mshake3 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What Mshake said. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to have current versions of both title histories saved at WebCite. If one title is dropped and the history is removed from the WWE site, a lot of reference information from professional wrestling articles would be lost. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they would drop the history, the will more than likely place it in the defunct category. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

TOC

I would suggest adding <noinclude> around the __NOTOC__ at the beginning, like this: <noinclude>__NOTOC__</noinclude>. Currently the page is transcluded onto hundreds of user talk pages which for that reason have no table of contents now. Not transcluding the NOTOC by adding "noinclude" would mean that it would still work on the project page, but not mess up the talk pages. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? The project pages don't affect the article talk pages.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That should have said "user talk pages". If you go to the project page, and click "what links here", and pick any of the user talk pages,[17] you will likely see that there is mysteriously no table of contents. Adding noinclude will fix that. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are the past newsletters that had problems in the coding, we can't fix that now. All we can do is assure that future editions of the newsletter don't have that problem.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Look again. I fixed it. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, nope. I don't know what you are talking about but I never had any problems with the newsletter on my talkpage (take a look). Could you point on an example? TJ Spyke 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the main project page had any affect on the user talk pages? Especially the TOC of WP:PW.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It was actually a problem from I believe only two editions of the news, Oct 13, 2007 and Oct 20, 2007. If anyone still has them on their user talk page, and more than a couple hundred users do, it eliminates their table of contents, just as if they added __NOTOC__ themselves. You are not one of them, but would not be affected anyway because you have manually added a TOC to your user talk page. Click on any of the links above, like User talk:Darkguy, User talk:Ekedolphin, or User talk:Johnissoevil, then undo TJ Spyke's undo, and the TOC will magically appear (you may have to refresh their user talk page). Actually it may be affecting your archives. TJ Spyke's archive is at User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 13, and has no TOC either, which will be restored as soon as the edit is restored. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't manually create a TOC on my talkpage. It automatically shows up. I have checked my archives (which is what somebody should do if they still have the October 2007 newsletter on their talkpage) suffers this problem: User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 13. I don't think this will be a problem for most people since I doubt there are many active editors who have a a post that old still on their talkpage instead of archiving it. BTW, I started typing my reply before you edited your comment. TJ Spyke 03:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Try about 250 editors.[18] It has to be driving them nuts figuring out why their TOC is reappearing and disappearing again. I would strongly suggest giving it back to them by putting the noinclude back in. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I specifically said active editors. I picked one at random (User:Rossyboy10) and saw he hasn't edited since October 2007, so I doubt he would care. I haven't heard anybody who gets the newsletter actually complaining, so it doesn't appear to matter to most people. 04:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is, however, that it helps, and does not hurt. I'm going to go ahead and fix it and be done with it. I was lead here because it did matter - an editor made a note that they had left a note for someone and had not heard back from them. Well I looked at their user talk page and it was impossible to see that a new message had been left, because of the errant newsletter. So I fixed it. I just wanted to give a heads up about the fix. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't "needed big time". It was a minor glitch that apparently wasn't bothering anyone but you (and not sure why it bothers you since you don't even get the newsletter). It only affected those 2 issues from well over a year ago, and active editors would have archived those long ago. It's a minor thing, but it's not a big deal like you are making it out to be and no one else seemed to care about it. TJ Spyke 04:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but easily fixed. My first inclination was to clean up their user talk page so that new messages would be visible, but I found out that the source was the transclusion of this project page, which was more easily fixed by fixing the project page, and not transcluding the part that shouldn't be transcluded - the NOTOC. And affecting me is never a consideration for me - I never know nor care who is going to read any of the edits that I make - they are done simply to improve the encyclopedia, and to benefit everyone who stumbles across whatever section I have edited. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you register? You seem to want to help and be involved, and it would be easier if you registered (plus you wouldn't have to worry about others seeing your IP address). TJ Spyke 04:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Force of habit. Been editing as an IP user for a long time now. Actually my first edit was as a registered user, but I forgot the username and the password and just got into the habit of editing this way. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Event titles in title histories

In the title histories, under the event title heading it reads "Raw" and "WrestleMania 13" &c yet for the annual events it reads SummerSlam (2003). Aren't the paranthesis merely a disambig for the title? Seldom is it referred to the event as Summerslam 2003 on screen. Shouldn't it just read SummerSlam? The link will remain the same to that year and the date the belt changes will also indicate the year. Tony2Times (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NCNUM#Articles on events.--₮RUCӨ 18:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean the article title, I mean the title of the event within the Championship History lists. Within CM Punk's article it reads "The duo were members of Team Batista at Survivor Series, where their team lost to Team Orton." The context dictates that it is Survivor Series 2008, the event was not called Survivor Series (2008) like it would do when it reads "At WrestleMania XXIV, Punk won the Money in the Bank ladder match"; we disambiguate that way for article titles but not within the prose of an article, so why do we for the lists? Tony2Times (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well thats probably because we haven't gotten around to it yet. That definitely needs to be changed to Survivor Series (2008), because in the recently promoted championship lists to FL, they are in that format (with the parenthesis).--₮RUCӨ 23:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why though. No-one calls it that. The policy you linked me to, as far as I can see, is only talking about the articles themselves and their titles. In all promotional material, the build up to, during and closely after no-one refers to the it as Survivor Series 2008 so why should it be that way in prose? It's not the official title, the official title is Survivor Series but it took place in 2008. Marlon Brando didn't star in The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film) he starred in the 1996 film, The Island of Dr Moreau; if you see my point. Tony2Times (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

When talking about it in prose, yes. It lists though I do see films listed like that too (take this list of top grossing 2008 movies for example [19]). TJ Spyke 17:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that is not Wikipedia. Here is Wikipedia's list for 2008 in film, which doesn't have the year in parenthesis. I think it unnecessary to have have the year in parenthesis since the date, complete with year, in which the title changed hands is already listed. If we can expect people to figure out that the Raw held on March 9, 2009 is not the same Raw held on March 16, 2009, they can probably figure out that the Royal Rumble held in January 2008 is not the same Royal Rumble that was held in January 2009. Nenog (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be redundant to list years it a article about the one year. TJ Spyke 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Nenog very succinctly summed up my point. We don't put the year of Raw because it's not in the title, why should we put the PPV year, it's not in the title either it's just a disambiguation. This excludes, of course, when everything was named 2000 'cause it was cool to do so in WCW. Tony2Times (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone, any reason why the PPVs have their years but TV shows don't have their dates? Tony2Times (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't have articles on TV Shows.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to link to the article on the 2003 SummerSlam with it only appearing as the word SummerSlam. If we did it this way, it would actually be the correct title seeing as nobody has ever said "Join us for SummerSlam open brackets two thousand and three close brackets for the party of the Summer". Tony2Times (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the parenthesis (and content within) are not meant to be read along with the article title, its just used as a quantifier. You only should use SummerSlam (2003) when the previous sentence or section header did not mention the year.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then you agree with my point? On a table where date is given clearly, why should the quantifier by given as an event title when it's not the true title of the event and when the year is already made apparent. Tony2Times (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Title Change Consensus

We need to come to a consensus on when a title change counts. I'm sure we all know by now that Smackdown Tapings happen on Tuesdays and then air on Friday night. However when a title changes hand on Smackdown, an edit war breaks out on said championship page over what counts. I've seen use count the title reign as ending on the date of the taping (case in point Maryse's Diva's championship win) and at other times we count the date Smackdown airs as the title change, (case in point, MVP's second United States Championship reign.).--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The title changed hands at the taping, and we acknowledge that date, since that is the official day he became the champion, just like with TNA and other companies. We wait till the title changes hands on TV to state it on here first. MVP is the official champion and won the title on March 17, 2009.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It should always be the date won not the date aired. If for no other reason, titles change hands at live events and otherwise the dates of reigns would be skewed. And it allows for the amusing anecdote that the Freebirds won the WCW Tag belts for -6 days. Tony2Times (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to mention that. WCW had the Freebirds lose the titles at a TV taping even though they hadn't won the titles yet (since they would tape weeks, and even months, worth of shows at a time back then. This is what pissed of the NWA because it gave away title changes long before they happened). TJ Spyke 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

See the FL of List of WCW World Tag Team Champions to see how its set up in terms of broadcast delays.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean that -6 days should be considered the shortest reign (for the statistics table)? Raaggio 01:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That whole page is a mess. Despite the fact that WCW themselves considered their tag belts to be a continuation of a title that started in 1980, the page also includes reigns back to 1975 (which WCW never recognized and that WWE doesn't recognize either). TJ Spyke 02:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I expanded it I felt confused since their are two different recognitions that date back to when WCW was merely a part of JCP and the NWA.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who held the belt officially should be added. Companies can be bias and want to not acknowledge a reign for various dumb reasons. If the reign was once acknowledged at all, even once, it happened. If the first champions were crowned in 75, then the history should start there. It is the correct history of the title.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 08:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So even though WCW considered the WCW Tag Team Championship title starting in 1980 and WWE (which currently owns the rights to that title) doesn't seem to reckognize those early reigns either. Only the NWA does. TJ Spyke 13:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's revisionist history. At the time those championships were awarded so we should recognise them just like we do the early Lou Thesz wins of the NWA World Championship that they don't. Tony2Times (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cathy Corino >> Allison Danger

I think the article should be moved because aside from a brief managerial stint in ECW she has always used the name Allison Danger, this includes her years in Ring of Honor, her tours of Japan and Europe and as commentator, competitor and founder of Shimmer. Tony2Times (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Nenog (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support --WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 04:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for urgent attention on a biography

Hello, if I could get editors with a greater knowledge of the subject matter than myself (ie. you guys, hence why I came here) to have a look at Rob Feinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and edit it to make sure it complies with WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:UNDUE, it would be greatly appreciated. Any edits to improve the article would be greatly appreciated.

Disclaimer: This request is in relation to OTRS #2009031710055272, the resolution of which requires a cleanup of the article.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXVth Anniversary Blowout

I was just wondering if anyone here has a copy of the magazine. According to the WWE.com summary, it features an article about pyrotechnics, staging, etc. Considering I was quite interested in writing about that kind of stuff last year in the production section for WrestleMania XXIV, I wouldn't mind some help having a similar section for this year. -- Oakster  Talk  16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would help the article this year, plus I had a plan, not sure it will happpen though, to work on this year's Mania and take it to GA and maybe then FA later this year. That could save me or someone else some headaches.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 17:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, I've just added a paragraph on the marketing campaign they're planning to do. Would it be a good idea to mention a bit on WrestleMania week (Hall of Fame, WrestleManiart, Axxess)? -- Oakster  Talk  18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I'm doing the same for TNA events when they have their fan interactons and other stuff along that nature. We should mention what WWE does around Mania in the proudtion or marketing section. I don't have a copy of WWE's mag, so I can't help you there. I forgot to mention that.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 18:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I already figured that out. But thanks for the advice. -- Oakster  Talk  18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE Dorling Kindersley

I saw on dot com a few days ago that DK are publishing a WWE encyclopedia. I have no idea what's in it or what it will be like but if anyone sees it, it might be an idea to flick through and see what's on offer. It may be a good source for pre-internet facts and even if we're lucky it might be a useful source for general professional wrestling articles. Tony2Times (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com has some good reviews. It's about 750 pages and filled with wrestler bios, pictures, and title histories (even having a bio on Benoit, since WWE themselves are not publishing it). They apparently made some odd choices though, like having bios on Battle Kat and Phantasio but not Sean O'Haire or Rico. Still should be good though, Amazon has it for $27 [20]. TJ Spyke 19:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem is it is written in kayfabe, so it will not help us on backstage stuff. But about wrestler's time there and titles that will be useful.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's kayfabe (I haven't read it yet), it should also help with lesser known wrestlers. Hell, I had never even heard of Battle Kat before I read a review of the book. TJ Spyke 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I did wonder if being published by DK rather than WWE might cover over some controversial parts like Benoit. Also, even if it's in kayfabe I'm hoping it will have things like a glossery of wrestling slang to source. Tony2Times (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WwwSavageRandycom

This guy is adding random garbage to Randy Savage. I've reverted twice, could someone watch just in case? RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Should we subscribe? I think it looks very helpful.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I think so. TJ Spyke 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

AGF, I subscribed the project to it. Alerts will appear at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Professional wrestling/Article alerts.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to give a link from the main page (or any other page) if you decide to use |diplay=none.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that you are using the display=none parameter, so the alerts will not display. And since it doesn't display, and that you are not giving a link, members cannot access the list from your mainpage, losing pretty much all benefits of the alerts. So you can choose other display options (such as display=columns, or to leave it blank (display=) to use the default settings), or if you decide to use the display=none setting, remember to give a link to the alert page.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks I linked to it because our main page has a condensed design which doesn't really fit well with the alerts on the main page. I also place it in the header template.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

United States template

The Untied States template that's appeared only counts the WWE time. Now although the template says WWE United States Championship the lineage goes back for the WCW and NWA versions. Shouldn't teh template reflect this too? If this is deemed messy there could be seperations (like the current championships&accomplishments template) for the three eras which may help to stop it looking cluttered. Tony2Times (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be laid out like the employees Raw/SD/ECW. With NWA, then WCW, then WWE. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's how i was envisioning it. I'm just wondering if the person who designed the template omitted it by mistake or had a reason. Tony2Times (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they were just making it fit with the others. It probably didn't occur. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just added NWA & WCW Champions, don't think I've messed up with the coding. Also I listed people who won it under two different promotions in both categories and also put the WWF wrestlers who won it during the Invasion under the WCW banner as that was still the name of the belt at the time. Tony2Times (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts (2)

After tweaking the links, I've gotten a link for easy access to the Article alerts page up. The article alerts give notices on Good and Featured news, DYK?'s, and XfD's, and other various notice on our articles which have the project talk banner on them. This is a very helpful tool, so lets take advantage of it ;) The link is on the main page and in the nav bar above.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhodes and DiBiase

They are notable, because they are major supporting characters in this Orton/Triple H feud, 2 time tag champs, and been around for the better part of a year. And they retired a guy.KingMorpheus (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

They've had no major feuds and are nothing but glorified jobbers at the moment and haven't teamed regularly in weeks. They won two tag belts, but that doesn't mean they are notable. Their article wouldn't even be that long. It would be one section worth of notable info.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, they didn't retire Holly. He has a drug problem and WWE released him.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when was a rivalry with Orton and Cryme Tyme not serious? KingMorpheus (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And has Holly had a match since then? No. Indie bookings. No. That fucker's retired. KingMorpheus (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Their rivalry with Orton lead really to nothing. They still are not an official stable. The Cryme feud? If that was a feud, then it was a lazy one. They had about two or three matches that lead to nothing. Wasn't even on PPV. They've done as much as Santino and Beth. Right now, having their own articles is fine. It states everything they've done. They have yet to even have a match go passed 10 minutes. Plus, did you read drug problem? Last I heard he was in rehab.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into rumors (I hadn't even heard of the rumor that Holly was in rehab). When Legacy gets a article, which should be soon, there can be a section about Priceless (which is the tag team name of Rhodes and DiBiase). TJ Spyke 04:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

KingMorpheus: there is NO reason to swear here. Keep personal comments like that to yourself next time. As for the subject at hand: Legacy deserves an article now along with a section on Priceless. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How do they deserve an article? Legacy has won no titles. Priceless won two, but the stable has won none. The only thing they have won was the Royal Rumble. Have yet to team together. They've done nothing but stand around and talk. How do they pass notability?--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 04:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy fix instead of arguing - read the Notability criteria. If they fullfill that then they're notable enough for an article.MPJ-DK (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of teams and stables: Vicious and Delicious (midcarders at best that did nothing, just being NWO members doesn't justify the article in my view) should probably go. If you want to go by winning titles to be notable: a majority of Category:Professional wrestling teams and stables should go. I see many more teams just like Vicious and Delicious that did next to nothing/held no titles, and aren't suitable for Wikipedia. Anyone have some free time to look through the category? RobJ1981 (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I go by notability on what they've done and time. Legacy has only been around around three to five months, and have yet to even become official. I don't think they are notable just yet, not until they get more focus and actually have a real meaningful match.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 05:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

...

Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. We write articles people would normally search. If someone watches Raw, and is practically orgasmic when he sees Orton, DiBiase and Rhodes, because he loves the stable, he will go to Wikipedia and search The Legacy. He will find nothing, so he goes to Orton's article. It will say NOTHING about the history of Rhodes and DiBiase in WWE. So, he'll have to go to Ted DiBiase. Again, it will say next-to-NOTHING about Randy Orton. How is it that people will want to search for The Highlanders (professional wrestling), The Bella Twins, The Mexicools, Vince's Devils, The New Breed, Cryme Tyme and not Los Colons (who've been teaming since they debuted in WWC). Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes, Cody Rhodes and Hardcore Holly, The Legacy (professional wrestling), and Finlay and Hornswoggle (teaming together since 2006, contended for tag team titles, feuded with JBL, Mr. McMahon, Jack Swagger, Miz and Morrison, Glamarella, Mark Henry, Mr. Kennedy [must I continue?), and also Glamarella who obviously is a lot more notable than The Bella Twins because they actually won titles TOGETHER at SummerSlam (2008). Raaggio 12:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well for a start, The Highlanders and The Bella Twins don't have individual articles; Cryme Tyme have been together for years and been involved in numerous storylines, at pay-per-views, have their online show, also wrestled briefly on the indie circuit and The New Breed was historically important from the perspective that it was an angle to transition the old ECW to ECW on Sci-Fi. The others I wasn't watching during so I can't comment. I think Los Colóns deserve an article and it'd be even better if their WWC work could be sourced. Glamarella had one match together of consequence, the rest has been Santino being Beth's manager and it's sort of similar for Finlay&Hornswoggle aside from Postl fighting a bit more but not frequently. I'm sure The Legacy will soon get a page but at present it's essentially Orton's job squad and they haven't done much since joining The Legacy aside from face Cryme Tyme in two consecutive weeks and get beaten up by Triple H a lot. Heck, we don't even know what The Legacy is seeing as Michael Cole never says the article, just Legacy, and on .com's P25 they always refer to Rhodes&DiBiase as Orton's "Legacy" as if to suggest that actually Orton isn't part of it. Tony2Times (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just being on WWE television doesn't justify an article on Wikipedia. Back in the early days of Raw: there was numerous matches involving stars against jobbers. All of those jobbers have yet to be articles, as they did nothing outside of jobbing on a few Raw shows. In the case of many teams: the same thing can apply. If they've teamed a little, only been around a brief time: they don't have to have an article here. Finlay and Hornswoogle might be a needed article, but that's speculative. Hornswoogle is a sidekick/manager to Finlay at best. They've teamed in numerous matches, but I wouldn't call much of that notable. Going for tag gold is notable: but if you look at all the random teams (over the years, not so much recently), you probably wont find articles for all of them here. A suggestion, use the wrestling wiki:[21] for more of the short term teams and/or wrestlers. There isn't that many guidelines as Wikipedia, so I see no problem with them going there. Perhaps there's been stuff deleted in AFD as well (that people see notable): if you can find the AFDs, ask to have it transwikied to Wrestling Wiki if you want. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough, search the net - see if you can find enough information on the team/faction/whatever to see if it fullfills the Wikipedia:Notability criteria, then there isn't even a debate. Write it in your sandbox and source it and you can make any and all articles that you have sources to support and not have to worry about them being deleted. Easy fix. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hello there, everyone! I figured you guys would be the place to go for this question. An article I'm working towards FA quality, No Jacket Required has a bit of info I wrote-up about how "Take Me Home" was the shows closing theme for three years, and I need to find a reliable source that states this. However, I am not an expert on which wrestling websites are more reliable than the others. Would anyone know where I could find a reliable source that says that "Take Me Home" was the closing theme to the show from 1985-1988? Thanks to whoever can answer, and a barnstar is in order for whoever can help me out! Have a great day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a source that would hold up to a Featured Article Candidacy. I've only found records of the song being used from 1986 to 1988. I haven't pulled out my copies of the old SNME shows, but I know that "Monster Mash" was used during a 1985 episode. My suggestion would be to cite the episodes (#7 - taped 9/13/86 and aired 10/4/86 - is the earliest documented use I can find, and #16 - taped 4/22/88 and aired 4/30/88 is the latest, so perhaps changing the phrasing to "Take Me Home" was also the closing theme song for the World Wrestling Entertainment's television show, Saturday Night's Main Event, in the late 1980s" and citing these two episodes would be your best bet). If you want me to create the citations, I can do that (I've cited SNME episodes for some articles I've expanded). GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Message sent. Thanks again! CarpetCrawler (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"OOU" format of names??

I've seen a trend of using "Wrestlers Name" (Linked "Real name") in a lot of place and I was just wondering where that came from? Is there any other type of Wikipedia article that uses that annoying annotation? I find it pointless and frankly listing the real name of say Tommy Dreamer in an article doesn't add anything to it, it just brings the readability down. What's the inspiration? I haven't found it used in any articles where actors who use stagenames and not their real names, I've not seen it used in movie articles or TV shows. How does it bring it "Out of universe" to know what Kane's real name is? What does it matter what Kane's real name is except on the article about Kane? Do you need to know it in order to read a PPV Article? I think that WP:PW have gone a bit far in order to claim "It's out of universe", but it's a misguided attempt at a quick fix - the "OOU" aspects are in the general writing of the article not the addition of their birth names. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This came about last summer when SummerSlam (2003) was taken to FAC. There it was recommended to use real names and treat PPV articles like a film article, so real names began to be used. This should only be used in Biographies and PPV articles, lists are exceptions [except for Hall of Fame lists].--Best, ₮RUCӨ 13:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that recomendation in the FAC review, in fact the pre-review mentions it being like that already without ANYONE saying it should be so. Looks like a way of doing it that was passed off as "required" or something, it's not even consistent in the article. I don't see the point here, it's clunky and no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly who thought it was a good idea to begin with? Pardon me if I won't go out of my way to follow it. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:PW/PPVG. It was in the peer review I believe.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Referring to the "Style guide" doesn't explain why it's like that, it was mentioned in the review that the format Randy Orton (Randy Orton) was just plain wrong, indicating that it was already like that before the comments were made. So we have a "guideline" that no one can remember why we have other than some vague "it keeps it out of Universe" comment (which is not true). So why keep it? besides even if ONE person suggested something in a peer review doesn't mean it should be taken as law right?

That's pretty much how things go around here. One reviewer makes a comment, and BAM, all articles must change accordingly. Mshake3 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't be the only one seeing a problem with that right? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I rather like all of the out of universe format. I don't like explaining all the moves since those are hard, but as for the names, theyr are fine with me. They make the article seem more professional. Plus all the wrestlers play characters, not theirselves. So, treat them as characters.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The moves one is ridiculous. Instead of just saying they did a powerbomb (and linking to the page which describes a powerbomb), some people think it should say something like "he lifted his opponent up onto his shoulders and then slammed him down". TJ Spyke 19:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A powerbomb is not known by everyone. Plus it is a name of a move, which makes it jargon. Also there are guidelines against the relying on a pipelink to help explain it. I don't like explaining the moves since I don't know where to start, but I understand why we should. The same as if you were reading an article about religion, and you didn't understand a certain term. Are you going to stop reading and read the term's article? What is it doesn't have one? The explaining helps.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that not every single little thing has to be explained, and goes into far more detail than may FA's. Thankfully it's not as bad as when this bad trend started (at least now some editors realize you still need to say the name of the move, not just its description). TJ Spyke 20:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it doesn't have to go overboard. Just explain the stuff that anyone can get. The moves to a decent detail, just the main points, the name of the move, the matches and the rules. The wrestler's names. Just the stuff no one that has ever read about wrestling does not know. Do not go into detail to a point where you've written a brand new Professional Wrestling article.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my name to the list of editors who don't like the overuse of out-of-universe writing. As an example of what I think we should go for, let's take a look at today's featured article, Proserpine (play). The article wikilinks, but does not explain, feminist, verse drama, blank verse, lyric poems, soliloquy, closet drama, comedy of manners, masques, and pastoral. All of these terms qualify as jargon, but the author realized that not every piece of jargon needs to be explained. Will every reader understand each of these terms? Of course not. But the article is still accessible, just as wrestling articles were a year ago. I have a problem with changing every article based upon one comment in a featured article candidacy, as I believe that readability of articles is more important than statistics. Codifying these changes without discussion by adding them to a style guide (and then pointing to the style guide as proof that things need to be changed) doesn't make sense to me, either. With that said, I understand and appreciate that everyone is doing what they think is best to improve all articles under this project's scope, and there have been positive changes (eg. the Reception section for pay-per-views) that I think have been quite useful. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the out of universe has brung good, as well as a burden. The reception was a great addition. I feel we should leave it up to the editor to choose what to explain and what not too. I talked to a friend of mine the other day who couldn't tell the difference between King Booker and Booker T. There are some who don't know what a headlock or sleeper hold is. I agree the making of the out of universe decision was handled wrong, but we weren't getting anywhere before. When the subject was brung up all it did was make this project page a living hell. I think the OOU should explain moves that are not too common. The Chokeslam is too common, while a Pedigree isn't. Go by common name on the wrestler's names in parenthesis. If they have more than one gimmick they are known for (Mick Foley or Christopher Daniels in this case), then real name in parenthesis. If they only have one name (A.J. Styles), then just link it. Explain the difficult terms, like jobber or face, but book should be simple enough.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a sign of insecurity as a project / fan base / whatever but it seems like the wrestling articles are much more prone to overapplying suggestions of ONE reviewer, almost as if people are just grateful from ANY input from ANYONE and will do anything they say, acting like one review comment is the foundation for all WP:PW's work. Goes along with the comment "Oh other projects think we're a joke", which I think isn't true in general - wrestling have PLENTY of quality articles (and plenty of crap ones but most topics have their share of poop). MPJ-DK (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. We've had so many discussions on this. We've discussed how we are listening to one reviewer, how the format sucks, how the format is bullshit, how the format is not needed, how the format is hard to read, we've heard it all. Past discussions have resulted in the project generally accepting the guideline because professional wrestling is a screenplay, and involves the similar nature of film articles, some of their guidelines apply to in-universe content of pro wrestling related articles, like pay-per-views. People think that the guidelines apply to ever article, its only for biographies (where needed) [see Shawn Michaels as an example) and PPV articles, like Over the Edge (1999). If we do not do these things, our articles violate WP:JARGON, WP:IN-U, and WP:PLOT.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sigh" yourself - you've yet to show me a place where this is used in this way outside Wrestling articles or even the comment that lead to it in the first place. and since there are "constant" discussions it doesn't look to me that it's generally accepted. And there is no way that just using the wrestling name they're known and promoted as instead of their real name which in most cases is just a trivivial comment is Jargon or in universe. Look at any number of articles on actors who use stagenames, they don't have this format. Explain to me how telling people what Christian Cage's real name is makes the article less "in universe" or "Jargony", it's the way events, matches, titles etc are explained that's the jargon or in-universe problem in wrestling. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni

Letting you all know of a change I made/am going to make to these group of articles. Since the exact day/week/month of a person joining or leaving WWE is not widely known (unless an official statement from WWE can be found), I have made it so that only the year is what is listed as the tenure (see List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni: A–C). Some websites are inaccurate, leading to conflicting changes and the information on exact days isn't the easiest thing to confirm with a couple of references and there are a few people who only worked for WWE for only months or weeks. Some people who get released (like Freddie Prinze, Jr.) are also not reported on due to WWE not making an official statement for them, leading to conflicting information when they actually left. A year instead of exact days should benefit this article, as the year is usually something that can be confirmed pretty easily. Personally, I also think the exact day of release matters very little (keeping with the reason I started making changes to this article in the first place), and should probably only be included within the biography of the person themselves. — Moe ε 14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I've changed the TNA alumni page accordingly. Nikki♥311 23:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Azihade

has been removing moves from some move articles and inserting them into others as well as adding more variations. Is this helpful or not? I'm on the fence. If it is deemed a good idea, we've got a lot link updates to do in just about every article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, some of those moves look made-up. 'Crucifix stunner'? I don't think so. Although any move is possible in pro wrestling, that has not been established as a regular move.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe a message on his talk page would be best. But if his edit summaries are any indication, he probably won't listen. Not really sure what to say to him. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Report it to an admin if he doesn't stop. I'm not sure why this was posted here. Since when did project talk pages become tattle boards? Revert, warn, report. It's a simple process that doesn't involve this talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My reason in posting it here was that I wasn't sure if his actions were helpful or not. His attitude isn't, but it could be viewed that these move splits are positive. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is any type of driver automatically a piledriver even if "pile" is not in the name. All drivers listed in Professional wrestling throws have been moved to the Piledriver (professional wrestling) article. So is this accurate or should it be reverted. Wrestling semantics isn't really my strong point. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. As far as I've assumed a driver is a move which directs the head into the mat, while this is most commonly a piledriver variant a Death Valley Driver is not a piledriver as the two bodies aren't piled together as with a piledriver. Tony2Times (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. In addition, according to this user, a double knee backbreaker is not a backbreaker and is actually called a lungblower. I was always always under the impression that some indy wrestler called it a lungblower and the name was adopted by several others. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure of the etymology, I know Jetta calls it a lungblower but she could easily have named it after the indie wrestler you're referring to. The best way to find out is to try and find someone really old who had the move but then again lots of moves have two names and I'd argue the backbreaker is more well renowned because of Carlito but that could be me not being aware of somebody popularising it before him. Tony2Times (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ECW One Night Stand (2005) crowd chants

In the descriptions of this event, there are several places where crowd chants are referenced. Some of the chants include things like "you suck dick" and "fuck you" and things like that. I don't see how any of these are relevant to the article in any way. Especially in the section describing the Benoit/Guerrero match where the chants referenced have nothing to do with the participants of the match at all. It seems like they are only included to give someone an excuse to say "dick" and "fuck" a few times. I feel like it would be a great improvement to the article to remove most of them. It would certainly make it seem more like an encyclopedia article. Anyway, I agreed that it would be fair to put this up for discussion before making a move so what does everyone else think? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It does seem like a lot of banal, romanticised ECW spiel. If a Reception section was written it could all be reduced and summarised there to reduce the profanity while emphasising the raucous nature of the crowd. Tony2Times (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, they are unnecessary, and add nothing to the article. A Reception section might be a good idea. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 23:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would consult with the original expander of the article to get his/her thoughts on it.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at ECW One Night Stand (2006), that article is fine and it doesn't mention any of the profane chants at all in the article. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the editor who expanded it.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the chants at 2006 weren't as bad as they were in 2005 and didn't get nearly as much press (the only really chants were the ones directed at Cena). TJ Spyke 00:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I went back as far as the history would let me and I couldn't find who originally wrote the chants into the article. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be me. I don't see anything wrong with it really. D.M.N. (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks a bit incongruous to the rest of the article. They seem to be very isolated sentences, especially the one about Lita. I haven't seen ONS, why are they chanting abotu Lita in a Guerrero/Benoit match? Also a lot of the shouts are capitalised for each word which reads weirdly and Kurt Angle's reply might be better as italics rather than capitals to emphasise his intonation. Overall I've just never seen so much quotation to promos and segments on a PPV article but as I say I haven't seen it so maybe there was that much. I just think it would look better in the reception section and take out things like 'a huge "We Want Matt" broke out' with 'the crowd replid with a raucous "we want Matt" chant' or maybe just 'the crowd began to demand Hardy'. Tony2Times (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What to do....

What do we do about Criticism of World Championship Wrestling? Should it be merged into History of World Championship Wrestling (there is a lot of overlap) or left alone? My opinion is that a merge is in order. Nikki♥311 02:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I didn't even know there was an article for it. Its a definite merge, because most of the information overlaps. Some of that info can be in respective articles, like the NWO's.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should stay and be its own article. WCW's legecy is no longer having the NWO, great steel cage matches or great matches in general, having War Games, or anything else you can say that they had that was great or at least good. They are known now for bad booking. So a criticism article works well. A reception section for the company, in a way, is a nice addition.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just found this WP:Criticism#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history), so it definitely needs to be merged. I'll get to it later tonight. Nikki♥311 15:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And done. Nikki♥311 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Brava, Nikki. Tony2Times (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)