Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

Broken External Links

During this week, I'll restart checking external links for broken ones, or false ones which redirect to other sites, or where the references have disappeared. Assuming good faith, we must think that the references were broken after they were listed in the articles. Of course, I will again use this Wiki tool just like I did last year. Feedback 15:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely forgot, but we have a subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Broken external links completely dedicated to this tool and using it to our advantage. I'll add it to the WP:PW menu so it can be easily achieved by us. Feedback 15:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to be trying to fix the links as you go, or is this destined to simply become the project's fourth or fifth to-do list? If you are willing to help fix the problem by updating the links, searching for alternatives, and checking for archived versions, it would be greatly appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course I will, and it's kind of harsh for you to assume I won't. However, obviously not as I go. I'm first going to point out all the false links on GA articles and FA articles, and then tell the main editors. Because, most people who work on an article, know more about the information they got from a link and can replace them easier than I could. However, I will replace some links just as I did last year, but only to the articles without major contributors. Feedback 16:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly never said that I assume that you won't help fix the problems. I merely stated that a list of problems, in addition to the already-existing to-do list, article alerts page, and cleanup listing page (the latter of which already includes articles with broken external links, highlighting which of them are Featured or Good qualilty articles) seems unnecessary. People tend not to respond to the lists, so if someone finds something to be an area of particular concern, history dictates that the best way to deal with it is to address the problem directly (in this case, by fixing the links). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course it would be marvelous to have someone directly fix every single problem with every single article in the project. Heck, let's look at the big picture. If someone could fix every little thing in the whole encyclopedia, then we can all parade. However, that is very improbable. I'm sorry I won't be having the time to address all the hundreds of broken links I will post on the page, because even if you believe not, updating this page is very time-consuming. Now, you're comment about it being "unnecessary" is an insult to the hours I wasted, and it's an insult to the purpose of the encyclopedia. The links will be broken even if I put them on the list or not, so please stop condemning me for making them into a list easily accessible by all the contributors. There were articles on that list that had more than 35 broken links. I'm doing this with the purpose of helping articles so they don't go to GAR, FAR, or lose FACs and GACs because of unsourced information. If you and anyone else think this year-long section of WP:PW is hurtful, then I promise I won't update the list. Feedback 20:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I see that page as un-necessary, too, but only because it is an extra step, a waste to update, and adds one more to-do list. To save yourself a lot of time, you should go through the articles and tag the dead links, but don't update that page, which should be either deleted or redirected. Once the links are tagged, they will show up automatically on the cleanup listing page when it is updated by the bot. The cleanup listing will have them sorted by class, importance, and date...so if anyone wants to help out (which seems to be only me and NiciVampireHeart), they only have to go to an all encompassing to-do list that we already have. Nikki♥311 20:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a better solution. WP:WikiProject Formula One has a Summary page created by the tool which is updated every Monday at 5:00am UTC. It's at this link. I added the tool the Project home page, and the link is there as well. We can all check the links and fix them from that automated page. It has a piechart and the works. Does this seem like a better solution? Feedback 20:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but now you'll have to find a new way to spend all that time. :) Nikki♥311 20:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Biting some newbies, breaking some rules, harassing some admins, getting kicked out of Wikipedia... there are a lot of things I can do. Lol. Feedback 20:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oooh you rebel, you. Tony2Times (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The reign of Young

What's happend with the reign of Eric Young as X Division Champion? In all pages I have see tha he wasn't a champion, his reign is unnoficial. Why he have the rign as official? --81.36.175.63 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Source? --Numyht (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Midget professional wrestler

Anyone want to help expand Midget professional wrestler? I've done quite a bit, but I'd like to expand it 5x and nominate it at DYK (only ~6000 bytes to go). I've got a lot of info about the US/Canada, plus more on the way that I haven't added yet because I'm tired of typing. :) I'd particularly like help with the history in Mexico or any other countries where info is available (Japan? somewhere in Europe?). Any help is appreciated!! I'll be working off-and-on for the next 5 days to hopefully get it expanded enough. Nikki♥311 23:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than the lead, the article is more about "Midget professional wrestling" and not the "wrestler" in specific. So, I think the article has to be rewritten to speak more about the term "midget wrestler" instead of a bio of the history of midget wrestling. If not, it should be mo... oh not again... nevermind.Feedback 01:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Feedback's unspeakable suggestion seems kind of reasonable. With that said, there's currently only a passing reference to midget's portraying smaller versions of well-known wrestlers. That could be expanded, especially given the regular appearances of the Macho Midget (Claude Giroux), etc., back in the 1980s (or was it early 1990s?), and the midget matches at Royal Rumbles 1997 and 1998. Perhaps some mention could be given of midget wrestlers being inducted into halls of fame (for example, Sky Low Low, Lord Littlebrook, and Little Beaver are in the PWHF). Of the 173 people inducted to the Wrestling Observer hall, though, none have been midgets, which seems significant in itself. As for other countries, this article gives a bit of information, but not much depth: "I never worked in Cuba," reflects Brutus. "They did in the early 1950s but not after I came on the scene. Also I never wrestled in Russia....I went to Japan eight times and to Australia four times. I wrestled in England, Ireland and Scotland and throughout Europe in France, Belgium and Spain and a few more countries. I also worked in Hawaii and Alaska before and after they were States." GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This list might also be helpful in figuring out who might have information about them, and possibly adding more depth with female midget wrestlers, hardcore midget wrestlers, etc. Actually, I see that you've already got a bit about female midget wrestlers. One story I found, though, takes it a step further, as it discusses an American bar being fined for promoting topless female midget wrestling (see here), and for general history, this article by Mike Mooneyham is pretty good. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are great links. I'll definitely incorporate them. I also found that there was a midget wrestling match at TNA's Victory Road (2004) and a little more about the sport in Mexico. Thanks! Nikki♥311 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To Feedback: Actually I was going to move (AHH!) the article to "midget professional wrestling"...I just haven't done it yet. I didn't think it would be contentious or anything, so I didn't feel the need to bring it up. Professional wrestler is a link to professional wrestling, after all. Nikki♥311 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the only one in TNA. Dear God they tried everything during their run. Look up their first weekly PPV. I believe they had one on there as well. Plus the midget match at VR is bad, trust me, it was bad.--WillC 03:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up regarding Tazz

PWInsider.com are reporting he's done with WWE here. I'm not sure if anything regarding RS/PWInsider has been discussed in here lately... someone's already inserted something into the article, so not sure if you guys want to revert. Obviously there's a possibility this could be an April Fools joke as Australia is currently in April 1st. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Also been reported by the Wrestling Observer, here, so I'll change the references to that. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE hasn't said anything, and his contract hasn't expired yet. That says to me that it's possible he could sign a new contract. Since his contract hasn't expired yet, he should not have been removed from the WWE roster template. TJ Spyke 18:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

His profile is also still on WWE.com, so until that is removed or WWE formally announces it will it be declared official. Reliable sites (such as WON are not reliable in the context of signings/releases/deaths unless proven with a reliable source of their own).--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Until we get official-ish word from Jim Ross, I don't think it should be added. It should become clear by tomorrow if wrestling websites release a statement saying "This is an April Fool's Joke". D.M.N. (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would American-based websites have April Fools jokes the day before? You're really stretching things here. As for this "reliable source" business, I'd love to see you guys expand to politics and world news. Under this place's logic, no newspaper or business reporter would ever be acceptable because they wouldn't reveal their inside sources. Feh. Mshake3 (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that most wrestling sites (including reliable sites) often post rumors as "facts", and then when the rumors turn out to be false they cover up by saying that the company just changed plans. TJ Spyke 23:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Respectable broadsheet newspapers count as reliable sources themselves. Tony2Times (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? The reporters of these newspapers can fall under a wide range of being reliable, or not at all. Why the hell do they all get a free pass? Mshake3 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Because we all know the word of tabloid papers is the golden truth. </sarcasm> ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 02:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And that's why I said broadsheet, not tabloid. Tony2Times (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here, from what I understand, Tazz worked the SD taping on Monday, so they're unlikely to announce him leaving until after Friday. I have no problem waiting for confirmation from WWE, but that's just something to bear in mind. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So should the page be locked till next Monday then to prevent edit wars? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because WWE doesn't say something, that doesn't mean we can't add it. WWE doesn't always make announcements over releases (take Freddie Prinze, Jr. for example). We have reliable sources to confirm this and as Nici pointed out, he was released prior to a television appearance that has already been taped, which is why WWE is probably holding off on announcing this. And this is what I don't get sometimes.. it was agreed consensus to list websites such as the Wrestling Observer and and PW Torch as reliable sources for our style guides, but whenever something they report hasn't been "reported official" this project acts like a hypocrite and calls it unreliable. So, is it reliable, or is it not reliable, because it can't be both. Reliability does not alter in between subjects on a website. And let me ask you this, if WWE does decide to announce that Tazz was released, is WON and PW Torch now reliable? We either use PW Torch and WON as reliable, all the time, or not at all, because pseudo-rules for sourcing on this project is about intolerable now. — Moe ε 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

They can be reliable on one issue and unreliable on another, it depends if the issue has a measurable outcome. They freely report backstage rumours as fact, talk about which stars have pull and which ones don't, talk about wrestlers being unhappy with their spots or follow the WWE line when kayfabe explanations are given. But when there is a binary solution, that is to say it is true or false, then they can be reliable. When on Saturday WWE wish Peter Serenca all the best in his future endeavours then we will know that they have been accurate. But if this is merely a ploy to get more money (as they have done with some wrestlers in the past, Christian work for a few days without a contract as did Jarrett) then we will see. A wrestling website is accurate when it just lists what has happened, it is usually not to be trusted when trying to predict the future. I do not see these two things as inconsistent, nor intolerable. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And if they don't? What if WWE never wishes him "all the best in his future endeavors" and Tazz disappears off of television for good? Now is WON/PW Torch reliable in reporting that Tazz was released, or do we assume Tazz fell in a hole and is never coming back? The point is, I don't think you can accurately pick random reports and choose what is reliable and what is unreliable and that would be subject to your opinion which is undesirable on Wikipedia. Of course things like kayfabe explanations, wrestlers being unhappy or even predicting the future are not things to put on Wikipedia anyways, but when a reliable source reports something that is worthy of putting here, such as Tazz being released, we should add it. Articles are forever changing and always will be. If something is inaccurate or something changes, it can be altered later. If a source falls under criteria as being reliable such as WON/PW Torch, there is no reason to assume it unreliable for a new report not clarifying where it got its source. If this was CNN that reported it, I bet you would have a different opinion, or would CNN now become a "dirt sheet" despite no official word from WWE. CNN hardly ever cites where they receive their information from and if they do its just from another news outlet; yet CNN is consistently a reliable source used throughout Wikipedia. CNN makes mistakes too, though. If CNN was to report this and it turned out that something changed or the report was inaccurate, is CNN unreliable and do we now have to cherry pick all their news stories for 'accurate' ones? That's just silly.. Information on Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not 'the truth'. — Moe ε 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But there are opinions on CNN, and they aren't reported as fact. A lot of the wrestling websites go with unsourced whispers from "insiders". CNN al least report sources, and if they don't then don't cite what they say. At the same time if CNN reported tomorrow that Tazz had left WWE then I'd be in favour of putting it in, as they are firmly established on 99% of the news they report as being reliable. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point, the point is that his profile is still up on WWE.com, meaning that they still are employing him. For Tazz, I highly anticipate a formal departure not just his profile being deleted. Either way, once either happens, that will be the official confirmation not what other sources state. The only reliable sources in context like this are sources that have an interview or comments from the individual in question about a signing/departure or from the promotion.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone else noticed, but Tazz's profile has been moved to the Alumni section on wwe.com. What happens now? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Oops, never mind. It's already been changed. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I will point out that Tazz was not present at Wrestlemania 25 for commentary. Jim Ross, Jerry Lawler, and Michael Cole performed commentary together. Additionally, Todd Grisham and Matt Striker were not present for commentary. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 17:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reports from IGN's live blog said Grisham & Stryker commentated the dark match for the tag belts. Tony2Times (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Considering it was not shown during the actual presentation, nor did I read the live blog, then I guess I cannot comment to that. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

. Isn't it stupid to use WWE.com themselves as a source? That makes no logical sense when the company is based around lying for entertainment. WWE.com reports storylines along with real news. And the fact that you only allow PWInsider, Observer and the Torch as sources is laughable, half the time all the really do is recap tid bits from everywhere else (regional papers, other people's interviews etc) and add their opinion. When they supposedly break news they are no more sourced than any other site. In fact they do it under subscription services so you're breaking the law from stealing their content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.225.71 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WWE.com reports both in and out of kayfabe. It's extremely obvious when it's kayfabe (like Vince being blown up, Jericho's recent firing, etc). If the dirtsheets were reporting that Tazz's release was a work, then we wouldn't use wwe.com as a source (or we would specify that said release was kayfabe). The sources you mentioned (along with WrestleView) are considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards and have been cleared as reliable by several adminstrators, including one of the main featured article reviewrs. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Photobucket

When we upload photos from Flickr there seems to be a template to link to the account and user and everything. Is there a similar process for Photobucket or shall I just upload it like a normal picture? Tony2Times (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Flickr photos can really only be used if they have a free license compatible with Wikipedia (see Commons:Flickr files). Photobucket as far as I know does not have a licensing function and so for all intents and purposes their photos are copyrighted to its respective authors. -- Oakster  Talk  23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've been given permission by the uploader so shall I just upload it as normal without giving the link to the Photobucket file and author? Tony2Times (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm still presuming that this is a free image (and hence it can be uploaded at Commons as well), I think you might have to go through Commons:OTRS, so that the higher ups over there know that permission is given. -- Oakster  Talk  14:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Big Show's Weight

I just thought this should be good to discuss, on his WWE.com profile [1] it states 2 weights, 441 pounds and 485 pounds, which should be noted on his profile the one in text or flash? Afkatk (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Last night on raw Jim Ross said he was 485 pounds Adster95 12:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

But you can't reference that can you? Afkatk (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You can with a TV episode cite. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Because of the draft, his profile has been move here. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also at Mania..they stated he was 441 lbs in the introduction. However over the course of the match they stated 485. Weird. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is really where the big problem lies, the only thing I can think of is stating a source outside of WWE, [2] [3], 2 possible sources I can think of. Afkatk (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

X Division

Okay, this feels weird asking, but does anyone know where I can find some sources for the X Division. I'm working on the TNA X Division Championship in a subpage on and off. I have a small section talking about the X division and I can't find any sources for it. Mainly for the meaning. I was wondering if anyone had The Best of the X Division vol 1 or TNA Year One or if they knew a reliable site that speaks about it since I can't find anything from TNA?--WillC 02:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You tried OnlineWorldOfWrestling? Afkatk (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but I'm looking more for meanings. Like deep in depth meaning of the division, taglines, etc.--WillC 03:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the net for Reviews of the DVDs and from what I can understand both have only really matches on from the X-Division neither really is explanatory, 411mania.com might have something on the X-division. Afkatk (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sam Fatu "Good Article Candidate"???

Okay read this article Sam Fatu and then tell me if it should be up for Good Article nomination? MPJ-DK (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. Looks like a lot of one line stringed paragraphs. D.M.N. (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I put that up for GAN, but I reread it this morning and was going to remove it, but ran out of time. I'm going to work on it some more first. Sorry! Genius101^Guestbook 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I'm just letting you guys know that I've managed to convert all our infoboxes into the format used with Template:Infobox. This should make it easier to add and edit fields or make any cosmetic changes to the designs. -- Oakster  Talk  16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That table for the 09 draft....

For some reason I did not like it so I decided to make a new table. Any thoughts on how to improve it? --Numyht (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Pick #	Brand from	Brand to	Employee (Real name)	Role	Date	Notes	Ref
1	Death	Life	Wikipedia (Wikapedio)	God of the World		Was drafted on an episode of Sunday Night Wikipedia making the Wikipedia World Championship exclusuve to Life	[4]

In my opinion the table already on the page works fine as it is. Afkatk (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I corrected that there were 2 columns called notes, and I think that both tables should be combined and have the matches in small in the notes section (just like in champions articles) Feedback 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose of the "Role" column? That would really only be used if a non-wrestler gets drafted, and that could be noted in the Notes section (if the this table is used, I haven't formed my opinion yet). TJ Spyke 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was originally something like that, but it was decided to be modeled similarly to the NFL Drafts featured lists because the table was cluttered. In addition, the current format has gotten the project 1 FL as a result. Also, the current format coincides with the circumstances of the draft. Such as when a brand won a match, the brand got the pick and then the employee was randomly drafted, (which is why the employee column is after the brand drafted to column). It wasn't like during the 2004 Draft when the general managers switched back and forth (as it was known which brand the wrestler would be coming and going to), see the table in the 2004 WWE Draft Lottery article (and if you're going to question why there isn't a brand (from) column, its because there were only 2 brands, so if you know one column, you automatically know the other). In addition, we don't need a ref column or notes column because thats what the general references and footnotes are used for. The role column is for different roles, like in the 2008 WWE Draft.--Truco 22:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

They also line up..

Pick #	NFL Team	Player	Position	College

Pick #	Brand (to)	Employee (Real name)	Role	Brand (from)

--Truco 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Raw Episodes

I have been working on this article for quite sometime and have only recently got into contact with TJ Spyke about this, it is incomplete at its current state, as there is still a dozen more years to finish, and I assure you the main Wikipage for the Article will not look like its current state when published. Afkatk - Afro Twinky (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• User:Afkatk/SandboxP1 - Main project page Incomplete
  • User:Afkatk/SandboxP1/1993 - 1993 Episode List, Currently Completing
  • User:Afkatk/SandboxP1/2009 - 2009 Episode List, Complete As Much as Possible

Sorry to say this after you've clearly gone to so much work over it but is there much point? You're not really offering anything the two sources you link to already offer, in fact even less because they do a small commentary on the goings down. Admittedly it'd be nicer to look at a grid rather than a very dated page but still, I don't think there's much if any need for this. Tony2Times (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This obviously can be improved upon, the project is still in its infancy and improvements can be made. Afkatk - Afro Twinky (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Like Tony stated, sorry to say this after all that work. But it has been agreed upon in the past that wrestling tv shows do not get their own episodes list because its WP:LISTCRUFT.--Truco 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not listcruft. All TV Shows have articles listing the number of episodes. Raw is a weekly prime-time show that is scripted and broadcasted. It's a TV Show, and a list of episodes would not be list cruft. WP:EPISODE does not make any mention of excluding some shows, it is a general guideline for ALL TV shows. For more information, read WP:EPISODE. Feedback 19:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes. But, because WWE TV episodes only have match cards, and do not have recurring themes, its not generally accepted, as the FL Director stated in this past discussion. Just because its scripted, does not mean it is a direct equivalency to a scripted soap opera. In addition, listing all episodes of Raw (even if broken up to smaller lists) is WP:LC because it does not enhance the reader's ability to understand how Raw works. Stating there have been over 800 episodes is enough. In addition, FLs (as mentioned in that archive) have information that WWE does not release, which will make the list incomplete. As an FL reviewer, a list like this would not be generally accepted.--Truco 19:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No recurring themes? What about WWE Raw#Recurring segments? TJ Spyke 19:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Themes as in storylines (WWE storylines are not the same weekly, in addition to having 10 different feuds at one time). Segments are different.--Truco 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

TV.com has a full episode list here which may provide an external ref outside of wrestling sites and WWE.com. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

TV.com is not reliable in being used a reference. It can, however, be used as an external links.--Truco 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But for raw data (pardon the pun) it is reliable, like the episode count and broadcast dates, if WWE doesn't list a specific episode (like any from Jan 2000 to Benoit's death). Darrenhusted (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the discussion Truco pointed out and it seemed inconclusive, because no actual decision was made. In reality, consensus seemed to be that it shouldn't be done there, but some day it should. Well, notability has no date, it's notable now, and the guidelines defend it. Some of the users don't like the idea, but it doesn't matter. They can't eliminate it as "list cruft" based on their own opinions. We have guidelines for a reason, and the guidelines defend this article, so let it be made. Feedback 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the necessary information is not available to create such an article/list. Thus failing the criteria for such a list. Also, Darren, marginally for that data but it will have to be backed up by an alternate reliable source.--Truco 21:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is going to be made, might I suggest it be more comprehensive by including promos as well as matches, as it's part of the storytelling of the episode. Tony2Times (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We can always add some description on the current Storyline developments which have happened on the episodes. Afkatk - Afro Twinky (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this article? It sounds alot like content forking. It severs no means of informing a user of anything. They have no special names. They are 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. None of that seems important. Plus WWE don't even have the correct amount of episodes stated. The 800 episode, was really the 801. When you can't even trust the main source, how can this be correct at all?--WillC 22:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not necessarily content forking since it can't be in the main article, although it can be summarized there. It is also list cruft since the information does not add anything to what WWE Raw already states. Once again, the necessary information is not available to warrant an article. --Truco 23:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always like this idea. Any other regular running television program has one, and even if it's not completely reliably sourced, it can still be made. I think it's about time a list was made. Oh, and content forking? Did you even read that page? Content forking is taking information that could easily fit on it's master page, and making it a separate article for no apparent reason. If you believe this is content forking, where do you propose it should be placed?  iMatthew :  Chat  23:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was. Damn my comments must be invisible or something, the information necessary to create such a list is not available, and thus a real screwed up list will be made that does not meet the criteria of episode lists. --Truco 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious it was asking Will?  iMatthew :  Chat  00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

They already have more relevant info than some Featured Lists like List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. I'm not saying the Raw lists are great quality, just pointing out that some featured lists have less info. TJ Spyke 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No they don't. Raw episodes don't have writers, directors, or production codes.--Truco 01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WWE Programming does have Writers, haven't you seen any of the leaked Raw Scripts? Afkatk - Afro Twinky (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do have writers, but can you get that information from a reliable source? Articles are only notable if they can be reliably sourced fully. If this list can't, then it isn't notable Matt. The list can go in Raw, a list of notable episodes with a well written prose, because Monday's episode had no meaning what-so-ever and making a list of all episodes that include those episodes is really list cruft. We are making a list of nothing notable, just a list of 1, 2, 3, 4, etc that goes to 8??, that will have to be cut by season, and Raw doesn't have seasons. Plus making this list means making one for all tv shows in wrestling. ECW on TNN, Impact, ECW on Sci Fi, SD, Nitro, Thunder, etc. This includes WWE TV from the 80s and 90s that will have to be sourced. This is a waste of space that no one cares about. It will end up unfinished and being a stub or start class. Why make a list of episodes of a tv show when even the tv show article is either unsourced, poorly sourced, or badly written. Why don't we expand the things we have now and forget about making new articles?--WillC 02:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to Afro, can you find that information for all episodes, not just one that was leaked. Yeah, didn't think so.--Truco 02:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no offense to the person wanting to make the article, I'm just going by from what I've seen lately. It seems more people want newer articles than expand the ones we already have. If you can finish the article in a subpage, with reliable sources, well written prose, and a nice layout, I'm more inclined to change my opinion on the matter. Just at the moment, it seems unneeded to have an article of 1,2,3,4,5, etc. I could see one being done with TNA Impact, seeing as they name their episodes now.--WillC 02:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Be polite next time. Afkatk - Afro Twinky (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant too, but after I re-read it I found out I sounded like an asshole. Sorry.--WillC 03:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aiming that at you, I was aiming it at Truco, I wouldn't call it polite to say "Yeah, didn't think so." at the end of a sentence, I should've directed my comment better Afkatk - Afro Twinky (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On the note of the episode names, could you see there being a need for Raw episodes from 2005-Present as WWE is in the need for naming them, as noted by their Archive on WWE.com, what I'm suggesting here is we could possibly scrap all episodes up until the point of April 4 2005 as noted here, the Episode is named "A New Champion". Afkatk - Afro Twinky (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, in no way was that incivil. In addition, a list from 2005 to present is incomplete and not representative of the other episodes from the past. You can possibly go up 1998 using the internet archive for episode names, but the rest up to 1993 will be incomplete, and creating only an article for some of the episodes is not correct because it leaves a gap for the reader. In addition, the writers/directors/and production code is not available for this type of information, and the episodes are never released on DVD (not thats it needed).--Truco 03:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Truco, that's irrelevant. Although some information might be incomplete, it doesn't stop an article being made. Just because we didn't know CM Punk's name was Phillip Brooks didn't mean his article couldn't be made. It reached FA status without his real name ever being mentioned. It's irrelevant that we can't find production codes or writer names, all we need is a comprehensive list of episodes and we can make them. And instead of dividing them by season, we can divide them by year. Feedback 16:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See the List of The Simpsons episodes featured list, theres a purpose for that list because each season has an article as well. List of 7th Heaven episodes does not, which is why it was not promoted to featured list status, and theres no point in its existence either. Same thing here. A table like this is not representative..

Original airdate	Title

--Truco 16:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to come here as I'd said something at the previous discussion. My thoughts remain pretty much the same, and I don't know if I can offer much more than what I said then. As a non-fan, it's just televised sports entertainment. It's not even "scripted" in the traditional sense, is it? Just the results that are predetermined? What is there to list? Airdate, episode number (which WWE doesn't agree on), production codes, directors, writers (if any). What for the summary? A list of matches? Who but the diehard fan wants to know this? It may be notable, but it's hardly encyclopedic. I think it's better suited at a WWE wikia if one exists, and linking to the page from here in the External links of the main article.

What's next? A list of televised tiddlywink matches? Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mostly I agree with everything Will said. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets just leave this and agree for no article, this obviously is apparent that its a lost cause. Afkatk (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you can still expand the article in a subpage. A decision here doesn't stop guidelines. If it can be reliably sourced fully and have enough information, then it can pass notbility, reliable source, etc.--WillC 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that there is a difference between being sourced and being notable. To be notable, the subject must be mentioned in reliable third-party sources; this doesn't mean that it has to be fully sourced, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As an example of a continuing TV program which may help with this format anyone may wnat to look at List of The Colbert Report episodes (2008). Darrenhusted (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:25th Anniversary of WrestleMania#Final discussion

The last discussion regrading the name. I ask for everyone to give their opinion on the matter.--WillC 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder

Considering the two are now on different brands now due to the WWE Draft, is it okay if individual articles are created for these two? I'm a little unsure, considering it'll mostly end up with three articles with the same text bar a few sentences. -- Oakster  Talk  20:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think wait a few weeks, there's been times where people have been drafted only to be dark and then be released. Unlikely for it to happen to two people but it's a possibility. Tony2Times (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Weeks? I'd say months. One would need to have significant success or storylines in order to have their own article. I can't see anything happening within a few weeks that would make their articles different enough. TJ Spyke 20:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the same thing in regard to The Bella Twins, as they are on different brands now, too. Nikki♥311 23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just saw that the other twin was drafted, too. That solves that problem. Nikki♥311 23:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I also say wait, I was creating them originally (individual articles), but they had the same thing (all 3), so its best to wait for a long time for them to establish themselves as individual wrestlers.--Truco 00:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with TNA X Division championship.

Hi. I saw this page, a reference of the list of TNA X Div. Champions. http://solie.org/titlehistories/tnaxnwa.html In the article you write that is Bashir, Young, Vacant, but in the reference said that is Bashir, Young, Bashir, Vacant, so I think that you must put more day in the regin of Youn and two times Bashir's regins. --81.36.175.63 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bashir was never given back the title. Young won it, then Cornette declared the title vacant. TJ Spyke 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

They are counting his first unofficial reign and not his second. There is only one source for the history at the moment and it is that. The TNA Title history is old and hasn't been updated since August. It would have to do even though it has a small problem.--WillC 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rawmentary

Anyone heard of this? I believe it should be deleted.--WillC 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of it (and I listen to several wrestling podcasts including Smart Wrestling Fan, Wrestling Mayhem, and Pro Wrestling Report). It has not sources and even speculates about whether it is affiliated with WWE. I would PROD it and let the author know. TJ Spyke 03:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You mind to do it? I rarely ever undertake the duty of putting something up for deletion.--WillC 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I prodded it. I can't believe it's been a year and a half without us prodding it. Very sneeky. Lucky bastard. Feedback 03:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is note worthy I'd think that a small mention in the WWE Raw article would be enough. Afkatk (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if it was official. If it's just a fan podcast (which it looks like), than I would say no. A lot of podcasts name themselves after their subject (some Wii podcasts include "The Wiire" and "Wii like to podcast"). TJ Spyke 04:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I just read the page and was about to strike my comment out actually. Afkatk (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Saturday Night's Main Event results

Does WWE or has WWE every even referred to the Saturday Night's Main Events as XXXVI? if not I don't really see a reason to label them as this. Afkatk (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That is done to separate them from one another. Far easier than saying "the SNME from October 1987". Convenience and ease of use, good for readers, and does no harm. TJ Spyke 04:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear God, delete that article already. We aren't supposed to have tv results on here. If the weekly PPv event which have plenty of sources aren't notable enough to have articles or even a list of them then this thing certainly is not. Lets just delete that thing already.--WillC 04:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus in last summer's AfD was to keep it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets do a new one. It is poorly sourced, useless list cruft, that serves no purpose other than quick results.--WillC 04:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That was the new one. The previous one resulted in no consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbering the events is original research. Seeing as how WWE doesn't refer to them by numbers, we shouldn't either. The month and year is the correct format, period. We shouldn't be making up things just for convenience. Doing no harm is an excuse and not a good reason to keep things. Unless someone else changes them, I will be changing them sometime soon. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's out of line. It's not WP:OR. The 3rd event is still the 3rd event; doesn't matter if you call it "Third Saturday Night Main Event", "3rd Saturday Night Main Event", "Saturday Night Main Event III", "Saturday Night Main Event 3","III Saturday Night Main Event", etc. It's not original research to order them numerically; what are you trying to say? We originally reasearched / made up the order? They're all still ordered chronologically, and neither is stated to be the title of the event. Feedback 10:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it not original research? WWE did NOT number them. We shouldn't be numbering them just because it looks better. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it original research to say the tenth SNME is the tenth SNME. No one is saying WWE called them that, it's for the benefit of the reader. TJ Spyke 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point something out: When Scorpion-somethingortheother changed a few articles to automatically calculate the number of days in the combined reign, he set the template to count up from a certain date. The entire project was up in arms about how that was OR. 99.224.117.66 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're point? Feedback 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, irrelevant IP. Anyways, I'm a bit neutral on this situation. Why do we need results for a TV Show? It doesn't really matter if it isn't held every week, its just a TV Show that really doesn't have any significance like a pay-per-view event does. --Truco 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that that wasn't able to be seen by the readers, yet Scorpion got a lot of flak from it. And Truco, why does being an IP make me irrelevant? Now, back to the discussion, SNME was made up of mostly star vs. star matches, it says it right there in the lead. Now, aren't today's pay-per-views made up of star vs. star matches? Hmmmm... 99.224.117.66 (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr IP, Truco wasn't saying you were irrelevant, he was saying the point you were making was irrelevant. And on the subject SNME is different from Raw or SD as it is not a continuous weekly show, which is reason enough for the results page, but not separate articles on each event. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh... sorry, Truco, I should've assumed good faith. I agree with Darrenhusted that a single results page is good, but not individual articles. 99.240.227.108 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody is currently working on articles for Raw episodes. If that is notable then certainly supercards are. I don't agree with the Raw article but if the project does then this does certainly. Tony2Times (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is working on Raw episodes? They aren't notable neither. As far as I see, this show is only notable and used because it is a special these days. Used once a year and nothing really important has never happened on it.--WillC 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a short memory Will and I'm not saying I agree with it, but someone is doing it; if that article is approved then this one should be. I don't think SNME is very important anymore but it used to be a big part of the WrestleMania build up. Tony2Times (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh that, I thought you meant someone was making reports on each one. It was decided not to make that list.--WillC 19:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Great American Bash article bug?

Has anyone else had the issue of everything linked has disappeared on The Great American Bash 2008 article?--SuperSilver901 18:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. TJ Spyke 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I'm going to take a snapshot to show you. NVM, D.M.N. fixed it.--SuperSilver901 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ECW500 sockpuppets

I'm sure quite a few of you are familiar with this banned user and his 50+ sockpuppets. He seems to have increased his disruption lately, so it would be helpful if people could report his sockpuppets to get banned as soon as possible. There are two obvious ways to identify them: (1) The vandalism is related to the Flintstones or Fruity Pebbles. The will usually be on frequently vandalized pages such as WrestleCrap or RD Reynolds, but he also blanked this project's main page today and replaced it with repeated Fruity Pebbles idiocy. (2) The user name is similar to mine. In the past week, JerryColemanFan, LarryColemanFan, GaryColemanFanbody, and GaryColmanFan have been blocked. For these usernames, a report to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention will get them blocked immediately, and Flintstones/Fruity Pebbles vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV without warnings, as it is clearly sockpuppet activity. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Abismo Negro Peer review

I've put Abismo Negro up for Peer Review as I'm hoping to get the article to Good Article status one day, the first Lucha Libre articles to reach that status. So I'm asking anyone who can spare a moment to please have a look at the article and drop comments on the Review page. Since it's not a GA or FA nomination I don't think it'd be a problem asking for input, not canvassing since it's for improvement not "voting". Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ring of Honor

Should we still consider Ring of Honor to be an indy promotion? They have a TV deal, monthly PPV events, tour the US alot and some other countries nationally, etc. Mainly we should stop calling it an indy promotion.--WillC 08:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction, they have bimonthly pay-per-views. Nenog (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, not thinking right.--WillC 09:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree on the change Afkatk (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, what would we call it? I'm not trying to be a smart ass but then what is it called? MPJ-DK (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just "a professional wrestling promotion"? Tony2Times (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Give it the same format as Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling]], Extreme Championship Wrestling]], and World Wrestling Entertainment. Opening line from TNA: Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) is an American professional wrestling promotion founded by Jeff Jarrett and his father Jerry Jarrett in May 2002. Follow the same style. Remove all mentions on independent, besides ones referring to the promotion while it was an indy promotion.--WillC 11:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, big help :) MPJ-DK (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I would still consider it a indy fed. It would help their case of they didn't tape their PPVs every 2 1/2 months (or tape them at all) and stop tapings a months worth of TV shows in one night (that archaic practice ended in the early '90s), make their shows entertaining to watch (good wrestling but crappy production values). 19:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you haven't heard. TNA is now going to tape an entire months worth of Impacts starting in May, from now on.--WillC 19:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And LDN did the same when they had a weekly television programme. And in terms of 'entertainment values' it's just trying to be a different product rather than WWE-lite. Tony2Times (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

to the Un-named comment: Impact when it was on One-hour used to tape 3 weeks worth of TV in 1 night as well so it's not like it's something which died in the Early 90's, and Smackdown recently just got done with taping 2 Smackdown's in 1 Night, and I don't see what a Taped PPV Delay has to do with not helping their case, the fact they are on PPV should be enough in the first place, TNA also used to run a Taped delay when they were on Weekly PPVs too and rarely held Live PPV Events, ROH only is working to what costs work better for them running a taping for a HD program every week is not a cheap process let me remind you. Afkatk (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That was mean, I accidentally did only 3 "~'s". As for costs, doing the TV shows costs them no more money than their average DVD tapings. HDNet provided them with the cameras, so you can't say they had to pay for the cameras either. Basically they do a 4 hour event and break that up into 4 weekly episodes of 1 hour each. I'm sorry, but you can't be taken seriously if yout TV tapings are 4 weeks behind and your PPV's are 2 months behind. At least TNA does their monthly PPV's live and only 2 (sometimes 3) TV tapings together. You can't say it's because they are new because ROH is actually 4 months older than TNA (ROH started in February 2002, TNA in June 2002). TJ Spyke 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if it came across mean it was not meant to, but still even with the costs, if its not ROH fussing about the costs I bet it would be HDnet who funds the tv show, I'd doubt HDnet would wish to run up costs by holding TV Tapings each week, for a show which probably only has about 20,000 viewers if that, I don't get why the taping of the PPVs and ROH's tv show would split them apart from the other promotions, even if you can't take it seriously it still doesn't really argue the fact that they aren't a national promotion. Afkatk (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It might cost them no more to do TV than DVD tapings but they'll earn more selling DVDs. Tony2Times (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this discussion should get back on track: we aren't ROH's financial strategists, we're Wikipedia editors. 99.224.117.66 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't live in the US and whenever I've been I've never used the TV so I don't really get how it works but I'm guessing there's lots of regional programming. Is ROH TV nationally syndicated? Are their PPVs? Tony2Times (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The TV show is on HDNet, a channel that is not even available to the majority of households in the US. Their PPV's are only from 1 provider I think, but they are also 2 months old (i.e. the March PPV was taped in early January). TJ Spyke 15:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Their PPV's come from InDemand, DirecTV, Dish Network, Viewers Choice and several other providers throughout North America. Why do you even cover wrestling if you don't watch some of the programming and don't do your research TJ? Look, 3 clicks on their site to the PPV/VOD section to the Caged Collision page, and I found this.

"ROH “Caged Collision” debuts this Friday April 17th on PPV at 10pm, and will be available through InDemand, DISH Network, Direct TV, & TVN in the United States, and in Canada with Bell Express Vu, & Viewer’s Choice Canada. “Caged Collision” will replay at 4/18 at 7pm, 4/19 at 9am, and twice on 4/20 at 1pm and 8pm. Full scheduling information can also be found here: http://www.indemand.com/product/view/114726. Check with your individual cable operator for exact showtimes." Not that hard. Link is right here http://rohwrestling.com/news/Article.aspx?id=2728 TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

When did I ever say I cover wrestling? If I did work for a site or magazine and had to cover ROH, I would. ROH must have expanded PPV providers because it wasn't that way at the beginning. I don't watch ROH because they are not good. I tried watching one of their DVDs, it was bad and the high school AV club level of production values made it seem worse. I tried watching the first episode of their TV show, the production values were slightly better but still not entertaining. I can safely say that I would never pay to watch anything from ROH and thus I am not gonna pay close attention to them. TJ Spyke 19:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You should watch Supercard of Honor 3. That is a great event. Very good matches. Or at least Joe vs Punk or Joe vs Kenta.--WillC 19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Joe/Punk trilogy really lives up to the hype and as time has progressed their filming quality has become better; Rising Above looks decent if not HD. I realise that not many people watch HDNet because you need to have an HD TV to view it, but my point was if people are able to receive the channel all over the country, as well as their PPVs, then they aren't really independent because they depend on the syndication of national pay-per-view networks and television subsidies, not just their own video and ticket sales. Tony2Times (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Slang words, legit, legitimate, kayfabe etc.

I have a problem that has repeatedly surfaced:

IMHO slang terms like "legit" and "kayfabe" are unavoidable in wrestling-related articles as they clearly denote a certain fact and all alternatives are unwieldy.

However, repeatedly I have run into editors who revert the word "legit" and its adverb form "legitely", decrying that it is a slang term (while at the same time they do not bother with the word "kayfabe" just a few lines apart.)

These editors insist on "legitimate" and "legitimately", with which I disagree:

• the wrestling specific term (slang if you will) is "legit" and not "legitimate"
• the word "legitimate" has the connotation of condoning whatever it is that is so described, which seems out of place especially in cases of injuries. "A legitimate injury" sounds like the one injured had it coming, which can hardly be the thing we want to say.

Given the repeated nature of this conflict, I'd like the ProWrestling Project to deal with it and ensure and end to the constant back and forth.

Regards, Str1977 ^(talk) 13:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen this problem occur. Obviously legit is fine to use. It is used universally amoung many different sports and non-relationed material. Now kayfabe is surely slang and sure be avoided at all chances. Just pipelinking it to storyline is fine. But legit there is no problem with using. So there is no problem with legit.--WillC 13:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to the original poster, I can't imagine anyone but you interpreting "legitimate" that way. It has long been the practice of this project to use the full word rather than a shortened version. It obviously doesn't condone anything, but rather indicates that the injury is genuine--in addition, the wikilink helps clear up any confusion. As for including other slang, please note that the other terms are also wikilinked and spelled out in full. If the term evolves to "kayfa" over time, it will still be spelled out as "kayfabe" in articles here. I think a bigger problem facing the project would be editors who claim that they remember things differently than the sourced version and add their version of events into articles, leaving the sources intact. At that point, it makes it appear that the sources back up the new version, which they obviously don't. The addition of unformatted references into otherwise-completely formatted Good Articles is also becoming a concern of mine. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be answering in such a dismissive way, Mr ColemanFan. For me, legitimate clearly does have that connotation (a connonation, not a denotation). "Legit" is a shortened form of legitimate but it has been established a term on itself. Please do not change the subject of this section. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the section is you complaining that people don't like your edits. While I don't doubt that you are acting in good faith, much of your editing on wrestling articles equates to vandalism. You have gone against established consensus of this project, you have added unsourced information and unreliably sourced information to articles, you have (perhaps unintentionally) made false claims that your version is backed up by sources, you have added poorly formatted content into articles that were otherwise consitently formatted, you have deleted content supported by reliable sources, you have reverted edits based on nothing more than your own unwillingness to read the reliable sources provided. Until you stop lowering the quality of professional wrestling articles, I will continue to revert edits and issue warnings. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I am acting in good faith and within the confines of WP policies. You are not! You are stating good faith but use personal attacks by calling my edits vandalism.

The longestablished consensus should be clearly provable on your part. I have seen nothing of the sort apart from your statements and your dismissive reverts.

Again, do not raise other issues in this section. You can create new sections (as I will for another issue in a minute). Next time you bring up unrelated stuff here I will remove it. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Voici consensus. Please note that the archives for this page have a search function, so simply typing in "legit" gives you this as the first result. It was agreed upon in 2007, thus forming a "longstanding consensus". GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is your consensus, I can only cringe. Five random postings, one by you and one in disagreement? Yours with the obvios intent to present the case wrongly as of course the adverb of "legit" is "legitely". I say your consensus is no consensus at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with just writing legit. I won't change it if somebody writes legit instead of legitimate since they mean the same things and neither are slang words and I can't think of any reason why legit can't be used. TJ Spyke 19:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Legit is just a shorthand way to say legitimate, which both mean the same thing even in the non-wrestling world.--Truco 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

But is it grammatically correct to use the word legit? I say no. Legitimately sounds better, means the same thing, and is definitely grammatically correct. Nikki♥311 20:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It does have connotations of law and legality though, which make it slightly odd. Tony2Times (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, consider

• "What he did may not have been legal, but it was legitimate." - does not mean "What he did was illegal but it was what he actually did." but that there (arguably) was a just cause for it.
• "That was a legitimate demand." - does mean "That's the demand he actually made" but that it was justified.
• "He was the legitimate King of France" - does not mean "He was effectively King of France" but that his claim was true one.

I would sincerly ask those that constantly ignore the problem to consider these examples.

"Legit" is not a normal word of Standard English but it is a Wrestling slam term (just as kayfabe, turn, heel, face) and hence has a life of its own. It does not have the same meaning as "legitimate". And it can surely form the adverb "legitely".

Str1977 ^(talk) 20:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a whole heap of sentences I don't understand, and not because of slang. Tony2Times (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Legit is not a wrestling slag term, that's just a preposterous comment, it may be slang yes but it's not wrestling specific. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

MC Hammer ≠ wrestler? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If Hammer was a wrestler he'd have a longer win streak than Goldberg, after all he's 2 Legit, 2 Quit ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Carlito

I understand that Carly Colón is more notable than Carlos Colón, Jr., but it's out of line that in articles where his name is mentioned, he is mentioned Carlito (Carly Colón). The name in parenthesis is supposed to be the real name, like Mr. Kennedy (Ken Anderson). What's the consensus about this? Feedback 03:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Carly is a shortened version of of Carlos. It's no different than writing "Ken Anderson" rather than "Kenneth Anderson" and he goes by Carly rather than Carlos. TJ Spyke 04:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why not Chris Irvine instead of Christopher when referring to Jericho? Feedback 11:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Jericho is notable enough that we don't need to include his real name. TJ Spyke 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he means why do people put Christopher Irvine in parenthesis as opposed to Chris Irvine. Tony2Times (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why not Chris Jericho (Chris Irvine) instead of "Chris Jericho (Christopher Irvine)" when referring to Jericho or Mike Knox (Mike Hettinga) instead of "Mike Knox (Michael Hettinga)" or what about "Zack Ryder (Matt Cardona)" instead of Zack Ryder (Matthew Cardona)? This list can go on and on, but I thought the parenthisis was for real names, not for nicknames. Feedback 11:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Shortened versions of names are not nicknames. "Chris" would not be a nickname for somebody named Christopher. Carly is short for Carlos, so it's not a nickname either. TJ Spyke 22:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Like TJ stated, shortened versions of a name is not a nickname, its a shorter version of their name. Now if I put "Chris Jericho (The Ayatolah of Rock and Rollah)", that's a nickname. I probably misspelled that :P--Truco 00:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I get it, I'm just asking why we're using Carlito's "shortname" and not Jericho's. Feedback 04:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We aren't using Jericho's real name. He is notable enough to not need it. If you see a article that has "Chris Jericho (Christopher Irvine)", feel free to change it to just say "Chris Jericho". TJ Spyke 15:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that there was a discussion a little earlier Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Move request at WP:RM that seems to be forgotten. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That was about moving the article, not whether to write Carly or Carlito. TJ Spyke 15:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

He has never been called Carlito Colon though, while Carly Colon is his real name. TJ Spyke 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Mike Knox has never been called Michael Hettinga, but in the 2009 WWE Draft article, that's the way he appears under "real name", because that's his "real name". And Carlito's real name is not Carly, its Carlos. Feedback 01:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Carly IS his real name, just a shortened version. That's like say Vince McMahon's real name is not Vince McMahon just because his full first name is Vincent. Carly is a shortened version of Carlos. It has been documented that he prefers Carly over Carlos. As for Mike Knox, we don't know if he prefers Mike, Mikey, or Michael. TJ Spyke 01:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Another issue: what of disputed claims

There is another problem (caused again by Gary Coleman).

How shall we deal when there are conflicting accounts of one event, in which the parties involved directly confirm one account (albeit from different directions) and dispute the others (which is upheld only by a third party book).

To bring up the actual case (on Survivor Series (1992)):

Apparently one book reports the rumour that the Ultimate Warrior left the WWF late in 1992 as he wouldn't want to feud with Nailz.

However, WWF officials dispute this account directly and state that Warrior (and Davey Boy Smith) were fired due to drug allegations (probably steriods).

Warrior, in an interview, confirms that this was the WWF's motivation, that he was fired due to such allegations but denies the allegations and considers himself (and Smith) to be scape-goats.

That the two parties involved among all their diagreements agree about this one element makes it credible.

Now, I am of the opinion that a clearly disputed and untrue version need not be included at all, but I am willing to compromise and include the alternative account in way that makes it clear that both parties agree with the one explanation and dispute the other.

However, Mr Coleman is bent on presenting it as two equal versions, thereby providing the reader with misinformation. Note that the people involved are all alive and hence WP:BLP applies. It is also childish to think we merely have to note one account and another next to each other. What's next - should we give Holocaust denial equal time as well? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We have one account from a reliable industry expert. On the other side of the coin, we have WWE, under attack for the deaths of countless wrestlers as a result of steroids. The company issued a DVD with the intention of making the Ultimate Warrior look bad (we certainly can agree, I'm sure, that Vince McMahon takes liberties with the truth on many occasions when it helps paint him in a better light or makes him looks like he has been proactive on the steroid issue). The DVD may or may not state something about steroids. All you have done, after adding the information without a reference -- but placing it before a different reference to make it appear as though it was backed up by the previously existing reference -- was add the name of a DVD. Do you have a quotation you can provide from the DVD (and since it's a Good Article with otherwise uniformly-formatted references, would you mind at least adding the proper information to the reference?)? The other reference you have provided is an unreliable source -- a blog entry. Did the blog actually interview the Ultimate Warrior? Who knows. I could start a blog tomorrow and post fake interviews with all kinds of celebrities. That's why Wikipedia has a policy regarding the use of reliable sources. If the interview is legitimate (meaning real, not that it is universally thought to be a good thing), can we take the Ultimate Warrior at face value these days? If you've read his website of destrucity and watched his speeches, you've probably noticed that he's becoming somewhat of a raving lunatic. With that said, I think there is a good case for including both sides of the story -- without inserting additional text to try to dismiss one of them. To compare this to holocaust denial is absolutely unforgivable on your part (however, I do still expect an apology). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the WWF in itself wold not be such a spotlessly credible source. However, when they agree on this one point with the guy that should be most antagonistical to them in that regard, they are credible. Also, if the WWF were lying, they would lie the other way around, claiming that it was the Nailz feud instead of the steroids.

Furthermore, please do not talk nonsense. The other source is not a blog entry but an interview with the Warrior. It is merely included in a blog. Whether we can take the Warrior seriously is a valid question, but when he happens to agree with the WWF on this - why should it be wrong?

WP has a policy about sources but apparently you don't understand it.

No, there is no valid reason to include a statement corroborated by two actually involved parties en par with a nonsensical rumour included in a book by some guy.

Once you accept this, we can talk about the proper format of the reference. I included it on short notive because someone (was it you?) removed the actual facts alltogether crying for sourcing. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at this quote from WP:RS: :Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Therefore, a published book is considered more reliable to Wikipedia than WWE reporting on itself, or Warrior talking about himself in an interview. With that said, though, it doesn't mean it can't be added (if done properly and in accordance with policies). In my opinion, we should state the book version, and than present the counter-version beginning with something like "According to WWE, however..." or "The Ultimate Warrior disputes this claim...". Nikki♥311 19:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What self-published sources are you talking about? If people only stopped quoting policy all the time and instead spoke in references to the issues at thand.

And interview is not a self-published source, and discounting anything ever included in an official statement by a company would tear a giant whole into WP (you can already file RfDs for all the title histories that link to WWF material). It is not the WWF reporting on itself but reporting on the Warrior. And the video is just as published as your cherished rumour book.

I certainly will not accept that some rumour contained in a book (and a rumour that even a blind man can detect as bogus - who else was supposed to feud with Nailz?) takes precedence over the actual facts of the matter. The factual events have to come first and the rumour can be added (with a proper disclaimer of course).

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

One section up there, I thought this guy was a deuche. But here, he brings up a valid point. If both of the two parties state the same exact thing, who is "RD Reynolds" to call them both liars? Feedback 23:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not, then, present both sides as a claim instead of fact? We weren't there, so there is no telling which side is right. It would be more neutral that way anyway. Nikki♥311 23:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because both sides are not equally factual. One of the main problems with WP is bad compromises resulting in a list of supposedly equal claims even when the facts are quite clear. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Neither can be proven as fact, so neither should be stated as the definitive story. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe yes, maybe no. Depend on what actually you want to do. If you simply want a "he says, she says" as you did earlier this is unacceptable. However, if you mean: first present A, then present B and then say that WWF & Warrior independently disputed B, then that's okay. However, the Survivor Series article is hardly the right place for a full and comprehensive treatment of the issue, hence I placed parts in the footnote. I would have no problem with putting all the supposed reasons for Warrior's departure in that footnote and simply the fact that the left in the main text because that is actually what is important to the article in question. Let's keep some perspective. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To dispute it would require them to say that it is false. They both say it was about steroids, that doesn't mean he didn't also refuse to be in a feud with Nailz. TJ Spyke 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Tna imPact

TNA iMPACT is apparently now TNA Wrestling, at least that's what 5 different TV providers say. Should we reflect the change in the article? Feedback 01:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No, TNA still refers it to as iMPACT!.--Truco 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They even do that on mine, but the show is still TNA Impact.--WillC 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Any source for that? I haven't found anything for that. --Numyht (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to be be joking. How about the show itself? Being called Impact many many times. Or the show's page on Spike [5] or TNA's website [6]. There is nothing to support claims that the show is not called Impact anymore and I will be frank and say that only an idiot would claim otherwise (unless you are saying that TNA doesn't know the name of its own show and neither does the channel that airs it). TJ Spyke 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Its like on my Comcast menu, they list WWE Raw as WWE Monday Night Raw, but WWE only calls it Raw.--Truco 20:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, when I had cable my cable provider (Time Warner) did the same thing. They also would get other show names wrong sometimes too. TJ Spyke 20:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Over the Edge (1999) Today's Featured Article request

I've added OTE at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending and plan on nominating it for TFA for the main page for May 23 tomorrow or on May 24 Wiki Time. In total, it has 5 points and it has a good chance at being TFA for that day. Just wanted to let the project know.--Truco 03:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I shall try to get a spoken thing done for it should it be a TFA. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Well, its up. Lets see where it ends up from here.--Truco 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Friday Night SmackDown

Can some people give their comments on the talkpage about the announcer situation? I have tried talking to the user who keeps switching the order, but he is ignoring me and not replying on either of our talkpages or the SmackDown talkpage. Admins are reluctant to step in. If there is a consensus to have it at Ross and Grisham (rather than Grisham and Ross). This is a trivial issue, but the user refuse to discuss it and just keeps reverting (not even leaving comments in the edit summary). TJ Spyke 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be Grisham and Ross, as we've always done "Play-byPlay and Color Commentator" in that order. And if not, it's been alphabetical, which would also have Grisham first. Remember that Jim Ross is now the Color Commentator. Feedback 01:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Grisham and Ross. Mshake3 (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Legacy (Professional Wrestling)...

... has been created. The last time this was brought up, it was regarding an article in a sandbox, then the user was blocked so we didn't really get anywhere. Notable or not? Arguments on the merits of its inclusion/exclusion start here. By the way, if it's kept, it really should be moved to the proper capitalisation of The Legacy (professional wrestling). ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 03:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, they still aren't notable. They haven't really done anything in terms of "notability". Now if they win some titles, then yeah. But for now, its like when Evolution was formed, they weren't notable until they became the dominant stable of WWE. Legacy is getting there, but not quite.--Truco 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not notable, at the moment they are jobber squad inc. It would take a WWE Title and tag title win to change my mind. Plus being pushed a little better to seem like that aren't just going to be around for a few months and gone. They look like Shannon Moore and Jimmy Wang Yang at the moment. Done nothing notable just still stand around and try to look pretty. We all know Cody is trying but fails.--WillC 03:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should be renamed. As far as I know, the group is just called "Legacy" without making use of "The" ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WWE seems to use both (for example, the Backlash 2009 match preview says "Randy Orton and The Legacy"). The Legacy has not done anything notable. Orton has been feuding with Triple H, buy Rhodes and DiBiase are nothing more than lackies right now. TJ Spyke 03:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The card rundown and their namebar on every show only says "Legacy" though. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Various names for them have been used from The Legacy by Orton when he first announced the group to Legacy by Cole and the Backlash card to Randy Orton's Legacy by other commentators. I think The Legacy is the most logical compromise. Also I think they'll be notable after winning the WWE Belt because they also won the Rumble; I know it was technically just Orton but they acted as a unit up until the end and distracted Triple H for Orton to win it and they were then involved in all the build up towards WrestleMania. Tony2Times (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Legacy (WWE Stable) - 20:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's ridiculous how a team isn't notable unless they win a title. So what? Koko B. Ware isnt a HoFamer just because he didnt win a title? Hey, why don't we prod The Killer Bees (professional wrestling). Feedback 03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has said a team isn't notable unless they win a title, only that a title would help establish notability for them. Koko B. Ware did win multiple titles, and The Killer Bees were a tag team for several years and involved in some big feuds. TJ Spyke 04:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes a world title debate.

Recently, we've had several newer users changing all references of Punk's three world title reigns (ROH, ECW and WHC) to include only one (the WHC), mostly due to PWI's view of what makes a world title. Several established WP:PW members have weighed in on this debate at Talk:CM Punk and seem to be in agreement that it's the promotion that determines what is or is not a world title. PWI has no authority over any promotion and the magazine's view is irreverent.

So, I'm here to ask this. Does the rest of the project agree? Can we get a clear consensus on this issue and lay it to rest for now? And regardless of the answer, perhaps a new hidden warning or even an entry in WP:PW/MOS is in order. This issue has spiraled out of control,and I believe one user was even banned as a result of edit warring because of it.

The issue has not yet spilled over to other articles detailing ROH and ECW Champions, but I feel that's only a matter of time. Any opinions and comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I believe we have a consensus but to be safe, lets discuss it here. I feel a world title is any title defended world wide and the company that owns such title states it is a world title. In heavyweight titles, which we mainly debate, I believe the following are the current legit world championships: ROH World Championship, TNA World Heavyweight Championship, WWE Championship, World Heavyweight Championship, and the ECW Championship.--WillC 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the NWA title? I doubt there's any debate about earlier reigns being considered world title runs, but about more recent title holders, like Adam Pearce? Going by the definition above, we'd have to consider him a world champion as well (which is fine with me). For the matter, what of the CZW World Heavyweight Championship? Or FIP? PGW, WWC? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the NWA Title. I knew I was missing something. As for the FIP, PWG, CZW, and WWC. It matters if they are called a world title by the company and if it is defended world wide. By being defended once outside the US is cool. I don't know if that is that has happened with those titles.--WillC 19:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my argument, which those involved tend to agree with.

• This debate is constantly brought up by certain fans in the IWC (IPs and one time only users) that, for whatever reason, do not view a certain championship as being a world title, and thus remove any mention to it being a world title in its article. One of the titles that is constantly brought up in talk pages is the ECW Championship. The reason being that these fans in the IWC simply cannot view Chavo Guerrero, Mark Henry, and Jack Swagger among others as being world champions and thus view WWE's decision to award them the title as treating it like a mediocre accomplishment. In general, these fans in the IWC simply cannot view certain champions as being world champions for reasons ranging from not being widely knowm to being viewed as undeserving to even personal dislike. As a result, they refuse to consider the championships that these champions held as being world titles despite the various promotions and the champions themeselves acknowledging the accomplishment as being a world championship.

1) Basing information on opinion, such as one's view on how WWE "treats" the ECW Championship or one's view on any promotion for that matter constitutes original research. As for WWE's stance on the status of belt, Matt Hardy's bio page on WWE.com before the 2009 Draft read - "In 2008, Hardy was drafted to ECW as part of the WWE Draft. A few months later, at Unforgiven, Hardy satisfied his career-long hunger for a World Title when he won the ECW Championship Scramble Match against Mark Henry, Finlay, Chavo Guerrero and The Miz." Matt Hardy's bio now reads - "Apart from his sibling, Matt has achieved success in solo ranks as well, including United States, Hardcore, European and Cruiserweight Championship reigns. The greatest achievement, however, came in 2008 when Matt triumphed in a Championship Scramble Match to capture the ECW Title; his first taste of World Championship gold." - affirming WWE's recognition of the ECW Championship as a world title. As for the stance of other promotions on the ECW Championship, yes the NWA, ROH, and TNA do in fact recognize the ECW Championship as a world title.

• Once faced with this fact, the opposing side resorts to the argument of whether the championship's name indicates the title's status.

2) A championship's name does not necessarily reflect the "status" of the title. The WWF/WWE Championship hasn't been referred to with the word "world" in its name for over a decade. The same was for the WCW Championship while in the WWF. Did these change of names mean anything? No, plain and simple.

• One ridiculous argument that was thrown on one occasion was that a championship may be called a world title on television, but if so, it would surely be a kayfabe or storyline world championship and that the ECW Championship does not appear to be an official world title, in real life.

3) (KAYFABE World title) The most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Professional wrestling is scripted. Thus all accomplishments - King of the Ring, King of the Mountain, Royal Rumble, World title, Tag Team title, Women's title, etc. - are determined by a script. Therefore any and every accomplishment is a "kayfabe" accomplishment. I now realize that the majority of fans that so naively label themselves as smart marks to separate themeselves from those they degradingly refer to as marks, because they believe that they posses a greater knowledge of porfessional wrestling over the casual fan due to their access to dirtsheets and newsletters on the internet, are really nothing but marks themeselves... Kayfabe World title, please...

• One of the more common arguments given is Pro Wrestling Illustrated and its recognition of world titles.

4) Pro Wrestling Illustrated is a magazine with its own set of views. It is not however a nor the definitive authority in world title recognition. There is no outside entity with any authority, such as that to grant or discharge world status to titles, over another entity. Now for argument's sake, lets say one chose to follow PWI's view on the issue. Then he or she would only recognize the World Heavyweight Championship and the TNA World Heavyweight Championship as the only world titles in professional wrestling. Yes, since PWI's latest issue, only those two are referred to and recognized as world titles by the magazine, leaving the WWE Championship in the dust.[7][8]

• The final argument is over who or what has the authority to grant world status to a championship. The credit for this concluding response goes to User:Odin's Beard who made a lot of great points.

5) World status is ultimately granted to a championship by the company or organization that owns it. In boxing, those of the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, International Boxing Federation, and World Boxing Organization 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 promotions have done, these 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". There is no universal decision which grants world status to any championship, 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 that plays baseball, so how are they world champions? It's all ultimately about the stance of the organization, plain and simple. WWE has theirs, TNA, the NWA, the WBA, MLB and so on and so forth.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO the company that it is in needs to be global and they need to treat and acknowledge it as a world title (so for me) TNA, WWE, WHC and ECW are the current! Adster95 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What about ROH? They have toured Japan, England, and Canada to name a few. Also have defended both the ROH World Championship and the ROH World Tag Team Championship in Japan.--WillC 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Had TNA defended their belts internationally since last year? ROH toured England 4 years ago and regularly go to Japan as Will said. Tony2Times (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The X Division and Tag Team belts were defended on their UK Maximum Impact Tour earlier this year. Sting didn't even travel on the tour (which isn't surprising consider his reputation of only doing what he has to). It doesn't matter much anyways since TNA is seen by millions of people every week on their TV show (on a channel that most people actually get, unlike HDNet). TJ Spyke 21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Impact's highest rating is 1.3 which translates to just under 2 million viewers, so it's only seen by a million and some people every week, not millions plural. ROH's viewership is better gauged by DVD sales. Tony2Times (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That rating is only for the United States. TNA Impact is seen in many countries across the road. ROH's DVDs are obviously not huge sellers as they never chart on Billboard (which to me indicates they basically sell enough to make a profit, not hard considering how little money they appear to spend and the fact that they like to screw some people by not paying them at all). A worldwide TV show can be and often are viewed by casual fans. Only hardcore fans are gonna go to ROH's website and order one of their DVDs. TJ Spyke 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, but the channel that broadcasts Impact in the UK is quite a Mickey Mouse channel mostly known for softcore porn and apparently we're TNA's second biggest market. Conversely I've seen a few people wearing ROH merch on the streets, I was rather shocked considering I've never seen TNA merch being worn. Not that that's any sort of citeable fact or wide survey, just as an FYI. Tony2Times (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither Wikipedia, nor any of its editors, should be making a call regarding what is or is not a world title. There is also no reason to classify anything as a world title. The point of view problem can be eliminated simply be rewriting the sentence from "Punk is a former three time world champion, having won the ROH World Championship while in Ring of Honor, the ECW Championship during his time on ECW, and the World Heavyweight Championship immediately after being drafted to Raw." to "Punk has won the ROH World Championship while in Ring of Honor, the ECW Championship during his time on ECW, and the World Heavyweight Championship immediately after being drafted to Raw." Going by what PWI says doesn't work, as they are one in a sea of voices. Going by what the promotion says doesn't work, as I could start a promotion tomorrow with a "World Heavyweight Championship", which obviously wouldn't put my title on the same level as the WWE Championship. Let's avoid the term to avoid the POV and avoid the disputes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little more on why "Going by what the promotion says" wouldn't work? I find your reason {I could start a promotion tomorrow with a "World Heavyweight Championship", which obviously wouldn't put my title on the same level as the WWE Championship) interesting because it seems you are treating the matter of world titles in professional wrestling as if they existed outside of the ring per say.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Many small promotions call their primary title a World Heavyweight Championship. For example, the SCW World Heavyweight Championship. Afa Anoai's World Star Wrestling Federation promoted its title as a World Heavyweight Championship, but we don't have an article on the promotion, let alone the title. Any fly-by-night organization call name its titles a "world" title, but that obviously wouldn't make it a world title in most people's minds. Staying away from taking sides at all is the best bet. List the titles, refer to them by the names the promotion uses, but don't try to compile a list of world titles or claim that "Wrestler X has Y number of world titles". GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The disputes are going to take place whether or not the term itself is avoided. It's just how it is. As a fan, the issues of what make a world championship a "world" championship could be many and varied. For the sake of Wikipedia, however, they're perfectly clear to me. The WWE says their title is a world title then Wikipedia articles should reflect that. Not because I or any of us personally agree with it, but this is a situation where the company's views are relevant. This isn't an issue where a company is trying to rewrite wrestling history to suit its own needs, it's simply about a piece of property. A championship is a piece of property owned by a wrestling company and their interpretation of that property, provided that interpretation doesn't infringe upon the other championships owned by other companies, should be the prevalent ones as far as Wikipedia is concerned.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So if Alpha Slumdog Daddy's Shaq-Fu Inner-Ogdenville Wrizzestling Association started promoting their main title as the ASDSFIOWA World Heavyweight Championship, does that make it just as much of a world title as the WWE Championship or the NWA World Heavyweight Championship? Can the IWGP Heavyweight Championship never be considered a world title because it doesn't have the word "World" in its name? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As a fan, from that perspective, it doesn't. But if the company is notable, then it is just as notable in wikipedia to be listed next to the WWE Championship, and believe me, Wikipedia has pretty strict criteria when it comes to notability. (WP:MADEUP) Finally, for the record, IWGP has never referred to the championship specifically as a world heavyweight championship. As for IGF's IWGP Third Belt Championship, only TNA has referred to the title as a world title. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not up to me to decide. As a fan of wrestling, I'd say no. As a Wikipedia editor, I simply say report the facts as they are. If Alpha Slumdog Daddy's Shaq-Fu Inner-Ogdenville Wrizzestling created a "world" championship and an article was started on it, then the view of that company regarding its piece of property is the one that carries the most weight. As far as the IWGP strap goes, I don't know if New Japan considers it a world championship or not. Based on the various appearances of the IWGP tag titles on TNA programming, in which TNA refers to them multiple times as world tag titles, then I guess the same could go for the IWGP Heavyweight Championship. That, however, is just speculation.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Really though? Can this project not focus on better things? We had like 3 discussions in the archive over this in the past 2 months. I think for now, its best to rule that the World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling) article be moved to Professional wrestling slang#W, where we note the term as a term used by a promotion to describe its highest contested championship. Lets move on now.--Truco 22:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I was going to bring up was PWI's article and what should be done about the Reigns list now that PWI doesn't recognize the WWE Championship. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We cannot base World Titles of the opinion of a magazine that is not officially praised by any promotion, its not the like Sports Illustrated Magazine. Which is why its best to leave it neutral and make it a term in the slang dictionary.--Truco 22:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about that! I was referring to the list of reigns on the PWI article. Take a look at it. It has the number of days a world title recognized by the magazine has been held by a champion. What I meant was, now that the WWE Championship isn't recognized by PWI, should we just get rid of these lists in the article all together. For the record, PWI's opinion shouldn't be noted anywhere outside its own article. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--}

It's not like WWE ignores PWI. They use PWI's photos all the time (watch just about any WWE bio DVD), and the individual wrestlers do accept their PWI Award plaques (when TNA did a tour of Booker T's house last year you could see the PWI plaques hanging on his wall). TJ Spyke 22:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WWE will on this. Vince McMahon isn't going to stop think of and promoting the original world championship in his company as just that simply because PWI doesn't recognize it. As for the PWI article, I agree that it's views have to be taken into account. If PWI no longer views the WWE Championship as a world title, for whatever mind bogglingly stupid reason, then the lists should probably be taken out. I doubly agree that PWI's opinions houldn't be noted outside its article.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[Bullet]Basically, the article should be gotten rid of because it is based highly on an opinion of a magazine, which is not endorsed (100%) by all promotions of professional wrestling. Like the NFL does to Sports Illustrated. A definition works better IMO for all cases. If the promotion wants to call it a World Title, who are we to say no its not? Just because PWI said so? Its like saying Jimbo is not the Wikipedia creator, just because someone says hes not.

[TJ]Basically, the promotions don't accept PWI as a source to tell them whether their titles are "World" or not.--Truco 23:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the list accordingly.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh you meant on the PWI article, no that should be left alone, the article WHC (PW) should be gotten rid of, is what I meant. PWI is entitled to their opinion, and that article is where it can stay at.--Truco 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that you must to keep the list, because appear the titles reigns in order to the titles recogniced as World by PWI. The list can appear in the PWI article, but not in WHC article. --81.36.175.63 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

PWI does not recognize the WWE title as a world title?!

Since when? I have seen no evidence whatsoever. The two links that were "supposed" evidence actually state the WWE Championship as a world title[9] and all it shows here[10] is that they named one "heavyweight championship" to differentiate from the other; this article states nothing of world title status. Feedback 22:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The only two titles referred to as world championships within the magazine are the World Heavyweight Championship and TNA World Heavyweight Championship. The only effort to differentiate the WWE Championship from the World Championship in the magazine's history has been the use of the terms "Raw World Championship" and "SmackDown World Championship", which as of 2008 was abandoned. Regardless of this fact, this scan shows that only two championships are recognized by the magazine. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It does only name 2 titles as world titles. Those are the WWE Championship and TNA world title. Regardless if there's only 2, the one named there is the WWE Championship not the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). Feedback 00:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Does any of this really matter? I am sure I am not the only one sick of discussing this over and over. TJ Spyke 01:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we seriously just move the article like I proposed to the slang terms. Lets put it to rest already.--Truco 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You proposed? Umm... I'm pretty sure that while a lot of people bickered about this, I came up with the idea to add it to the slang page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 66#New proposal for World Heavyweight Championship classification. Feedback 03:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Feedback, does it matter who proposed it? No it doesn't. Lets just agree to move it to slang terms and protect the redirect so no ips undo the edit. Let it say that a world championship is any championship defended world wide and recognized by the promotion as such. Since multiple organizations believe championships can be world titles and not be a heavyweight title. The TNA X and Women's championships to give a few examples. Plus it would be nice to link to something that doesn't have heavyweight in its name so it can be used universally.--WillC 07:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad, it doesn't matter who proposed it. Anyway, I have absoulutely no idea what you said after "by the promotion as such". I don't understand the linking problem you pointed out. Please explain further, Feedback 10:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Will means that the slang term shouldn't be World Heavyweight Championship but rather World Championship because in Lucha Libre, Heavyweight isn't the premiere title of most promotions and also most female wrestlers aren't heavyweight but their titles are sometimes considered World Championships. Tony2Times (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. Sure, that would make sense. Feedback 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then we need to make separate entries. The WHC is a term used for the top tier title, it doesn't matter if a title doesn't have the H, this is what they still refer to. A World Championship on the other hand would be any other type of title that a promotion recognizes as a World Title, like the Cruiserweight Championship of the World. Then another entry for World Tag Team Championship should be included.--Truco 16:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well now that would open up a can of worms. See, in professional wrestling any championship that is promoted as regional (Intercontinental -- North/South America, United States -- United States, European -- Europe, North American -- North America) would be the only type of championship not to be a world title. By Will's def. every other championship would be a world title. (Cruiserweight, X Division, Hardcore, Women's, Legends, etc.) This would be very conflicting when the most common usage of the term "world title" (regardless of the inclusion of "heavyweight") is for the promotion's overall top prize (regardless of division). ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How about then we just have the one article on Championships in Professional Wrestling which informs the reader that while championships in pro wrestling are scripted, they are a recognition of a performer's ability. It could then go on to discuss how championships are divided normally either by weight class or by division and then point out that while heavyweight wrestling in North America, Britain and Japan? is the highest honour, in Mexico lower weight classes are more highly sought. It could also discuss the way in which championships are considered to be devalued when they change hands too much or awarded to people considered unworthy of them. Tony2Times (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I like that... and hey, It could all go into Championship (professional wrestling)^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So why do we have a WHC article then? Is there an article on generic Cruiserweight Championships, Women's Championships &c? Surely that's enough. Tony2Times (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about The Legacy

I know that you don't write nothing about The Legacy because isn't a notable team, but, Can you write about the legacy as an extension of the team Priceless? If you make this, they won teh tag team titles and will be more important. --81.36.175.63 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Still can't believe Legacy can be considered non-notable if they're main eventing a Pay-Per-View and are advertised on WWE.com as 'Legacy'. Ridiculous, and I truly feel some people on here are now resisting the page creation purely for the sake of claiming to be right. TheDingbat (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't know if they will be main eventing Backlash. Regardless of if they are in the main event or not, they may be notable enough. My own personal opinion is that any group with a team name should get an article after 1 month of being together, but I know that would not be OK with Wikipedia rules in general. TJ Spyke 20:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to see if the consensus has changed, does anyone still have objections to The Legacy group being created? They've been involved in the main events of Raw and SmackDown since a week before the Rumble; they were instrumental in Orton winning the Rumble, they were there as a group when Shane and Stephanie were assaulted, Rhodes and DiBiase were meant to be facing Triple H when he attacked Orton's house, they interrupted a No Way Out match, they will be main/penultimate main eventing Backlash. That's almost four months of non stop storylining, okay it's only one storyline but it's been a long one that led towards WrestleMania and has involved three McMahons, one McMahon-in-law and has been indirectly linked with Evolution. Tony2Times (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Evolution the stable, not Darwinian theory. Tony2Times (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think its time to create the stable enough has happened even before they officially became a stable to make a good article and the fact is they are main eventers. The cabinet has a stable so should Legacy,LifeStroke420 (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm in support of The Legacy getting an article (indeed I wrote one when I saw that the page had been created and was awful before it was reverted) but The Cabinet won three championships and were around for 9 months so it's not much of a comparison. Vince's Devils on the other hand, were around a few months, didn't win a championship and didn't have nearly as high profile a feud as this (two if you count the fact that as they were forming they took out Batista and now he's back to bore them to death for that feud too). Tony2Times (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there some way of taking this to a vote? I just don't believe that anyone can doubt the legitimacy and notability of Legacy now, being as they have virtually dominated 2009 in WWE, especially when it comes to major incidents such as title-winning and the Royal Rumble. TheDingbat (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated The Legacy (Professional Wrestling) article and updated it to the Backlash match because they have dominated Raw for four months, and have also main event SmackDown a fair few times too, have won two major accomplishments and the background info details Priceless too. I was just being bold, if anyone has a problem with it then fair enough and I've left the notability tag there as it is still in question I suppose but no-one seems to be objecting anymore. Also could an administrator move it to non capitalised quantifier if there is no objection to it existing. Thank you please. Tony2Times (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Illustrated

who in the hell removed the list of reigns on PWI im gonna try to repair it. now i know it 6bulletproof3 fucked up the PWI page tell him that he shouldnt remove important wrestling shit (Questchest (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Consensus wast to remove it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the consensus was that it is okay for the list to be in the PWI article, go look at the world title section again. TJ Spyke 17:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How is this important? With PWI only recognizing two championships as world championships anymore, all we are listing is a bunch of reigns in their opinion, really nothing notable. Useless junk that only helps wrestling fans who are in-love with PWI. I say remove all reign lists regrading PWI. It is listcruft IMO.--WillC 21:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, WP:LISTCRUFT. I agree to remove it. Feedback 12:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think, for many people, it could be a very useful list. People who don't agree with Pro Wrestling Illustrated are probably going to avoid the list, so it's certainly not hurting anything. The prose above the list makes it clear that the numbers gven are just the opinion of one publisher and should not be taken as authoritative. There's nothing to be gained from removing it, so I think it should stay. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Some people might agree with PWI, but I doubt it's because "PWI said so", but just because they think so too. And if they already think so, there's no point in reading PWI's opinion. Of course it's their own opinion, but how is that opinion notable? How is "What PWI thinks guys' world title reigns are" useful to anyone? Feedback 17:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's useful for an understanding of Pro Wrestling Illustrated, which is why it is only found in the article about the magazine. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, so what if PWI think that. Just 'cause PWI said so why does it need to be added. I mean, it's not like we list any other kind of ranking system by the PWI. Or any of their awards either. Just 'cause PWI says so, why should we list it(?) Tony2Times (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of comprehensiveness, I think it does mean that it should be added. As for your comment about the awards, every PWI award has an article. It's been discussed here a few times before, and it was determined every time that PWI awards are notable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was being ironic in an attempt to support your point. If their awards are counted then surely the World Titles are an award given both by the federations and also by the PWI, at certain times. Tony2Times (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Would there be any way to cite such list? Otherwise it would be original research. PWI currently recognizes 2 championships and there presently isn't a source available that states when a title ceased to be recognized by the magazine.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

World Champions in WWE / World Heavyweight Championships in WWE

Thoughts? Feedback 11:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Many, yes - thanks for asking ;) (but seriously - why? what'd be the point of this article?). MPJ-DK (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first what are you asking? A list of people who have won the WWE and/or the WHC in WWE or a list of reigns of the ECW, WWE, and WHC? Maybe something like this? Just trying to figure out the first one.--WillC 11:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like an effective way to drag out the current "what is and what is not a world title" debate by extending it to cover another article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

actually, I was thinking of a list of world champions in WWE like all WWE champions, World heayweight champions, ECW champions (post-bankrupcy), WCW champions (post bankrupcy), and WWE Undisputed champions. And I was thinking it will be irrelevant to the current "world title situation" (or non-situation) and instead, it can at least encompass who IS a world champ in WWE's POV as there's is much more relevant than PWI. I like what Will did with the TNA article; I was thinking of something similar except that WwE had more than 1 at a time. Feedback 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point really. Why not then include the NWA World Hwavyweight Championship? It was defended in WWE (well, WWWF/WWF) multiple times back when WWE was part of the NWA. What about the USWA Championship? It was defended at King of the Ring 1993. Also, the WWE Championship and WWE Undisputed Championship are the exact same titles. The TNA situation is completely different since TNA considered the NWA title to be their title and consider all NWA champions from Ken Shamrock up to the NWA/TNA split to be former TNA champions (even though that is BS, Ron Killings is not a former TNA World Heavyweight Champion no matter what TNA says). TJ Spyke 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I get it, so yeah add all those titles. But I think it's encyclopedic to include a list of all the world champions in wwe. For example, although Chris Jericho is a 2-time world champion, he is actually a 5-time World HW Champion because of his 2 WCW title reigns in WWE and his 1 WWE title reigns; do you really think people who don't understand wrestling will get that right off the bat? I think not, so I'm suggesting a list that effectively lists all his world title reigns in order which were done in WWE (just like Rock's 7+2, Booker's 1+1, etc.) Feedback 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you know what you could do? Look at List of World Heavyweight Champions and List of WWE Champions. Job done. This is beyond pointless. People would get that Jericho is a five time World Champion because he's a two time World Heavyweight Champion, a two time WCW World Champion and a one time WWF Undisputed Champion. It says it in the opening paragraph of his article. If a non-fictionalised sport like boxing can have multiple world titles then people can surely understand the concept of a scripted sport having multiple world championships too. Tony2Times (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see the need to create a article for every world title reign in WWE when there is no real benefit. TJ Spyke 22:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems highly redundant to me. We already have lists of champions by title. — Gwalla | Talk 22:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, question: Does anyone have a problem with creating the article I have in the above subpage? One for the WHC and WTTC. That way we have a full list of reigns like TNA's history, and can explain better the reason TNA state former NWA Champions are TNA Champions.--WillC 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, WWE states any NWA, AWA, WCW, WWF, ECW, WWE and World champions as World champions, so it's actually the same dilemma. And TNA calls Kurt Angle an 11-time world champ with only 8 world titles, so TNA isn't really that reliable. Feedback 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But WWE don't even believe the AWA exist anymore. Plus they don't state that any WHC's title history is apart of the WWE Championship. Unlike TNA who believe that the NWA Champions in TNA are former TNA World Heavyweight Champions. Plus if you do the math, Angle is an 11 time world champion. IWGP Third Belt, two time TNA WHC, 1 time WHC, one time WCW Championship, 4 time WWE Champion, then two medals in wrestling. That makes 11.--WillC 01:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The AWA doesn't exist anymore, it folded in 1991 (no, that promotion by Dale Gagner was not the AWA as he never legally had the right to the name and thus was forced to stop using the name. It would be no different than some indy promoter trying to start a promotion called "World Championship Wrestling"). TNA calls Angle a 12 time world champion, even though he has won 8 (the IWGP 3rd Belt isn't a world title and calling the medals world titles when it comes to professional wrestling is a little silly, real sports like boxing separate amateur and professional titles). TJ Spyke 01:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I know the AWA is dead, I'm stating WWE don't believe AWA ever existed. The Third belt was defended in two countries and the company which owned it believed it was a world title, making it a world title. Either way they are still considered world championships. Not belts, but still are considered world titles.--WillC 01:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if WWE thought AWA didn't exist, what do you say of this? Feedback 03:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WWE has rarely ever admitted rival companies exist, they don't currently pretend the AWA never existed. As for the 3rd Belt, the promotion that owned it claimed it was the IWGP World Heavyweight Championship despite the fact that they had no claim over that belt. IGF was basically a shell and ran very few shows. None of this matters of coarse since it's not relevant to the discussion. TJ Spyke 01:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well lets get back to the main discussion. Does anyone have a problem with creating List of World Tag Team Champions in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling and List of World Heavyweight Champions in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling? This could slove a problem with their history and have a page we can direct too when it becomes a problem at times.--WillC 02:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But Will, it's basically a mixture of a portion of the NWA tag title article and the TNA tag title article; same with the world title. I think it'd be just fine to place a hatnote for those who would be confused.

If not, I think seperating the NWA title reign article by eras would actually be necessary; by the promotion the title was in (because we all know it has been in MANY promotions). Feedback 11:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's the best solution but I'd be in favour of it if nothing else could be thought of. Is there a problem with putting the NWA:TNA reigns in the List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions article on a separate table that is before the current one, with all the relevant explanations? I know it is not the TNA World Heavyweight Championship but they are now considered to be TNA World Heavyweight Champions aren't they? So the title of the article wouldn't be too misleading and there'd be a big disclaimer saying that while they are TNA World Heavyweight Champions they did not win the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. What would be wrong with that? Much like the List of WCW World Tag Team Champions. Tony2Times (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The WCW tag article is not a good example. It is a mess and full of BS. TJ Spyke 23:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, someone should take it out of the example articles on the front page then. Is that kind of splitting really a mess though? I think it covers both bases, or would for TNA at least. WCW was never really big here so I don't know what went on to know if it's comparable in the same way. Tony2Times (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 WWE Draft/archive1, WP:TFAR#May 23, and T:TDYK#2009 WWE Draft

I ask the project whether it can answer any concerns raised in either location, as I am leaving Wikipedia for awhile and I won't be able to really edit. I don't mean to come by here and leave you my "dirty work" but commitments in real life and several personal reasons (that deal with Wiki) won't allow me to edit for some time. Thank you all, if there is a need to contact me, I can be reached via email.--Truco 03:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Move request at WP:RM

User:Ivecenanuff has listed Carly Colón to be moved by an administrator to Carlito Colón at WP:RM. Last year, there were a few discussions about moving it on the article's talk page. Two were rejected and the third trailed off with little discussion. If people have opinions, the article talk page might be the place to express them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would decline that move for now, I have yet to see a single instance of "Carlito Colón" being used as his ring name, he is just "Carlito" regardless if the WWE keeps mentioning his lineage. Since "Carly" is not only his ring name, but an actual nickname, we should hold it there unless the WWE begins using "Carlito Colón". - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't he under his real name? Carlito isn't a good option and "Carly" is a nickname, why not "Carlos Colon, Jr.", just wondering?? MPJ-DK (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Its current location is fine because "Carly" is a nickname for "Carlos". But if its a bother, it can still be moved to "Carlos Colón, Jr." (its practically the same name). Also note that the current RM is closed for this discussion.--Truco 14:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Carly" is simply more common, but both would be accurate. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate when an article is hypocritical by being under one name yet deliberately stating the person is "better known" under a different name. If Carly Colon's lead says he's better known as Carlito, then the article should be under Carlito. There's no other article named Carlito, so I don't see the problem. Same goes for Beyonce Knowles (she should just be under Beyonce). Feedback 02:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I always call her Beyoncé Knowles. Tony2Times (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually requested the move, so I guess I am supposed to comment. Wikipedia naming guidelines would suggest naming him by his common name, and he is certainly more commonly known as Carlito. Plus the WWE has stated that The Colon brothers, Primo and Carlito Colon are the champions. That and his official myspace say his name is Carlito Colon. So I support the move. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That myspace page is a poser. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be, but I still think for the other reasons it should be moved to Carlito Colon. I mean Carly is a nickname too. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's no more of a nickname than something like "Charlie" is for "Charles". Take Charlie Sheen, would you say Charlie is just a nickname for him? My name is Timothy, but I prefer Tim, would tell me I use a nickname? TJ Spyke 21:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I dont know if that argument really helps either side. My point was that both are nicknames, but he is much more commonly known as Carlito Colon. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

He has never been called that in WWE (which got him to be notable). He is most commonly known as just Carlito. TJ Spyke 01:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he is most commonly known as just Carlito, but he has been called Carlito Colon and would more commonly be known as Carlito Colon than Carly Colon. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

He is never called Carlito Colon, so that is not an option for moving his page to. Carly is a shortend version of his full name (sort of like how Mike is short for Michael). Carly is not a nickname. Responding to your comment on my talkpage and in the edit summary, no I don't think there is a consensus to move it (especially not to Carlito Colon). TJ Spyke 00:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to make clear that any time Carlito wrestles here, its under "Carlito Colon". Everyone in Puerto Rico, when referring to him, they call him "Carlito Colon". He began as "Carly Colon", but ever since he debuted in WWE as "Carlito", he's been a hybrid version of both here as "Carlito Colon". It might make sense to move the name to that article, however, I still think "Carlito" is more notable. Feedback 22:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually he debuted as Carlito Caribbean Cool. But given the difficulty of nailing down the best name (He has wrestled in PR as Carly Colon, but that is also his father, he is called Carly Colon, Jr, but he's never wrestled as that, and he isn't well known as Carlito Colon and hasn't ever wrestled in WWE as that, and Carlito is a disambiguation page) it is best to leave it where it is. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation is irrelevant per naming conventions. Common name is applied regardless of the need of a qualifier. Also, there's only 3 articles; I'm pretty sure WP:HATNOTE would be relevant here. Feedback 00:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WCW International

I propose that WCW International have its own article. Please discuss. Brendan Heron (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WCW International never existed. It was a fictional company WCW created so that they could try and make the WCW International World Heavyweight Championship look like it had credibility. All mentioned of it stopped when WCW merged the title with the main WCW title a few months later. TJ Spyke 01:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That could be why I have no idea what WCW International is. If that's really all there is, then it seems like it would be best to keep the mention of it in the WCW International World Heavyweight Championship article and keep "WCW International" as a redirect to the title. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph explaining it for those wondering: WCW International World Heavyweight Championship#WCW leaves the NWA. TJ Spyke 02:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TJ Spyke - Hannibal Lecter never existed. But he has his own article. Yes, it was a fictional subsidary, but I believe it should be presented in an article (the unveiling, how the belt was established, how it was presented on television). Brendan Heron (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hannibal Lecter had a fictional history to provide a basis for even creating an article. WCW International doesn't have that. It's a fictional company that was named on television for the purpose of making WCW seem to be bigger at the time than it actually was. There's no history to the company, there's nothing really to tell about it. The only significant thing about WCW International is the WCW International World Heavyweight Championship and it already has an article.Odin's Beard (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NWA Mid-Atlantic Heritage Championship

Can someone with some knowledge of the topic help out with this article? There's a copyright infringement notice on the article and a discussion on the talk page about confusion as to what title is even being discussed. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What was copyrighted? The prose? Tony2Times (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The prose was copied from within Wikipedia, and thus the contributions history was lost, meaning that those who has written the original prose we not being credited, which is a breach of the GDFL. Looking at the article I cannot say what title is being discussed, but given the problems with this version of the article it may be necessary to delete that page and start afresh. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted the "History" section, so the lead and the title history are left. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Champions templates

I see a lot of WWE, WCW, TNA & ROH title templates added to the pages of champions and well I'm left wondering a few things.

1. Are they really necessary? It's already listed in the "Championships and accomplishments" section
2. Where does it stop? Do we add one for the "East L.A. Wrestling Extreme Hardcore Title"? Where is the lower limit?

I personally find them redundant and crufty and there isn't a firm rule on what titles get one and which doesn't. It doesn't add anything to the articles so I'm in favor of removing them all. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There was some consensus to add them, though. It is very redundant, since any title reigns will be listed in Champilnship and Accomplishments anyway. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As an example I refer you to Arlen Specter. His infobox is half the page long, and he has four expandable templates and six succession boxes, and that is on the small side, most members of congress have nearly twice as many boxes. I know, he's not a wrestler but this was a simple example of how other projects and articles have templates. I would be in favour of changing them to succession boxes but for multiple champions this proves difficult. And as to 'how low do we go'? I think that any recognised world titles for major companies are acceptable (I would say all NWA, WCW, ECW, WWF/WWE and TNA titles, from World down to Women's and all in between). They can be (and most are) collapsed. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure of what the point really is - yes you save the user one click if they want to see who else held the title, and you only save one click if the box isn't collapsed. It's just an ugly and useless addition to the articles. Also "World down to Women's"? I'm not sure what that means, you mean EVERY title? And when you say NWA you open up a can of worms as there are an estimated 3 bazillion NWA titles and 1 quadrillion of those have the word "World" in them (All NWA related numbers courtesy of Rankor Surveys Inc, You don't watch us, we watch you - hail Rankor). MPJ-DK (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean World, IC, TT, CW, HC, LHW, Women's, US, WTT, WWE. In WCW, World, TV, US etc. In ECW, World, TV, TT. In TNA, World, TT, X and Legends. For NWA maybe limit it to the one which was the Big Gold Belt until Flair left in 1991. Local NWA titles if they have a long lineage, not titles which appear, are defended for a year then disappear. I so also find the box on Samu to be useful. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So no hard rule then? And how is that box useful? a great big list of names and nothing else? exactly what does it help you with? MPJ-DK (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Being able to see all the tag teams that have held the belts and jumping to the ones I find interesting. I mean sometime I use Wikipedia to, I don't know, read about things, rather than edit them. Sometimes I like to read articles related to each other and as with director navboxes at the bottom of film articles I find it enjoyable to jump from article to article and read about the different teams. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing a consesus on the matter - I'm not saying it's not ther but I didn't se one and all I could find on the subject in the archives is this one Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 55#Championship Succession Boxes which suggest the opposite, that there was a consensus against it. Now I have not read through ALL subsequent archives (yes I'm lazy) but I don't remember seeing it. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And please don't tell me the template at the bottom of this article Samula Anoa'i is pretty, useful or informative - it's basically a mess of names. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think these boxes are far more suitable than succession boxes considering the modern trend for people to hold titles multiple times rather than 30 years ago when it was an achievement to get a belt twice. I also do quite like the boxes but I can see some of them are a bit much, tag team ones especially. If we are going to remove the boxes, something I'm not in favour of, I think it would still be a good idea to keep ones of restrictive recognition (Rumble, King of The Ring type ones where you're restricted to one a year) and also stable members ones. I'm surprised no-one's made a Four Horsemen one yet; that might put the WTTC box to shame. Tony2Times (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this all started because I was in the midst of making the List of WWE Women's Champions into a Good Topic (with all the holders of the belt), a nav box was made for it (not by me), and then a couple people started making nav boxes for other possible Good Topics, which opened a can of worms, and nav boxes for all the titles were made, despite the fact that not a single one of them is as close as the WWE Women's Champions. I know that a couple of the more useless templates were deleted recently (Vince's Devils, Hardy Boyz, Paul London and Brian Kendrick), but I am still planning to do the aforementioned Good Topic, so that one might need to stay considering it is such a large topic and not all of the articles connect to each other accessibly, otherwise. Nikki♥311 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Really I see the templates being useful. A good directry and help in future good or featured topics. Really I only believe titles that have multiple champions should have templates. Has to have at least 10 before being made.--WillC 16:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't we add the championship to the infobox just like if it were an award? Hey, actors get the awards in their infobox, the prose AND their "awards sections", why not wrestlers? Feedback 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That would make some incredibly long infoboxes in some cases. Think Jerry Lawler. Nikki♥311 00:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A navigation box would only work for yearly accomplishments (like the King of the Ring and Royal Rumble). Titles would not work though, with Nikki pointing out one. Jerry Lawler's page would probably double in size (at least) if each title reign had a nav box. He held the AWA Southern Championship 35 times. TJ Spyke 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Hey, if we keep the templates, why not have them like the Academy Award template Template:AcademyAwardBestActor 1961-1980... it seems like a useful format. Feedback 00:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the "usefulness" of these boxes - yes eventually someone might get ALL the WWE World Tag Team CHampions to FA status... but in the intervening 700 years it's not really needed. And someone said "a good directory" - the title page is an even better one, the right one for that job. Good Topic may be an argument if any of them were closed to being a Good Topic but even then there'd be the actual Championship page to tie them together, you know the page that the topic is based on. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

They way I see it, these boxes are completely unnecessary, notable championship or not... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WrestleCrap article filling up with cruft?

I'm having trouble figuring out what needs to be done with this article. A user has added a ton of information about the site owner's weekly podcast. It's got almost every trivial detail listed and described (see WrestleCrap#WrestleCrap Radio). Does anyone have an opinion on how much of this is actually notable enough to include? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude here, but this has been raised on the Wrestlecrap discussion page. However, it seems no one is responding. I'll leave it to someone with more knowledge and experience to "tidy" the article, but speaking personally, it does eeem that the information contained in the Wrestlecrap Radio segment is a bit excessive. K'Anpo (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the recurring gags feels a bit listcrufty particular bearing in mind the lack of sources. The segments should probably stay, but not the gags. Tony2Times (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

FACs

It is so ridiculous how people end up going to an FAC to point out things like grammatical errors. In 2009 WWE Drafts' FAC, KVS wrote mistakes like "lived" instead of "live" and things like that. When it is something so small and pettiful, and the person obviously proof-read the article, wouldn't WP:BOLD be relevant enough for the person not to make it an issue and just do it himself. A lot of people have been doing this recently, and it is just too annoying. Why can't they just correct the very very small mistakes themselves? Do they just want to feel important on an FAC? Or do they want to doom the article to fail? I'm writing this post to find out an opinion from other project members so in this week, I will address the concern at WP:FAC. Thoughts? Feedback 10:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Some fix, some provide input - whatcha gonna do? I'd rather they provide input than not do anything at all, it's a review process after all. So my opinion: if that's how they want to contribute at least they're contributing. It could also be to help the submitter improve, after all if they change it then you learn nothing, if you change it there is a chance that the comment will stick with you and you'll address it ahead of time in the next FAC. (by "you" I don't mean you specifically, I mean the general "you the FAC submitter") MPJ-DK (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

While it may seem condescending at times, there's also the possibility that the person proof read the article (as you would assume them to do so before they nominate it for FA) and didn't miss the error by accident but simply weren't aware that it's an error. That way they can learn better for next time. Also if people are commenting on it at least it's getting attention, I don't really know how the FAC process here works but surely if an article is getting no comments on it then it could be being ignored, while an article where people mostly suggest improvements to semantics and grammar then it means they approve of the content itself. When someone is forced to pick only the minutiae to impprove, take the compliment that nothing else is left to improve. Tony2Times (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, what is more constructive?

• You misspelled the words "live", "peers" and "wrestling" as "lived", "piers" and "wrestlimg" respectively.
• I was bold and corrected some incorrect spellings such as "wrestlim", "piers" and "lived". Feedback 03:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception

I like the reception section in our PPV articles, I think it's one of the best improvements we've made to article styles but one thing: Isn't WON meant to be the most respected, or one of the most respected, reviewers of prowrestling? If so, how comes I've never seen their star rating of events and matches in that section? I never actually read, or even try to read WON due to how hopeless the website is laid out, but surely there's some wrestling head here who does? Tony2Times (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

They don't rate PPV's anymore, at least not in the free section. They might do it for paid subscribers, but that would mean we can't use it (WP:EL says to avoid using links that require a subscription to see). TJ Spyke 14:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tony2Times (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Perschmann (Buddy Rose)

Do you want to moved Buddy Rose to Paul Perschmann? Or have Paul Perschmann redirected to Buddy Rose? Govvy (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems obvious to me. He was known as Buddy Rose for 30+ years, and that is even how mainstream media outlets are referring to him when mentioning his death. TJ Spyke 19:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You said it seems obvious but that didn't answer my question! Govvy (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't figure it out? If somebody is known by one name for 30+ years and even the mainstream media uses that name, of coarse that is where there article should be. Keep it at Buddy Rose. TJ Spyke 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the mainstream media have been using both names, next the norm for naming convention is to name biographies by a real name and having character names directing to that name or a character page. I am simply following the guidelines set by the Wikipedia groups. Govvy (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

First, almost all mainstream I have seen just say Buddy Rose. Second, the naming conventions for biographies say to use what they are most known as (i.e. Tom Cruise, not "Tom Mapother IV"), see WP:COMMONNAME. Going by Wikipedia guidelines makes it clear the page should be at Buddy Rose. I don't think anyone will disagree (unless they are not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines). TJ Spyke 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I Agree. Feedback 10:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Keyfab

Bio needs rewriting out of keyfab real names should be next to the wrestler names he associated with. ect. Govvy (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, use the name they are known under - no different than actors who use a stage name. Kayfabe is not in the names, but how events are described. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo help

I tried cropping a Steamboat picture (File:RickySteamboat.JPG) picture so that it could be moved into his ROH section which is fairly small. However when I reuploaded the photo, while the thumbnail displayed it as I wanted it (as a smaller square) the main image file and thus the one shown on the page, looked as if it was being reflected in a concave mirror. Any idea why? Help? Tony2Times (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would that picture belong in the ROH section? Feedback 11:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Because Steamboat had an angle with Punk in ROH where the former became the latter's mentor. Tony2Times (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have fixed itself, maybe it just needed time. Tony2Times (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

However, that photo is obviously in a WWE ring... Feedback 23:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So? Shawn Michael's article has a picture describing him as Commissioner during '99&2000 while the background clearly shows it's the post 2002 set of Raw; both Kane and Undertaker's page have a picture saying they feuded in 1998 even though the Kane doesn't have his mask on. It's not perfect but it shows Punk and Steamboat together and I figured it was better to have it there than have the current myriad of pictures of him and Punk, him crossbodying Jericho and him at the HOF all bunched up in one section. Tony2Times (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

List of World Heavyweight Champions in professional wrestling

This page was created about a month ago and seemingly went undetected by the project. I've left it as a redirect for now pending your approval. Thoughts?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. With so much controversy over what constitutes a world championship, I agree with not having a supposedly comprehensive list. I would put the CMLL, AAA, NJPW, and AJPW championships on a par with any of these titles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I seem to remember a similar page (as well as a World Tag Team page) being redirected to Pro Wrestling Illustrated in the past as a result of an AfD. I don't have the links right now, but I'll find them tomorrow when I have some more time. However, I think that recent discussions on this page indicate that what makes a "World" title is up for debate, so a list like this probably shouldn't exist at all. Nikki♥311 03:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WWE alumni

Why was the article split into 5? There wasn't that much information for the 5-page split. I think it all was neatly put together in one article. It's a sortable table, so if someone wanted to sort it the way they wanted (by tenure, by name, by ring name, etc.), they can't because they're in seperate articles. This is unencyclopedic and I'd like to request a merger err... re-merger between the 5 articles. Feedback 04:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This guy...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do we do about it? Feedback 05:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Me no know...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it was split due to its massive size (159 kB) and the fact that in its previous incomplete form, it used about 450 citation templates which could have in the future affected template limits. Its long loading times caused by the two basically made it a necessity to split. -- Oakster  Talk  09:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I discovered WP:SIZERULE and it obviously would prefer a split. But are 5 articles really necessary? why not 2? I think 2 is fine. Also, which consensus makes the articles being ordered alphabetically? Why not by year/era? Feedback 11:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now, a merger would be 211 KB and that's with only two of the five articles (which are 55 and 75 KB respectivly) being properly referenced (as far as I can see). --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jarrett

Over up there in the section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Idk, I discovered that Jeff Jarrett's article lists him as a 12-time World Champion when it includes the WWA Championship. For sake of consistency, I removed the WWA Championship, because Steve Borden's article lists him as a 12-time world champion and does not count his WWA reign. Apparently, my edit has been reverted... but anyway, we have to make 1 article consistent with the other. Is Sting a 13-time world champ and Jeff 12? Or is Sting a 12-time world champ and Jeff 10? Feedback 11:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: some IP added the WWA title to Sting's WP:LEAD, but didn't count up the total world title reigns and didn't WP:WIKILINK properly. I rollbacked it, until we get a consensus. Feedback 11:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The WWA Title was defended in more than one country and considered a "world championship" by WWA. Therefore it is a world championship according to previous discussions. This was discussed on Jarrett's talk page already. Sting=13, Jarrett=12.--WillC 03:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jargon

I have a few issues with the Jargon.

Jargon makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. If I’m reading wikipedia and I don’t know a word, wouldn’t I click on the link? Spelling out the definition of every word makes for uncomfortable reading. The worst part is that a word like “villain” links to a list of wrestling terms beginning with the letter “h”. Sure wee know what heel means but whats the point for people who don’t? I fail to see any reasoning behind it. Ivecenanuff (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The wikilink should be changed to direct the reader to Heel (professional wrestling). To answer your original question, the idea behind the jargon policy is to accommodate the reader. It's hard to follow an article if you have to interrupt your reading frequently to check other articles to gain an understanding of the terms used in the first. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

But there's also things that are common sense, like chokeslam written as "grabbed his opponent by the neck raised him into the air and slammed him a move called the chokeslam". In my opinion its just harder to read. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Most people seem to be in agreement with you. A chokeslam isn't common sense to everybody, though. Rephrasing as "grabbed his opponent by the neck and chokeslammed him to the mat" might be a good compromise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How about "choked him and slammed him to the mat"? Everyone knows what choking is. Tony2Times (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that there's an issue with using "villain" as well, especially the way it shows up in the articles. I'm all for reducing the use of jargon for making the articles more accessible, but we're sometimes sacrificing accuracy and readability in the process. For instance, a character like Santino Marella was obviously a heel for a long time, but describing his character as "villainous" is a stretch at best. He was supposed to be booed more because he was annoying and insulting to the babyfaces than from being a villain in the way that, say, Randy Orton is. Maybe "antagonist" would be a better term than "villain" for some characters. Also, "villain" and similar formulations can fail to distinguish between real life and kayfabe: if you say someone is a heel, it's obvious that you're talking about the character, but referring to someone as "villainous" does not make that clear. Finally, there's residual prose that needs to be cleaned up: when I see references to "a villainous turn," it's obvious that it was just a path-of-least-resistance change to the prior version that had "heel turn." Stuff like that needs to be cleaned up into something more readable. Croctotheface (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

Hey folks! Would one of you mind taking a look at the two wrestling-related articles that are currently waiting for approval at WP:AFC? I'm not all that familiar with the topic, so I don't know if these articles are appropriate, or if they exist somewhere else.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NWA New Zealand Heavyweight Championship

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NWA Scottish Heavyweight Championship

Feel free to approve/decline these requests when you look at them (Instructions here). Or, if you prefer, drop me a line with what you think, and I'll take care of it. Thanks for your help! --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Name verification

I know this is a really weird question, but someone is using Facebook as a source for a wrestler's real name on the basis that another wrestler has tagged her in a number of photos. Is this a reliable source? Tony2Times (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, but what's the better source? Probably some newspaper giving an interview, and the reporter asking for their name to include? There really isn't much to go with. Mshake3 (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no other source, OWOW lists her name as being withheld by request and it's never come up in any interview or anything. Tony2Times (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the Facebook page the personal one of the wrestler? If the source is reliable, try and use it. Some admins seem to have a pinecone up their ass though and won't allow a wrestlers real name to be included (even if it is confirmed to be real) just because the wrestler doesn't want it to be known. Nigel McGuinnes's page was fully protected and dozens of edits erased from the history log because the webmaster of his site sent an e-mail to Wikipedia asking for his real name to be removed. I was one of many people arguing for it to be included since his name IS publically available. He trademarked his ring name with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Just go to their site (http://www.uspto.gov/), head to the Search TM Database section (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4003:9d8nss.1.1), and type in "Nigel McGuinness". Its trademark number is "3162214" and is registered to "Steven Haworth". This is publicly available information and is no different than something like police records (which is how we got MVP's real name). TJ Spyke 22:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well personally I think it's a wrestler's choice, it's their name and their life that they might wanna keep seperate from the public; particularly if you're only on the indie circuit so you might well have another job and another life. I also doubt many people are gonna search the Patent Office on the off chance the name has been trademarked. But I was just checking for policy really because I'm sure I've seen MySpaces been frowned upon, even disallowed I think, for sourcing facts so I wondered if Facebook is any different, if not I'll leave it as it is. And yeah, it's the personal page of the wrestler as far as I can see but it's private so can't really see, it's just she's tagged in one of Serena Deeb's pictures. Tony2Times (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If their name is in the public record, then it is fair game. We wouldn't remove MVP's name if he wanted it removed, or anyone else. Nigel also was a contracted wrestler with TNA for awhile, and ROH is semi-major so McGuinness is fair game anyways. TJ Spyke 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still their private name and they might have reasons for protecting it. There's a reason people use ring names. Anyway back to this specific case I just checked the link and it came up with "content not found", presumably you have to be friends with Deeb to see her photos so would this be like the rule where if a link requires you to be a member it's unusable or can we take it on good faith from the people who are her friends that the picture does exist? Tony2Times (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is lots of stuff that famous people would want to be hidden, but if someones name is in public documents then it is fair game to use whether they want it in or not. Anyways, WP:EL says to avoid any links that require registration to access the info, so if the profile requires you to be their friend to view it then the link is not allowed. TJ Spyke 00:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess my question would be what the purpose of adding it is. Does it add to the reader's understanding, or is it just to prove a point? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Idk

[11]

In that link, should I include the WWA World Heavyweight Championship and the IWGP Third Belt Championship? I ask so, because Jeff Jarrett's article listed the former in his world title count and Kurt Angle's article listed the latter. Feedback 11:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WWA, maybe. IWGP 3rd, no. The IWGP 3rd Belt was basically a fake title anyways. TJ Spyke 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WWA, I would think so. Even if it was a short-lived promotion, the unification of belts in any federation is important. 3rd Belt, no. It was a Interim Title. --Numyht (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see how a title [who had Road Dogg as champion] of a promotion of only 2 years which was critically panned, and didn't feature any top-tier talent of the time except Sting (and he wasn't used much) could be considered a legitimate accomplishment. I'm saying this mostly because of Jeff Jarrett's article, which counts it in his tally of world titles, yet Sting's doesn't count it. What should the consensus be? Feedback 03:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. This is not the world title debate. If WWA called their title a world title, IT'S A WORLD TITLE. I am debating if the title is as equal as an accomplishment as the rest. Feedback 03:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, which is why the IWGP 3rd and IWGP Heavyweight are not world titles.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The list should then only include the championships listed in here. This includes those listed as "Prominent active" "Other active" and "Inactive". I recently went through the world title articles and removed those that had been mistakenly listed as world titles. I found through various promotion websites among other sources that some were not actually referred to by the promotions as world titles. So the titles in World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling) are now accurately listed.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is most definitely the world title debate. After all of the disagreement (with many people somehow still unable to realize that Wikipedia has no place determining what is and is not a world title), this list seems like throwing gasoline on the fire. It is, by its very nature, a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This coming from YOU? Look this isn't a debate. We are not by any means creating criteria for world titles and we really don't need to. It quite simple really. If it is referred to as a world title, then it is a world title, and for the listed championships in the WHC article, there are multiple sources available to verify such claim. All other titles that lack these sources are thus unverifiable and not listed. Simply put, if it can be verified by reliable sources, then it cannot violate NPOV. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would be a problem for me to agree with myself. I opposed a non-comprehensive point of view list before, and I oppose it now. If the criterion is simply having the promotion bill the title as a "world championship," then why doesn't it include the SCW World Heavyweight Championship, CZW World Heavyweight Championship, BJW World Heavyweight Championship, Zero1 World Heavyweight Championship, World Heavyweight Championship (National Wrestling Association), PWG World Championship, and any other promotion that has billed its main title as a world championship (eg. the World Star Wrestling Federation World Heavyweight Championship from Afa Anoa'i's promotion), not to mention the information from List of early world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling? Declaring some "world championship"s to be world championships and other "world championships" to not make the list is definitely point of view. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Of the titles you just mentioned, only the SCW, BJW, and Zero1 are currently not listed in the article. As the Zero1 title IS referred to by ZERO1 as a world title, it will be added to the list momentarily. However, as for the SCW and BJW titles among other inactive titles not mentioned, no direct source stating the actual naming and promoting of the titles in the owning organizations exists. Only varying accounts exist from 3rd party sources, which at least in this instance, due to the circumstances, are not reliable as they are not the owning entity of the subject and thus cannot name it.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The list in the article is not a NPOV violation. All of the promotions that host said titles recongize them as world titles. That's all that matters. All of the titles have "world" in their name or are referred to as world titles on screen. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles for Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder

...have been created at Zack Ryder and Brian Myers (wrestler). I was wondering what people thought about it. It was discussed between 3 people here after the WWE draft, but I'd like a better consensus on whether these articles should stay, or should be redirected to the tag team article. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The articles are 95% the same. The only real difference is the 2 sentence section stating that they were separated by the draft. They may be on separate brands, but I think they should be merged back together. TJ Spyke 23:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think they haven't done enough apart to warrant seperate articles and judging by the carbon copied seperate articles, I can't see how anyone would. Wait until they've done something significant apart. It's a possibility that they could be let go and reunite on the indie circuit. Tony2Times (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirected both to tag team article. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Stub Reduction drive

Just a reminder that there is one week left in the project's stub reduction drive. In the past three weeks, the number of stub-class articles has dropped by 82, and a lot of new articles have been created. If you would like to help out, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stub drive. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How did I not know that this was going on? :( I've been helping, but not tracking my progress. Nikki♥311 17:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd forgotten about that. I guess I should do some more on it... Thanks, gENIUS101 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that with today's updates, the project has reduced the number of stub-class articles by exactly 300 since the beginning of the focus started in December 2007. Meanwhile, the number of articles in the project's scope has increased by 869. The project-wide goal of getting the percentage below 10% by the end of the year definitely looks attainable, as it has already been reduced to 11.64%. Great job to everyone involved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)