Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 69

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

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

→

Extreme Rules/One Night Stand debate put to rest

The newest special issue of WWE Magazine (called The Big Book of Wrestling) confirms that Extreme Rules will share the heritage of One Night Stand. In the section on great pay per view moments, the page for Extreme Rules shows pics from past One Night Stand pay per views with the Extreme Rules logo at the top and an asterick next to it. The note for the asterick at the bottom says "Previously One Night Stand." Do with this information what you will. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! Lets start the page merging. Mshake3 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame

I'm trying to get this list to Featured List status and have been working on it off and on for several months. I'm getting close to being ready to move it to the mainspace (it's currently in my sandbox at User:GaryColemanFan/Murphy). It would be nice to be able to nominate it for a DYK, as the overall article size has increased by 90,000 bytes, but I can't think of much more to say in the lead and the current expansion is only 2.5x or so for the readable prose. If anyone has some good sources on the hall itself, I would really appreciate some help.

Aside from that, there are only 5 or 6 entries that need information, so I'm in the process of tracking that down. If anyone can help with proofreading or formatting, that would be great as well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing I can spot instantly in the list is the fact, Bobo Brazil has won the NWA United States Championship 9 times which is listed, as well as Freddie Blassie winning the NWA Southern Title 14 Times but El Canek is only mentioned as winning the UWA Heavyweight Title Multiple times, a few mentions of well-known mentions on Stu Hart could be added also, also you mention futher up in the 1996 inductees even if they've won a title once as "(1 time)" while further down in the list you mention it as "once" eg Vince McMahon: "won the WWE Championship (1 time)", Roddy Piper: "NWA/WCW United States Championship three times" that needs to be cleared up a little bit, I've corrected a little bit of Wiki-coding. That's all I can spot by glancing at the table, I will look thoroughly through it now though. Afkatk (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Brian Cannon

Hello,

An article was recently created for a wrestler named Brain Cannon. The article is in pretty poor shape, but it does appear the subject might be notable. (I don't know enough to say for sure.) If some knowledgeable users could take a look and comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Cannon I'd appreciate it.

Improvements to the article are, of course, also welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, the article is a mess and very poorly written. I will look more tomorrow, but a quick Google search seems to show the person does exist but I can't find anything to show he is notable. TJ Spyke 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lanny Poffo Article

This article is a mess and when I looked at the history there is a person that claims to be Lanny Poffo editing the article. Don't know if it's the truth, but I thought I drop the group a line. Kyros (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest he be investigated under WP:COI. Afkatk (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jericho and Goldberg.

I found this paragraph in Jericho's article:

During this period Jericho became involved in a legitimate backstage fued with Goldberg, over issues dating back to Goldberg's refusal to work with Jericho in WCW. An altercation arose when Goldberg approached Jericho backstage and grabbed him by the throat. To everyone's surprise - including Jericho's - he fought off Goldberg, easily restraining him in a front facelock, then a body scissors. Goldberg got back up and was taken down a second time by Jericho before they were split up. At this point Goldberg went for Jericho - who was still being restrained - and began pulling his hair, before being pie faced by Jericho.^[1]

Did this actually happen? Was Jericho actually on the show? If so, can anyone format the ref properly? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It did happen. Jericho talks about it in his book.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. If someone who has said book could add a citation, that would be great. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a second, that info is from the 2003-2005 section of the Chris Jericho article, and therefore it's not in Jericho's book. Jericho's book ends in 1999, the night of his WWF debut. While there was a problem between Jericho and Goldberg in WCW, it never got physical outside the ring, and based on what the above extract from the article says, IF it got physical it got physical in WWE, after Goldberg joined. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 03:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because the main focus of the book ends in 1999 doesn't mean Jericho doesn't talk about other things as well. I'll get the book out tonight when I get home and check for it. I'm fairly certain it's in there when talking about his feud with Goldberg. A sort of "set the record straight" type thing.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have the book sitting in front of me right now. I checked and there's no mention of the above incident in it. Apologies, I mean to make that clear in my above post. Feel free to double check however. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 03:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's been a while since I read the book. I do remember reading somewhere where Jericho talks about it himself and not just third party rumors. I'll keep looking. The incident took place in April 2003, by the way. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this site isn't reliable, but here is an interview from WWE.com from around that period where the incident is mentioned: http://www.geocities.com/mustang232_00/jericho_int.html Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Can this be used? http://www.wrestlescoop.com/2008/10/31/y2j-speaks-on-his-goldberg-fight-hbk-benoit-and-more/ Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation template

I know it's not a preferred means of sourcing something, but in lieu of anything else what's the template to use to cite a TV episode? Tony2Times (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cite episode (sometimes the simplest answer is the right one). TJ Spyke 00:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to get this template to work, what am I doing wrong? I've removed <>s so it's visible

ref name="heat""Sunday Night Heat". Episode 39. 1999-04-25. USA Network. {{cite episode}}: Missing or empty |series= (help); Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (help)/ref Sorry to be a pain but I'm not au fait with Wiki language. Tony2Times (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You put the slash in the wrong spot at the end. This is how it should be:

<ref name="heat">{{cite episode|title=Sunday Night Heat|titlelink=WWE Heat|network=[[USA Network]]|airdate=1999-04-25|number=39}}</ref>

Just to tell you all

I have redirected The British Invasion and The British Invasion (professional wrestling) to Nick Aldis. Question is, should i redirect to either the TNA Talent page or Doug Williams? --Numyht (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Aldis seems OK for now. There doesn't appear to be a single leader of the group, but Magnus is the most well known of the group. TJ Spyke 21:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect what to Talent Page/Williams? Also shouldn't The British Invasion redirect to the music movement? Tony2Times (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you're right. I'll do it now. --Numyht (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. --Numyht (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Magnus is the most well known of the group" You're kidding, right?92.9.161.196 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most well known as Magnus has wrestled in TNA for several months. He has wrestled on TNA TV and PPV for several months in front of millions of people. Doug Williams is just an indy wrestler, one of the more well known ones but not that notable. Magnus is also on the UK version of American Gladiators too, so that adds to his notability. I also disagree with re-directing "The British Invasion" to "British Invasion". It's OK for now, but if the group becomes notable enough for a article it will be at "The British Invasion" (there can be a hatlink for those looking for the music movement). TJ Spyke 19:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, all of 5 matches in TNA as an undercarder make him instantly more famous than someone who has been on the indies for many years in th UK and US and has won multiple championships. Yeah... _{PS, the UK version ofamerican gladiators, it's just called Gladiators}--92.9.161.196 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (Straight Edge PXK)

I'm not too fussed either way but I'd have to agree with it linking to Doug Williams. Gladiators hardly had the highest of ratings when it returned and he's been in TNA for 3 months whereas Doug Williams has been wrestling across the UK for over a decade in some of the most noted promotions (RQW, FWA, Hammerlock) not to mention wrestling internationally for NOAH and for ROH holding titles in both the latter promotions. And for the anti-indies among you, he's been on the TNA roster for longer than Aldis, being part of their World Cup thing and appeared on two PPVs. But as I say, I don't care enough to argue that's just my tuppence worth. Tony2Times (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A IP (aka me) redirected it now to the TNA Talent Page. Also, Gladiators here is shown on Sky One so it gets pretty bad viewing figures --Numyht (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alumni Pages

Can we split te tenure column into a "start" and "end" column because otherwise it is pretty much impossible to use those sections. --92.9.161.196 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

I have been noticing the excessive use of links in the "Championships and accomplishments" sections for a while, it seems odd to have terms already (sometimes constantly) mentioned in the prose. Take for example Eddie Colón's "Championships and accomplishments" section, not only are the names of the promotions linked yet again, but Carly's article is listed twice + one link in the section directly above it. Personally, I'm interested in knowing what the members of this project think about it, or why it is considered useful enough to ignore the MOS. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the C&A section is a bullet point list. As such I'm sure many people, I know I do, occasionally just go straight there and miss out the prose thus links there are very useful. Also that section compares companies and belts, something which is spread out in the prose so if you wanted to open up tabs of a bunch of different belts or see which countries a wrestler has wrestled in, it would take much longer. The style for names normally is one link per person, but perhaps the person doing Eddie's thought this might be helpful considering Carly's name appears with three variants. Tony2Times (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That was me on Eddie's page. Since his partner used several separate ring names, I thought a link was appropriate. The same sort of thing appears in Edge's article. I honestly never thought about that section violating the MOS though. Hmm. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say that, when I got stuck in an edit conflict. *sigh* gENIUS 101 23:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Well, since I'm already being an annoyance… What about the nicknames? They seem pretty crufty to me. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fake article?

Federal Championship Wrestling appears to be a fake article, can an admin check into this and get rid of it if that is indeed the case? Thanks! --Naha|^(talk) 00:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fake... and not even funny...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Great American Bash

There are reports out that the Great American Bash will be changed to The Bash this year. Keep an eye out for this as it hasn't been changed on WWE.com yet.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The sidebar has been updated, but of course, just watch everyone say "that doesn't count" again. Mshake3 (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't talk, you also sometimes believe it and sometimes don't. Said Extreme Rules then Night of Extreme. Also said WrestleMania 25, but know, you believed the first two, but not the last one.--WillC 14:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well WWE.com has updated the live events schedule,[1] so I'm all for the move now. I'm just wondering, would this warrant a move for The Great American Bash (2009) to The Bash (2009) (as it's a natural derivative of The Great American Bash) or to WWE The Bash (it's essentially one of its kind like Extreme Rules is now)? Oaks ter 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone with access to the PWTorch VIP forum confirm something?

[2] Until a source is provided, this is a major BLP violation and should stay out until one is added. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if that libelous claim was true, the PW Torch VIP forum couldn't be used as a source. WP:RS says to avoid using sources that require a subscription to view. TJ Spyke 22:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL also saids that. --Numyht (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Vacated titles

Hi. I have been seeing the titles articles and this is my question Why in the vacates titles put 0 in "day's held"? I think taht is better put the number of day taht the title was vacated --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the "Days held" spot is for how many days someone held the title. Since no one holds a title when it is vacant, the number stays at zero. TJ Spyke 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I talk about change this spot and put also the name of days when the championship was vacates. It can be usfull. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The belt cannot be held when it is not being held, so days held cannot increase if it is not being held. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But I say that we can change the spot "Day's held" to another spot and put the number of days that the champions helded it and the number of days that the title was vacated. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why complicate it? A belt is either held or it isn't, if it is vacant then the total days can be noted elsewhere. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we should state how many days a title has been held up or vacated for it seems like trivial information to me. Afkatk (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's a great point, for several reasons. One, the zero is stupid. It should be a dash, or merged with a nearby cell. Second, the time a title is vacated is certinally notable. Vacancies, for the most part, and significant events. Mshake3 (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We just need to change the field in the table from "days held" to "duration" or something that can encompass both vacated and unvacated blocks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the last time this was discussed it was agree to have vacated reigns listed with a dash. I don't see any reason to list how many days a title was vacant. TJ Spyke 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I sort of think that if we don't' list how many days it was vacant, why list how many days it was held. How is one more notable than the other? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who brought this up last time, and nothing ever came of the suggestion. What I suggested was that it be listed in Brackets (Ie. (21)), so that all vacated ones get sorted at the beginning. Having it just say 0 implies that it was won in the same day that it was lost.--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Prepare thy selves

For the usual. Over The Edge goes on the main page for the next two days and as with all TFAs will be bombarded with vandalism, as an example compare the views for TFA on the 20th May, 99 views the day before, 22.5k views on the day, and no doubt half of that today. As policy is to leave the page open for editing (that is no pre-emptive protection) I hope everyone has this on their watchlists. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We're on the main page :)

Well, I just wanted to drop by and make a early comeback. Wow, we're finally on the main page, thanks and a *round of applause* to all those who helped with the process of getting Over the Edge (1999) on the main page as the WP:TFA for May 23, 2009. Congrats. =]--Tru co 00:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

recent events

Should we note the arena situation that WWE is having with Raw, or, well, had? It has been reported almost everywhere so there is plenty of sources, I just don't know where it should be noted at: WWE Raw, 2009 NBA Playoffs, World Wrestling Entertainment, etc?--WillC 04:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in the NBA playoff article. Doesn't seem like it will matter much in the long run to Raw or WWE. It's affecting ECW and SmackDown too (WWE decided to move the SmackDown/ECW taping from Colorado Springs to the Staples Center in LA too, along with the house show this Sunday). It's pretty relevant to the NBA playoffs though. My mind could change though if Vince does decided to sue (which I support since Kroenke is clearly guilty of breach of contract). The situation is still going on. TJ Spyke 05:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's already been noted in the Pepsi Center article, but a small mention on the WWE Raw Article may be also good. Afkatk (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WWE Extreme Rules and WWE The Bash

Now I'm a bit confused here, since I'm just getting back. But what's the deal on these. The WWE Extreme Rules and The Bash are not main pages for the history of the events because we don't want to speculate whether these will continue to be the names, like WCW Sin, correct? Also, I suggest moving The Bash to Bash (disambiguation), and making The Bash -> WWE The Bash because The Bash is a very loose and broad name/term. In addition, for the ER article, it says formerly ONS next to the name of the article, can that not be moved to the body? Lastly, in the ONS article, it says the event was simply renamed. But WWE has not acknowledged the event continuing the same history as WWE ER, yet the ER article says "formerly ONS", whats the deal on this?--Tru co 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WWE has acknowledged that Extreme Rules will continue the same history as One Night Stand. It's in the new special edition of WWE magazine called "The Big Book of Wrestling," which is cited on that page. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Using the TOC to tell a story

Within the MOS there is nothing about how a wrestler's career should be broken up. Batista and Chris Jericho have simple careers, with headings for the federations, then years active. However Kane, Rey Mysterio and The Undertaker's career heading seem to be trying to tell a story. I feel the MOS for this section should be expanded to give guidance to what a career section should contain, at the moment all it says is "Summarize the career of the wrestler, but make sure you leave it to major events and key points. Try not to include week-by-week synopsis of what that wrestler did on whatever show they're on.", which is good for discouraging Week by Week but not much else. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I find Batista's headings to be utterly useless. If I was just getting into WWE recently, with all the talk of Evolution between him, Randy and HHH I'd primarily be concerned with finding that out but I wouldn't know what years of his career that was. Okay, it only takes a little while to read through and find it, or I could look up the Evolution page and find out, but the faster the better I say. You can go to numerous websites and look up a list of matches that they fought, our emphasis should be on storyline and context, something which those types of headers help contribute to. For some wrestlers this is harder for then others if they have wandering gimmicks and storylines, but considering the splits for Rey, Chris and Taker have the years on them too, I don't see what we have to lose by adding words in the headers too. Tony2Times (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I like worded descriptions rather than dates because (as Tony pointed out), they help you find the info you are looking for, and it gives the reader an idea of the basic direction of how the text is going to go. Most of the time, the dates are included anyway, so it is the best of both worlds. Nikki♥311 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I just cleaned up Batista's article a bit and added more descriptive headers. This is the version that Darrenhusted is referring to above. Nikki♥311 21:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually prefer just to use dates, though I'm not actually sure why. If descriptions are going to become the norm, then I believe we need some form of standardization between articles using them. For example, Rey Mysterio's last header is far too cumbersome. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the problem with under-utilised wrestlers as I said before. I wonder if maybe we should scrap that header and have it all under the various feuds section seeing as it is still vairous feuds with nothing major to link them together and it wouldn't be too long; if his Intercontinental reign lasts long (more than one defence? never(!)) then perhaps a new section could start at WrestleMania. Tony2Times (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem can occur in naming, there was an edit war over Cody Rhodes and whether to include The Legacy in a TOC heading. Also some wrestler never have major feuds. I would be in favour of bare dates, but I wanted to get some discussion as I think the MOS should be expanded to reflect the consensus. In addition film actors rarely list films as titles, for example Will Smith sums up 21 years in career, and there are no subheadings. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question there. They sum up 21 years of career in a few paragraphs. Wrestlers don't. Also titles don't necessarily need to reflect feuds, they can also reflect the character, so Santino Marella's could be IC Champion, Heel turn & Italian Stereotype and Glamarella. Kozlov's could be Undefeated Streak leading up to his match with Michaels and then...well I don't watch ECW but whatever's happening there. Also if no headers are suitable or they become too long we can still use just the years, articles don't have to all be the same. I just think where headers can be used, they aid the quality of the article; we're here to tell people what happened in each year, not for them to already know and then reaffirm it by looking. Tony2Times (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony, don't change what the headers mean. By not having them, it means we "are assuming they already know and they reaffirm by looking"? The headings are useless and listing various things like feuds, characters, etc. in the prose is unnecessary. Yes, lets do like Will Smith and summarize everything in a few paragraphs. No need for the bulk. Ra agg io 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay well Shawn Michaels' career has been going since 1984, Will Smith's since 1985; why don't you knock the project up a Shawn Michaels career biography in a sandbox that's roughly the same word limit as Will Smith's career section. Hey, if you can do that we don't even need to worry about the titles of headers because he doesn't have any. Tony2Times (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy with federation subheadings but heading under that can be very subjective, and can lead to frivolous edit warring. With no titles there can be no editwarring, if someone is injured for a period of time then it is obvious a break should occur but otherwise who can tell when one feud ends and another begins. With some wrestlers it is obvious, with others they segue from one feud to another. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Headers don't necessarily need to a list of feuds, they can indicate the defining moment in that person's career (Undertaker/Mankind's Hell in a Cell section) or the tag team/alliance they were in (The Legacy, D-Generation X, Evolution) or the championship they held/were chasing; the header doesn't have to cover everything going on in that era, just the most significant part of it. Obviously with some people there would be edit warring and perhaps the guideline should be that present subheaders should not be subheaded until they are finished but by and large, as I've stated already they have a use (despite being called "useless"), which Nikki backed up - they help you pinpoint the exact part of the career you're looking for; say I wanna find out about when Undertaker wasn't the Deadman gimmick, he had the biker gimmick but I don't wanna read all of Undertaker's 20 year career - I don't know when that was because I've only seen pictures and I didn't watch WWF then so I come to Wikipedia because it's an informative encyclopedia, having subheaders will be useFUL as they will point me straight to when he was the biker, having no subheaders will be useLESS because they only divide the paragraphs, their clickability becomes pointless. Considering we're writing articles Out Of Universe to make them more accessible for people who aren't keen fans of wrestling, I'd say it's a no brainer. Tony2Times (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:HEADERS: "...headers in themselves introduce information and let the reader know what subtopics will be presented..." For someone like Triple H, headers with words help a reader find defining moments in his career (from his time in DX, to Evolution, to the McMahon-Helmsley Faction, etc.). Also, when dividing by gimmicks and stables it makes it easier to incorporate Summary Style, as in Triple H's article. As for the example mentioned above...actors may not have their articles divided by movies, but most musicians have their articles divided by albums. As for Will Smith, I would at least divide his "Career" into music vs acting...there is a natural break there that would benefit his article. Wrestlers are much the same way, especially if they have had several gimmicks or if they've been on several WWE brands, which would change up their storylines. Granted, not all wrestlers have several gimmicks or have wrestled with WWE, but title reigns also provide natural breaks. Nikki♥311 21:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a very different case, Nikki. WWE is SCRIPTED. Therefore, if we are assuming the reader will click the subheaders instead of reading thoroughly through the article, then a sub-header saying "Feud with Undertaker" really implies the man was actually feuding with Undertaker. Obviously, WWE is scripted, so even if an article is written in Out-of-Universe or In-Universe style, the subheaders should not be based on scripted events. Years are very well IMO, or how about "Post-WWE", "Post-Injury", etc.? In reality, I believe all careers should be summed up into 3 or 4 paragraphs without hardly any detail. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a LIBRARY (WP:NOT). An encyclopedia sums up information that would be generally useful to the general reader, not state everything in so much detail that the article takes a life of its own. We don't need a listing of every feud and title match the wrestlers had, and therefore we don't need so many headings. Ra agg io 03:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, WWE is scripted. All pro wrestling is scripted thus any header subordinate to a header that reads 'wrestling career' is indicated to be part of a script. Also why is everyone talking like "feud with..." is the only header that we're discussing here? Look at Orton's page, none of his headers are feuds they are to do with stables, tag teams and his championship status. Also other people have the somewhat boring headers of which brand they are on. Other headers can include a particular match type that the era revolves around (Hell in a Cell) or a role that the person fulfilled at the time - King of The Ring, Commissioner, GM, Money In The Bank - which are scripted but that doesn't stop them being that role. If you want to reduce everyone's career into three or four paragraphs then that destroys a lot of the hard work everyone put in, not to mention the reason that people read Wikipedia. If I wanna read a short summary of Michaels' career in a few paragraphs I'll read his intro thanks very much. Tony2Times (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's irrelevant if your feelings are hurt. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. And most likely, 99% of readers will be non-wrestling fans and if they want to read about Shawn Michaels, they will want a general summary, not a comprehensive detail of everything he has done, because I doubt most of them will care. And when most don't care that much, it's fancruft. WP:FANCRUFT. WP:FANCRUFT. WP:FANCRUFT. WP:FANCRUFT. WP:FANCFRUFT. Ra agg io 03:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the amount of FAs this project has, I have to doubt that articles are too detailed. I would think a FA reviewer would catch it. Hell, CM Punk was on the front page a while back. The FA director obviously felt it passed all policies. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, it could be the same case as the out-of-universe style. It's policy but no noticed it and the FA reviewers didn't either. In that case, it would not be good for this project and would undo one hell of a lot of hard work by it's members. I'm personally tired of finding out about new rules that no one bothered to mention before and then having our articles overhauled due to them. And this coming from someone who's been known to frequently say "policy is policy" to IPs and new users. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[3] Ra agg io 16:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't really think that link helps your case at all. The actual page w/ the guideline does though. That being said, how the hell did all the FA reviewers and project members miss all of these damn guidelines? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't even really seem to be any consistency with what the headers should be, how long they should be or how they are phrased or even demarked. On Kane section 2.2.6 is headed "Partnership with The Big Show and feud with the Imposter Kane (2005–2006)", why that much information is a subheading? Then there are revert wars over names in subheadings. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar Meyer (Wrestler)

Seems to be a hoax, but you be the judge. - Dank (push to talk) 02:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Hart Trilogy

I don't watch ECW on Sci Fi, don't get it on my tv right now, but have they actually been introducted as The Hart Trilogy or has Matt Striker only referred to them as such? If they haven't called themselves that, I shouldn't be treated as their official name, yet. Cra sh Underride 17:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, they have not called themselves that. Striker only called them that and it may have just been a passing reference. I would wait and see if they are called that again this week before listing that as their name. TJ Spyke 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And wwe.com called them that. [4] ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think last night on ECW it was settled, they are the Hart Dynasty, no more need for discussion on what they are officially called.MPJ-DK (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 Pepsi Center double-booking controversy

Feel free to improve it. I thought it was deserved an article, after all this media attention. Brady4mvp (Talk) 01:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is being talked about above in another section. This isn't that important anyway.--WillC 01:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this deserves its own article, a small section on the Pepsi Center was perfectly fine. Afkatk (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

PPV summaries

I stopped watching professional wrestling in November 1997 and got back into it around November 2008. I am now using Wikipedia and WWE DVDs to fill in the 11-year gap in my wrestling knowledge. As I have been reading through the recaps of the PPVs during 1997, 1998, and 1999, I have had trouble following many of the summaries. I tried to improve one last night and had it reverted for consistency. I understand the desire for consistency and I don't take the revert personally at all, but the contributor suggested I raise the point here. I ask you to take a look at the page for the St. Valentine's Day Massacre: In Your House as it stood before (and stands now) and compare it to my revision. I think my revision improves readability and ease of comprehension, and I hope you'll agree. I'm willing to do my part to transition articles to an improved format if it is endorsed by the Wikipedia community. Thanks for your consideration. -- Mikehillman (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There has been and will be acres of talk on this, but suffice to say that saying WWF (now WWE) and WWF/WWE is clumsy. Your revision is out of the MOS. That is all I'm saying for now, but consider that we had Over the Edge (1999) on the main page three days ago with 82,000 views and not one complaint. I may also suggest you read the archives. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If a WWF/WWE decision has been made, I was unaware of it and that's not a major point of contention for me. I'm looking at the Over the Edge entry, and it is very well-written and organized much better than the St. Valentine's Day Massacre article. If they were all written that well, I never would have felt the need to reorganize any articles. If it is the general consensus, I would endorse continuing to improve all the PPV recaps to the level of quality displayed in the Over the Edge article. Thanks for the input and the discussion. -- Mikehillman (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Improving all PPVs up to FA in keeping with the current MOS is an aim of the project, you are more than welcome to help. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I spent last Summer off university re-watching WWF week by week and so I wrote a lot of the 1998 PPV articles; at the time there was a lot of upheaval in the way the project was writing PPVs. Also, because I was watching two or three episodes of Raw a day I was going through it all pretty fast. I know it's not the most commendable of things, but essentially I wrote each article in one big go and moved on, the idea being that having something there was preferable over having nothing and that other people could edit it into something much better without having to watch the PPV given the overdetailed explanation I gave. Tony2Times (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think your work is over descriptive and possibly could be done a little better, my personal opinion is it could be done without the headlines, I feel there are too many headlines and it ruins the section. Afkatk (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. I just said it was haphazard and rushed. The headlines are part of the Project's style. Tony2Times (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

100 DYKs

Hey all. At the beginning of the year, we made a few New Year's Resolutions for the project (which myself and a few other have been keeping track of here). Today we had our 100th DYK, so thank you to everyone that helped out. Because there is still half a year left to go, though, I'm setting a new goal of 50 more DYKs. Good luck!!!! Nikki♥311 20:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Crap, you beat me to it Nikki. I meant to come on here and say it, but forgot too. Well you did come up with the idea so it is only fitting you announce the good news to everyone. 50 more? Well I guess we all better get to it then.--WillC 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Section heads in BLP's

A big vandalism target in most of this project's BLPs are the section headings. The section heading in most good and featured BLPs outside of the Wrestling project have either a main topic of the section, or they just list the years that the section covers. For example, it would read "2005-2007" instead of "Feud with John Cena (2005-2007)." Some of the ones I'm seeing are getting ridiculous and long. Can we fix these to match most other BLPs without any drama? All opinions are welcome. iMatthew : Chat 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A relevant discussion putting consensus to the opposite viewpoint took place here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, lets read that. iMatthew : Chat 14:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That sections a mess. We shouldn't determine a consensus that involved hundreds of articles, based on the opinions of 5 editors. iMatthew : Chat 15:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Matt. Some of the section headlines are just ridiculous, especially The Undertaker. Likewise Hulk Hogan, it would be better if just relevant years were added. Adding section headers that explain something that occurred during the specified time period is in a way a point-of-view because something else could have occurred as well and in addition it favors mainly only wrestling readers and not all readers. I feel we should change this to years instead, like it previously was.--Tru co 15:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. I've always preferred years to begin with, though I'm not actually sure why. That being said, the discussion that took place above eventually tangented off into one of our articles being too long and violating WP:FANSITE. Not many opinions on that were voiced, and I'd be interested in hearing them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear some other opinions. The above discussion is rather confusing. iMatthew : Chat 15:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above looks like it is being used to discuss mostly what should and shouldn't be included in the section headers (when used with words).--Tru co 15:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think word descriptions can be used, but no more than a couple of words (some articles have sentences basically in section names). TJ Spyke 15:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A word or two is often fine, but sections with the main title, World Wrestling Entertainment, should avoid have sub-headers of "Smackdown," "Raw," "Return to Smackdown," "ECW and Raw." If the sections are small enough, they should be combined and the header should be the years that it covers. There should not be a new subsection everytime one switches a brand. iMatthew : Chat 15:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with "Raw and SmackDown" as a header. That being said, there shouldn't be a new header for every brand switch unless the section is long. CM Punk provides a good example. ECW is one header, with "Raw and SmackDown" being the next. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with iMatthew: Only if someone does a lot of notable things on one brand, then switches brands and does a lot on another, where the switch is a good dividing point, should it be divided by brand. Thanks, gENIUS 101 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You know this was the conversation I was trying to have in the section above but it got endlessly diverted. There are a number of bios where the toc is ridiculously wide because we have twenty word titles. I would prefer feds, then brands. But when I last posted this it turned into a conversation about something entirely different. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My only argument against it is that not every wrestler works for WWE, so not every wrestler's career can be divided by brands (which includes people who worked there before brands existed). Sometimes titles, countries, promotions, gimmicks, stables, etc. are better dividing points. I'm not saying that every title needs a new header, but that winning or losing a title can obviously be used if there isn't a better alternative. Nikki♥311 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should use simple headers like what most other BLPs use. I once saw a heading on Edge's article that was along the lines of "World Champion, injury, return and world champion again", which is absolutely ridiculous. Imagine if the PW style was used elsewhere. For example, the headings at Nancy Cartwright, (rather than being "early career", "The Simpsons" and "later career") would be "Radio work, move to Los Angeles, Twilight Zone, Marian Rose White and other film work", "voice of Bart Simpson" and "further film work, stage career, autobiography and other work". -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Could we get the MOS to say something along those lines, as we do with Week By Week and the listing of Championships and moves? Darrenhusted (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in favour of keeping headers for the reasons I said before, plus they include the years anyway. I also, though, am in favour of them being kept short. But saying things like brands only is applicable only to WWE and NJPW. Other types of headers need to be suggested in MOS. As I said before, and I'm sure most people who are in favour of headers agree - it should be short, sweet and snappy and just cover the most important aspects of that era and also think about how using one could incorporate others (ie with Cody Rhodes, calling it The Legacy already implies teaming with Ted DiBiase because that was part of the build up; D-Generation X in '99 can include both the group being together before WrestleMania and them feuding with each other, as they are/were still D-X members even if not part of the stable anymore, up to July). But yes, World Champion, injury, return and World Champion again is stupid - it could just as well say World Champion. Tony2Times (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the best compromise would be a word or letter limit, and it would give us something to point out when someone makes a header ridiculously long. Nikki♥311 19:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking more about this...and I think a good limit might be 5 words. Most stables, tag teams, and promotions are 3 or 4 words long, so 5 would make it fair to the occasional exception, while also allowing enough room so that whatever is written makes sense. Nikki♥311 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

5 was the number I was thinking of too; or 3 large words with small connectors (the, a, of &c) Tony2Times (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Promotions and the MoS

Since we are talking about adding stuff to the MoS above, I think it is time to have some rules about what should and should not be included in the articles about promotions. Like:

Don't list results. The exception being small promotions with one pay-per-view event. Do: Ladies Professional Wrestling Association. Don't: NWA Charlotte
Do list a history of the company, but don't describe every storyline that occurred.
Don't list upcoming events or touring dates. WP:NOT
For defunct promotions, include the championship lists on the main page only if they had less than 10 reigns. Example: Wrestling Society X

Thoughts? Nikki♥311 22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right, if I can think of any more I'll chip in. Tony2Times (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment it says ""Summarize the career of the wrestler, but make sure you leave it to major events and key points. Try not to include week-by-week synopsis of what that wrestler did on whatever show they're on.", how would we word it so it matches other section in the MOS on biographies? Darrenhusted (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at TNA at the moment. I was thinking that we shouldn't have Celebrity involvement sections, since it is cruft anyway. Creative team sections would be useful but better suited for a roster article, since it is so hard to source anyway. I believe we should have a small section regrading the roster though, so figure that one out. We shouldn't list current champions, instead just list to the current champions article anyway, and just have a bit of prose regrading the championships and current champions. Tables get in the way and just another thing that is needed to update after new champions come along.--WillC 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There should definitely be different "rules" for different size promotions. For defunct minor promotions, everything can fit on a single page, like the aforementioned Ladies Professional Wrestling Association. For the big ones, though, like WWE, TNA, WCW, ECW, ROH, etc., there is no way! We could just have "rules" about summary style and what is appropriate for the main article and what should be linked to a separate article. Nikki♥311 22:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you guys ever considered making a "template" for promotions? after all there are several standard headlines, info boxes etc. that should be used - a template for help in creating new pages may be beneficial? same with wrestler bios, titles, events and teams/stables. Just a suggestion. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There already is one: Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion. TJ Spyke 15:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant a template for the whole article, not a template info box. Such as which headers to include (history; Championships &c). Tony2Times (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I didn't mean a template in the Wikipedia way but instead an "empty" article with headlines, info boxes etc. so that new articles have a guideline on what to include, how to format stuff etc. It'd be a great help to new editors. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I think that might be beneficial, and in any event, it wouldn't hurt anything to have one. Nikki♥311 22:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In our template's page, why do we have one for MMA? Ra agg io 16:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not 100% sure, but I do remember some talk a long time ago about making a combined MMA/Pro wrestling infobox, for people like Brock Lesnar, Ken Shamrock, and Bobby Lashley who have careers in both. It is probably left over from that. Nikki♥311 22:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That thing needs changing, it has no mention of ring names. (eg Bobby Lashley competing as Blaster Lashley in OVW) 77.102.18.231 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of making up a rough draft (of sorts) in a sandbox, and ask for some input/changes/etc. Nikki♥311 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine idea. Collaboration is always a good thing. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer them having a seperate infobox, like the way The Rock's wrestling infobox is in his pro wrestling career whereas the profile box is for his film career as that is what he currently is. Tony2Times (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source

I'm wondering if the website [www.cagematch.de cagematch.de] is a reliable source or not. it's mainly a database of facts i.e. show results etc and they have approximately 20 people working on maintaining the database focusing on getting the results etc. as correct as possible. while they publish news/rumors and reviews I'm mainly looking at the historical data they have for each wrestler. I think it would qualify as a Reliable Source but it'd be great if someone else could chime in, it could be a very valuable asset for the project. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked this before and no one replied. It is an amazing source and even if it isn't reliable for actual citations, it's certainly where I go to when writing biographies as a launching point - I look at it there, then go looking for results from the feds themselves if you see what I mean. I think reliability is dependent on if the website proves they can verify their sources, but I have no idea how to find that out. Tony2Times (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the reliability of it has come into question since the CZW World Heavyweight Championship was removed of its FL status. There it was thought that it wasn't reliable. It would be nice if it could be proven reliable though.--WillC 22:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In the "About us" section they outline that they're a team of unpaid fans who maintain the database but that they strive towards making sure everything is as complete and correct as possible. I think the person who said "its not reliable" dismissed it too quickly. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another WWE pay-per-view renamed

Unforgiven's seems to have been given the boot now.[5] The mini bar hasn't been changed yet but it's worth notifying for when it does. -- Oaks ter 18:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the side bar meant nothing and that we go by the live event details. It should also be noted that Breaking Point is going to be a submission themed event with the main event matches taking place under Submission Rules. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WWEhurrican, don't believe rumors you read. There is nothing to indicate that there will be any theme to the event. To any naieve person reading this section; WWEhurricane is making the info up. The only details known about the event is the location and date. TJ Spyke 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, sir, I know for a fact that WWE is using this as a submission themed pay per view. They sent out text messages to all of their mobile subscribers about this last week. Fans got to vote for the name of the event and Breaking Point was selected. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean I made it up.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't have any proof, which means it wouldn't be allowed even if you aren't making it up. TJ Spyke 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether I do or not, you should not come on here and announce to everyone that I am making things up when you yourself don't even know all the facts. I got the text message and the email that WWE sent out about this. It isn't very fair of you to come on here and publicly question my integrity and my information and blatantly say that I'm making things up.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And for those wondering, the choices were:

WWE Breaking Point
WWE Submission Sunday
WWE Submit & Quit
WWE Total Submission —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwehurricane1 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- And the point of listing those unsouced and totally un-relevant names was....? As for you first point, you come in here spouting a bunch of unsourced claims with no proof, I was trying to make it clear that people should not read your comments and think they are true. TJ Spyke 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of listing those other names was so that people who might have wondered would know what the other choices were for the name of this pay per view. I may not have proof that I'm able to post on here to show everyone that what I'm saying is true (which is why, if you haven't noticed, I haven't made any edits), but I'd imagine that you have ZERO proof that what I'm saying ISN'T true. People can read my comments and think whatever they like, but no one should have the nerve to publicly call me a liar without having any evidence. That only serves to make you look bad if/when what I've said turns out to be valid.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's harder to proof something is false than it is to prove it's real. Unless WWE come out and says "That information is false", I can't. Besides, the burden of proof is always on the people making the claim of something is true. TJ Spyke 22:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is why, if you thought what I was saying wasn't true, you should have kept it to yourself instead of out right telling people that I was making stuff up. All you would have had to do is wait about 3 months and you would have had your answer. Instead you chose to take the low road which, for now hurts my credibility since I can't provide a link to my email or cell phone, but if/when it comes true, will make you look bad.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

When I get email newsletters, they tend to have a "click here if you can't see this message". If WWE's have that, could you link to it? Although since you have to pay they probably don't... Thanks, gENIUS 101 12:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

wwehurricane, I will not look bad if it turns out to be true since I was telling people not to believe an unsourced claim made by a random person. The fact that neither Wrestling Observer nor Pro Wrestling Torch (the 2 most reliable wrestling news sites) mention any of the claims you make doesn't help your case. TJ Spyke 14:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Genius, you can not use a source where people have to subscribe or log in to see it. TJ, Wrestling Observer and Pro Wrestling Torch do not trump the emails/text messages that WWE themselves send out. And, again, if you have no proof that discredits what I'm saying, you should have kept your opinion to yourself until WWE announces the information publicly. Just because PWT and WO don't mention something doesn't mean it didn't happen or doesn't exist. They are not official sources for anything. I don't care if you believe me at this point or not, as I said before, I can't link to my email inbox or cell phone text messages, time will tell us if the information is correct or not. What I do care about is you publicly stating that I am making things up without any having any proof to back it up. That's the gripe I have with you.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you listen to yourself? You tell another user not to use a source that requires a subscription but then turn around and talk about WWE's text alerts (which also require a subscription) being allowed. Why do you keep arguing this? You stated information as facts despite having no proof and no reliable site stating that information either. I wanted to make it clear that you were not stating factual information in case someone reading this was gullible enough to believe you. Don't get mad at me for trying to make sure people don't read rumors here and think they are true. TJ Spyke 23:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you read before responding? I was explaining to Genius why it is I can't use the email WWE sent out as a source. I stated information as facts because they ARE facts. Just because you do not subscribe to WWE Universe's email/text alerts, does not mean that the information that is sent out in them is not true. Why can't you accept that? Your posts make it seem like any information that you do not have or can't find simply does not exist. Why can't you accept that there might be information out there available that you do not have? You do not know it all. No one does. That is why this entire site is a collaborative effort. Do not come on here and publicly call me a liar just because I have information that you don't.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You continue trying to say we should believe you despite nothing to support your claims. I am just saying that people should not believe claims from someone who has no evidence to back them up, plain and simple. TJ Spyke 01:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Wrestling Observer DID report on this. I present to you, proof: http://www.f4wonline.com/content/view/9335/

"WWE sent out a survey as they are planning a PPV where all the main event matches on the show will be submission matches. The four ideas for titles they are polling are WWE Submission Sunday, WWE Submit & Quit, WWE Breaking Point and WWE Total Submission."

Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I never once said people should believe me. I gave the information that I had and people can make up their own minds with what to do with it. I think you've missed the entire point of why why you said was wrong. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone or not believing them and saying so. What is wrong is to come on here and publicly announce to everyone that THEY should not believe something and (most importantly) that I am making it up. I told you where I got the information and that should have been enough.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Vince can't make up his damn mind anymore. They really should decide on names way ahead of time. Dear God this is number three this year. Are they just drawing names out of a hat now? Is Cyber Sunday going to become Computer Wednesday or something. Lets see, what would be the best course of action at this time?--WillC 19:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I could understand One Night Stand with the PG rating now. Even The Great American Bash makes sense since they got rid of the American theme last year (no red, white and blue logo, not red, white and blue ropes, etc.). I can't think of any reason to change Unforgiven. If they were gonna change it, they should have brought back Fall Brawl (complete with the 2-ring setup and WarGames match). TJ Spyke 19:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Get rid of Armageddon and bring back Starrcade. Use that legacy. Wargames is too similar to Lethal Lockdown these days, and Vince doesn't like things that weren't created by him or his federation. Too bad, he could get alot of cash from Wargames. But lets see, should we go ahead and create the Breaking Point article or wait and see if this is a joke, seeing as WWE had a poll for this name a while back?--WillC 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Will, chill. They clearly have something in mind for that month, as evident by a suvey they sent out regarding this name awhile back. And if you weren't a Wikipedia editor, would you care that much? See if it's a joke? I thought the events page was the all mighty source we base everything on! Mshake3 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like Vince is just frenzy about [literally] rewriting history. Since WWE Breaking Point is in four months, lets wait awhile before we actually create the article, maybe until a poster is released so we can confirm that it has replaced Unforgiven (2009).--Tru co 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC

What happened to "let's wait for the ticket information to update?" Besides, a poster for "Breaking Point" would say NOTHING about Unforgiven, nor should it. At this point, it's the September PPV, with no known history to any previous event, and articles should be reflected as such. Mshake3 (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillax homie. No reason to throw a fit over the Internet. We usually wait anyways for the poster to be released to create an article, and since we don't know wtf this whole new event is about, its best to wait for some details as to what the event is [replacing Unforgiven? Submission only event? etc.].--Tru co 00:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you should request a delete of Night_of_Champions_(2009), as they don't have a poster. Mshake3 (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Its common sense that it will be recreated, and besides its in July, 2 months from now, not like this new PPV which is in four. --Tru co 22:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You have got to stop it with these arbitrary numbers and rules. Mshake3 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Really, Mshake, what's the point? Neither side can say what is to happen with Unforgiven four PPVs out. NOC is in six weeks, and it being promoted. SummerSlam is a twenty year tradition, past that no one can say. Hell at the moment Vince can't even arrange a Raw taping properly, the next three PPVs are common sense, anything past that is speculation (aside from WM). Darrenhusted (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it alright if i redirect Breaking Point to Unforgiven? Just asking before someone reverts me. --Numyht (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, because you may never know, another company could just come up with something under that name. Its best not to speculate anything.--Tru co 20:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Breaking Point is already a Disambiguation page. Afkatk (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WWE Breaking Point will be the logical place, but as it is four months away I would caution anyone against redirect, page moves or even page edits. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't redirect or create anything at this point until we see what is going to happen. WWE lately can't make up their minds. Breaking Point may be an entirely new event, with its own history. It could be a continuation of Unforgiven, or they could change the name once again. At the moment, we should just place up notes in templates and get WWE Breaking Point watched by the project, or even better, protected from creation by ips.--WillC 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop holding back the project. If folks want to work on the articles with all currently known and accurate information, then let them. "It could change" is a bullshit excuse. If it changes, then change it at that time. Mshake3 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

He is not holding back the project Mshake, so stop acting like you know the good thing to do. If nothing is known at all about a PPV and is still 3+ months aways, there is no reason to create the article. An article on Breaking Point would be extremely pre-mature right now since the only CONFIRMED info is the name and location. TJ Spyke 19:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet we have an article for SummerSlam, a PPV where the only CONFIRMED info is the name and location. **Rolls Eyes**. Mshake3 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's because it's one of the Big Four, which are treated differently (but don't quote me on that). Beats me as to why, though, seeing that WWE treats them exactly the same as the former In Your House ones. Thanks, gENIUS 101 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a SummerSlam article yet either, but the general consensus seems to be an article can exist when it's about 2 months away. The only PPV that is allowed an article earlier than that is WrestleMania. TJ Spyke 20:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

TV Ratings

In the SmackDown article (which, for some reason beyond me is still called Friday Night SmackDown) it has a clear breakdown of the yearly rating averages all well sourced. Living outside the US I don't know anything about Neilsens except in relation to each other. Would it be possible to do the same sort of chart for Raw and ECW? Impact has a grid sort of similar except it's much smaller and lists it by time slot rather than year, is information accessible to expand that too? Tony2Times (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the announcers still refer to it as FNS occasionally. ArcAngel (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention it is the actual name of the show (it's ALWAYS called Friday Night SmackDown, only the logo doesn't include "Friday Night"). TJ Spyke 13:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that that was my original query, but they also often welcome us to "Monday Night Raw". Tony2Times (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Only occasionally and really more of a nickname since it was "Monday Night Raw" for a long time. Head to wwe.com and you will see the show is "Friday Night SmackDown", not just "SmackDown". Why is this even being questioned? Anyways, the TV rating sections need better sourcing. TJ Spyke 15:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Internationally, SmackDown is just known as SmackDown and ECW is just known as ECW... I believe the Friday Night and Sci Fi naming is U.S. exclusive. Shouldn't the naming of the articles be based on the international names?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the show names are still ECW on Sci Fi and WWE Friday Night SmackDown. It doesn't matter what they are called elsewhere as WWE considers these the official names (not "ECW" or "WWE SmackDown"). TJ Spyke 20:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of deviating from my original point - are the SD ratings well sourced and if so, can't we get sources for other regular major wrestling TV programmes? Tony2Times (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say no as the information for The Hollywood Reporter has to be accessed in a payed section of the site, and the other site is referenced to a forum post, I'm not sure on any policy Wikipedia has, but it doesn't provide a source/credit on where the information has been retrieved from. Afkatk (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reboot

It looks like this page has slowed down recently. Very very very few edits anymore. I kind of like it, it seems the project has other focuses, which is good. Now speaking of the project, I've been thinking. I'm not a very active contributor anymore. I just sit and watch mostly while I work on personnel stuff at my place of residence, but while I've been watching and sometimes just looking around during my breaks. I've noticed that this project could use a makeover. Not a oh we need to change the colors makeover. No I mean, lets discuss project wide changes again. Like formats to articles, to templates, etc. Lets redesign the templates. Lets start small and work our way up. I ask for all the project members to become active in this discussion. Lets make a consensus. We'll go through every part of this project, along the way making new ideas and after we are all done, we'll have re-wrote the MoS which I feel should go in more detail, and it would be nice to keep it as up to date as possible. At the moment I would like to hear just ideas. What do the WikiProject Professional wrestling members, non-members, alumni, and future members want done. Lets all remain civil. Make good points, and I fear the evil demon will return, the discussion of hating the out of universe. If it does return, whoever talks about it. Make good points, do not say I don't like it. Now that I've stated that. I plan to try to keep this section going on and on and on and on and on for many more sub-sections. At the moment, lets just throw out ideas for templates, article formats, etc. You name it, state it!! After a few days of that, we'll start a main subject, which I ask for everyone to stay on and not jump to a new one which this project has a problem of doing. I've left two of my ideas down below and more will come from me. But first I want other's opinions. The most talked about and similar ideas will have its first section to discuss thoroughly in a few days. I've elected myself to control this discussion at the moment since I opened it and if everyone is fine with it, I'll take the duty of re-writting the MoS in a subpage as we go along. Maybe we can improve wrestling articles to above and beyond what people believe we can do and along the way discover new amazements (now I'm just running out of stuff to say).--WillC 08:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideas

Remember be kind amongst yourselves.--WillC 08:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My first idea is to add a caption section to the PPV event template. It could be useful in stating what the image is, either it be a poster, a screenshot, a copy of the cover of the DVD, VHS, etc. or even a hand made image used to illustrate the event.--WillC 08:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. Most recent PPVs seem to have posters, but older ones vary more widely, I believe. Thanks, gENIUS 101 12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That has been on my mind for a while now, and I feel it would be a useful add-on.--WillC 12:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
My second idea is to have a template for non-PPV events. Indy companies are growing larger and still continue to have live events released on DVD instead of PPVs. Larger companies have special events that become significant and notable as well that are not PPVs. This could bridge that gab.--WillC 08:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that rather than confusing people and making a second template, we should just expand the current one, which is called {{Infobox Wrestling event}}. If there is anything missing from it, we should just add it as optional parameters. Thanks, gENIUS 101 12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That would also work. I wrote this section at 4 am and wasn't thinking straight so I didn't think that we could just have add-ons. Like the tag team/stable template. We could either write P or L for it to say pay-per-view event chronology or Live event chronology.--WillC 12:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
My first idea is to rename this section to just "Reboot". Is that alright Will? Thanks, gENIUS 101 12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. Just wrote it like that to get people's attention. :D--WillC 12:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
To find a good format that will get the project its first GA and later FA promotion article.--WillC 11:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on a style guide for the promotions, but I've only got a little bit completed (User:Nikki311/sandbox). I've also been working on a template for new promotion articles, as was suggested in an above section (User:Nikki311/sandbox2). I've never made that kind of template before, so it could use a lot of work, but you get the basic idea. Nikki♥311 19:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of working on TNA's article in a subpage along with a few others. Maybe I could help you a bit with that? That way we could see if the format created works.--WillC 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
To find a better format to get our first roster FL.--WillC 11:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Find a way for this list to not have each thing numbered 1? Tony2Times (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Better? Just make sure you put a number sign before the colons, and the numbers will stay right. Nikki♥311 01:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, now that everything is beginning to work and everything is sorted. What should we discuss first? Not many ideas at the moment, so not sure what topic we should debate over at the moment first. I say new formats for bios.--WillC 02:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
What is it that you think needs changing? Nikki♥311 03:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Everything. The writing, the sections, etc. The template could be changed a bit to include sections used it other bio templates. The writing needs to be out of universe in a way which allows people to understand that a wrestler is really just a very active actor. That pro wrestling is just a giant never ending film. Not to overload. Just to find that correct balance. Exactly what information should be stated is a useful guideline to have. What the sections should be called. Then the moves section. It would be nice if they were in a table of some sort instead of bullet points. The Championships section as well. Just an entire makeover. Maybe get our first bio FA in a long time. Just throwing some ideas out at the moment so we can figure out what needs to be changed and what shouldn't.--WillC 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree with changing around everything in the article. That is just too extreme. However, the "In wrestling" section is very un-notable and seems like trivia to me. Can we remove finally? Wikipedia is not a fact site, and those are just simple facts. iMatthew : Chat 10:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- How is a wrestlers finishers, music, and managers not notable? That is completely notable and relevant in a article about wrestlers. TJ Spyke 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  - They are simple facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fact site. In your opinion, they are notable. That doesn't mean they actually are. iMatthew : Chat 16:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    - The first line of WP:TRIVIA - Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information. How can you still argue that we should keep them? iMatthew : Chat 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      - I disagree with changing everything, too. I was thinking more of some fine-tuning or an update to the style guide (which is very out-of-date). As for "In wrestling"...a lot of times, music and move names are important to the character. I agree that we definitely need some guidelines, though (especially about moves because those lists can be ridiculous sometimes). Nikki♥311 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
        Same here. I do agree they need to be trimmed down, but removing them would negate a ridiculous amount of work by the project as a whole. I can't count the hours I've poured into fixing links and citing things in those lists, and that's only me. I know that "it would negate work" isn't a valid reason to keep them, but I felt the need to say it anyway. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Poor excuses. Why is it that everytime a change is wanted or hell in this case needed, that someone says that is too much work, etc? I'm not bashing anyone I thank everyone for replying and I wish people would continue. But we need to get that out of our minds. Anything worth doing shouldn't be stopped because someone doesn't want to work. Changes take time, so we don't have to go around changing every article at a time. The change of PPV format is still in progress and it helped alot. The FL criteria has changed recently and our FLs haven't been changed. All of the WWE Championship lists fail all the criteria. I was throwing out to change everything. I don't work on bios much but I'm in the process of starting to with work on A.J. Styles, Chris Daniels, etc which I plan to take to FAC after GA reviews. But from what I gathered there are plenty of things to change with bios. Number one the amazing amount of week by week used today. But the idea for the wrestling moves. Lets only lists their main moves. Moves to lists in A.J. Styles: Frog splash, Spiral Tap, Styles Clash, Dropkick, Pelé Kick, Shooting Styles Press, Rack Bomb, Phenomenon, Kip–up frankensteiner, Fosbury Flop, Springboard forearm strike, and anyother move used on a very very regular basis. Put them all in a table with any images of the move we can get. Remove moves used with tag team partners and instead just place a link to the tag team article where the moves go. If their isn't one then I guess list them in a very small section. I agree with Nikki's comment the most. I'm working more on a fine tuning. The everything comment was probably taken too literally.--WillC 02:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a new idea. The championships section can be broke off. Multiple actors and films which were nominated or/and won have awards articles. Why don't we remove the sections in wrestlers who have won multiple championships like Sting, A.J. Styles, Kurt Angle, etc and create articles lke List of championships and accomplishments won by A.J. Styles. The limit to creating these lists is 20 different championships excluding Tournaments, awards by promotions, etc. Then keep the championships and accomplish section and rename it since I feel it should be that is just me and have a link to the list plus a summary of their championships. What do people think?--WillC 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I think that's a horrible idea. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it is a work in progress. Not all ideas will get through, but it doesn't hurt to at least say something about them. The lists aren't against any criteria if lists like them are being created and passing FLC already.--WillC 15:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just content forking, IMO. iMatthew : Chat 17:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My biggest problem with that kind of list, is once users start creating them, others take up the charge and it doesn't stop. For the handful of wrestlers where such a page might actually be of use (ie. Ric Flair, Jerry Lawler) there are so many that would just be small forks. So you'd get pages like List of championships and accomplishments won by Necro Butcher or List of championships and accomplishments won by Colt Cabana, where a split isn't needed. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that is a fixable problem. Merge them back in citing that isn't significant enough.--WillC 19:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that just creates tons of extra work for us. iMatthew : Chat 20:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And that is bad how? You said you wanted to work on articles. There is something you can do and people will not revert it besides the creator and some ip. It is an idea. I said above not all will get through. It is picking everyone's brain. After a good week of this discussion will I not ask to make official changes to articles.--WillC 20:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you don't make the calls around here. When a consensus is made, it's made. There is no time limit. If we used this idea, then we would have tons of people trying to make as many as possible to get more stars on their userpage. If you are expecting other people to clean up those messes, think again. Let me remind you, we are here to volunteer our time. Nobody is getting paid to clean up tons of huge messes that could have easily been avoided. iMatthew : Chat 20:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I know I don't. But I'm trying to help move things along. Then quit acting like you are getting payed. I'm not taking this as serious as you are, you act like it is the end of the world. I'm just trying to help improve articles, because I'm tired of looking up something I want to know about and it being a shit qrticle. That is my entire motavation behind this idea. I was planning in a week to come back and start a review. By making sure everything is straight on the changes so the MoS can be changed as soon as possible.--WillC 20:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMnia 25 photos

Hi. I have upload some WrestleMania 25 photos and I want to know if I have made it well. If i make wrong, please, improve, but they are good photos. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Photos in Featured Lists

Can't we have pictures for every title reign? And no, it would not be cruft, because A LOT of FL's have a lot of photos. Take List of birds of Belize, it has 58 pictures and is FL. A better example might be List of mammals of Korea, because it has 55 TABLED pictures. And obviously not in every row, because not every row's picture is available. I think it would add to the article if a picture of each reign's era was added to each row. Ra agg io 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So long as the pics were fair use and showed the wrestler clearly I don't see why not. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Man that'll make for some cluttered tables. There's already plenty of info, putting a picture in squeezes the current content. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How 'bout we give it a look, then revert it back if it is a mess? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to experiment, it would be better to use a test page than an actual article page. TJ Spyke 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that they will be something along the line of these. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That is fine for 9 titles, but it would be a problem for title lists. Even just the WWE Championship has had 39 different champions (if you want seperate pictures for each reign, that becomes even worse). TJ Spyke 14:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

39 pictures should be OK, but limit the size of the pictures. I don't know, because no one has let Raagio show us what he is thinking of doing. I'm saying: let's take a look, before shouting him down as he did give two examples of other FLs with pictures. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm against it, solely for the fact that for all of the older titles, more than half the wrestlers (probably as high as 3/4 in some cases) don't have free images available, and it would look really sloppy. I have discovered that embedded images in large lists causes a lot of headaches (see: List of Nobel laureates in Physics or List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees). IPs assume that the blank cells are empty due to laziness, so they add non-free images, and users are constantly adding/removing images. And, at the end of it, a lot of the rows are still imageless, so the table looks incomplete. It would be best to avoid that mess with the title lists. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scorpion. The first part of all the lists would be empty, and that would just look weird. Plus, as he pointed out, it would create a lot of headaches. Nikki♥311 19:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In the examples I gave, and of course other lists that I didn't, not all cells are full. That's just because of WP:OR and WP:FU and we can't battle them. It doesn't mean we have to shoot down the idea of visual comprehensiveness like other FL's. If we have good pictures for CM Punk, Jeff Hardy, Edge, Triple H and Booker T, are we going to shoot down the idea because we don't have one of Goldberg? That's ridiculous. My main discomfort with our FL's is that they're just lists. They don't do or say anything else.

The example articles I gave have pictures, definitions and other information about each listed item. Our lists only have names, dates and locations. WWE's list on their site has explanations AND pictures; ours should be similar. We should capture the full effect of a Featured List. If not, it's just a plain normal list. Just give me a chance to break out a format and then we could argue on some changes. However, I thoroughly believe that our lists are too plain and don't differenciate from normal lists. Ra agg io 21:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The WWE World Championship is a bad example because it's a newer championship and we have images of a lot of the big names of the 2000s. Imagine the list of World Tag Team champions, I haven't counted, but I'd be willing to be that we have images of less than 15% of the listed teams (that is, of both wrestlers at once, not an image of one or the other). Or, take List of WWE Champions. Of the first seven champions, we have images of Billy Graham (wrestler) and Bob Backlund. However, neither is in-ring, or of them in wrestling gear, so how could it possibly be representative of their reign as champion? With the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame list, the majority of the images are of them performing, so it's representative. I just think adding images to these pages will cause a lot of trouble and in the long run, isn't even worth it. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created a prototype at User:Raaggio/Sandbox with the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) article. I chose this one particularly because it is short and because most pictures are available. Also, the pictures are not necessarily going to be the ones used, but at least we have an idea. The sortability of the table is broken, but I am pretty sure there is a way to fix that, but I don't know how to. I know some of you guys do know, so please assist. Thank you, Ra agg io 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to be able to have sortability if you do the table like that. Using colspan in one of the rows will break it. I am completely against doing this for one and not the others. For a list where there are a lot of images of the wrestlers available (ie. that one and the Divas belt), there is one where there isn't (ie. the WWE, ECW, Intercontinental, US, womens, and both tag team championships, most of the defunct titles and a lot of championships for older and smaller promotions). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion, just because there isn't apparently a picture for EVERY SINGLE wrestler who has held a championship is not a good enough reason for the images to not be added. In the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame article you quoted, there are some that are missing and it is still an FL. Also, this format would be better because we can actually speak of every item in the table in the 2nd row instead of just writing "notes". Ra agg io 23:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just one or two wrestlers. Some of the older titles may have around forty missing pic. I also don't see where Scorpions suggested that lack of pics would prevent it from being a FL. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He implied it. And if you believe the article can become an FL, then why do you disagree? For an article to become a Featured List, it must be decided by the Wikipedia community as a whole; a CONSENSUS must be achieved. If you and Scorpion are saying that you personally disagree, yet consensus is achievable by the Wikipedia community as a whole, then basically the articles can be changed and the community will accept it. Ra agg io 00:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I never did imply that (at least, I didn't intend to), FLs with embedded image tables are promoted all the time. I'm saying it's a bad idea because we lack a lot of images of wrestlers and it will look bad (for the record, I do regret adding images to both the Nobel and R&R lists), especially since most of the images are tall. All it will do is just make the page larger and harder to lead and the images don't add much anyway since they are small, and like I added above, most of the images for older wrestlers aren't even taken during their active years. As for adding a second row, doing so would remove the sortability which, in my opinion, is one of the most important features of the championship lists. What do you mean with your comment "And if you believe the article can become an FL, then why do you disagree"? The page is already a FL. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first thing I noticed when looking at that list is that it looks weird to have the same pic of Triple H each time. Also, for some wrestlers, as someone mentioned, the only pics that are available are of when they are older and retired, which doesn't represent their reign at all. For example, in List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions, it isn't until reign 39 (of 80 reigns) that the wrestler actually has a free-use pic that some-what resembles what he looked like when he held the belt (and that's only because Sting's face make-up hides how old he is). Nikki♥311 01:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea and would believe it would work and help but that table is IMO terriable. A section for image? No, image shouldn't be listed. Too much information about the match. The list is about the champions. Not the match. Why list what match the championship was won in? It doesn't add anything that Kane was in the match. It didn't effect the championship's history. Plus having an image of Goldberg as WCW Championship doesn't help. Two different belts with different histories only related by design. Plus the location should have the state written out. Also, speaking of lists, I was going to bring this up in the ideas section but haven't yet. Our lists at the moment are out of date in format. Look at the most recently passed FL: List of PWG World Champions. Now look at the FLs in our Featured Topic. The formats are totally different and they don't pass the criteria anymore. I spoke to Scorp about this and I believe he somewhat agrees a bit. Either they are improved to pass the criertia or I'm going to nominate one by one for removal. Either that or I'll take it under my own power to fix them, considering I like working on list articles these days.--WillC 03:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, the State initials and the match types were taken from the original article: List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE). All I did was change the format, but the info stood the same. And by the way, the image's section name could be removed, but if you don't like the idea of it being placed in a different column, then where would you place it? Ra agg io 03:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you expanded the entire thing to what you thought the lists should be, seeing as the notes section was changed. You also said something about more information. I would place in at the end to be added with the notes section, within the reign number section, or within the champion section. Alot like the current champions article, but looking a bit better.--WillC 04:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

New version

In conclusion, you think it would work like this? Ra agg io 14:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat, if the champion's name was in a caption under the picture.--WillC 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, a caption wouldn't be wise, because the picture would be surrounded in a box. A box inside a table in every row would look weird. Is there a way to create a text box in Wikipedia? Ra agg io 17:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I just believe the name should be seeable, or change it to the same format as the current champions article is.--WillC 17:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to state for the record that I do not like that. You have to remember that in FLs, functionability is considered more important than adding a bunch of little features. The current version may not have images, but it works best. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have finished the newer version completely with every single champion. I think the list looks mightily okay. The sortable functionality is present as there is no column break, and the "notes" section is larger so I think a little bit of more info on the reign itself could be added. If not we could have an attached row under every title reign (which sort together) with more information. The current lists are outdated, we need to improve them. Ra agg io 19:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestion looks awful. You have different size images all over the place which make the table too large and unwieldy. Images aren't of much use in this case and are just used to pretty up tables. They especially don't work when a table has comparative statistics. For example, if I wanted to list the champions in order of longest reign to smallest, on my screen, I'd only be able to see five rows without scrolling down, so if I just wanted to know that, it would make things harder. The table is much more impractical. You say the "lists are outdated", so, other than images, what are your suggestions? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So, basically, your definite problem with having images is that you have to scroll down to compare statistics? That is really trivial and never has an encyclopedia been about comparative statistics. It's about providing information, regardless how many times you have to press your mouse-wheel. I think both you and I understand that if someone was so compulsive they HAD to compare the statisctis, I don't think they'd be lazy about scrolling down.

However, your question is welcomed and thanked. Suggestions would be

1. Place images of the wrestler so non-wrestling-fans can associate the reign with the wrestler more easily. It also does "pretty up" the table like you added.

2. Actually speak about the reign! The tables are just "names and Statistics" like you mentioned, and that's not what an FL is about. Check other recent Featured Lists and you'll see every item is explained in depth and with comprehensiveness. Maybe we can have a hidden attached row under every title reign which can speak about the reign itself, mention key important dates and maybe even a list of defenses.

3. ELIMINATE THE TRIVIAL "TOP COMBINED REIGNS" SECTION. (See below)

4. Like Will pointed out, I think we shouldn't use the state initials and instead use the full state names.

5. Get rid of the "Notes" section. If we make a section where we can elaborate about the reign, then a "Notes" section would be unnecessary.

In a nutshell--> Get rid of trivia and add comprehensiveness. Ra agg io 20:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a lot of users would find being able to compare reign length a LOT more useful in that table than an image of that wrestler.

1. Why does the table need prettying up? As I mentioned above, you should never sacrifice practicality. It's already a rather wide table and sortable, and the images don't help. In my oft-cited cases of List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees and List of Nobel Laureates in Physics, there are no such stats or figures and the tables did look dull and lifeless before. So, in those cases, adding images made sense (although I regret it). I'[d also like to note that that list is the rare case where there are images for everyone. Most of the other titles will not be like that, and the table will look awkward and hard to read. Imagine how awful the List of World Tag Team Champions page would look.

Tag Tean lists could be different. We would iron out criteria later. I'm all for creating criteria like I said below. Ra agg io 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm completely against that for multiple reasons. It introduces the possibility of users adding POV, it would make the table look uneven as some descriptions could be much longer than others, and where is the line drawn? What gets included? Feuds? Big matches? For a reign like Bruno Sammartino's, that would be enormous. And what are these comparable other FLs you speak of with in-depth explanation? Are they anything relating to sports, or is it something like an episode list? List of Stanley Cup champions has no embedded images and no descriptions. List of Super Bowl champions, same. Hart Memorial Trophy, same.

Criteria would be made, obviously. And remember the FL criteria has changed, some lists aren't up to date. And yeah, I never thought of it specifically, but an episode list does serve each item comprehensively. Sports lists won't help at tall, because, this is not a sport -- its athletic, but it's not a sport. I was thinking more like the list of Belize birds article I linked above and a list of persons article I saw a while ago. We should give each item an in-depth analysis and be more informative. With the "Keeping some rows together" feature I mention below, we can. And it won't sacrifice sortability. And it won't make it less "pretty". Ra agg io 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that it would make maintaining the list a lot harder because then we would have to deal with users adding to the description. I don't see how the Belize birds list is comparable because the images are along the right and not every row has a description. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Not going to argue against that one.

4. Doesn't matter to me, but they are used to save room.

5. I'd rather keep it, because what you suggested earlier with the double rows would sacrifice sortability. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No it won't. See Help:Sorting#Keeping some rows together. Ra agg io 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I meant using col-span would get rid of the sortability. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Who was talking about colspan? I was speaking about attached rows, not merged columns. Ra agg io 02:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

FWiW, I like it. As other FLs have pictures I don't see why this shouldn't. For anyone who clicks Random Article and hits this page they will be able to see what each champion looks like. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Only a small portion of FLs have embedded images, and few (if any) of them are for tables with statistics. I'd like to remind you that if this is spread to all similar pages, it would have to be used on lists with over 100 rows. I think you have a solution without a problem. The tables aren't fancy, but they work and adding a few images is just going to make them worse. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I strong disagree with the idea and support Scorpion's reasoning. I have reviewed various FL's which have images in the table, and it looks fine, however, that's because the images are included in lists about topics that only require one image because that one entry will never occur again. For example, lists about historic landmarks is an example of this type of list. Now, all FL's of similar nature/genre need to be consistent with the formatting, and just because one list can have images for each entry does not mean others will. For example, the List of ECW Champions list will not be able to be formatted as such. Also, adding the images of the champions is really not necessary. There are various FL's regarding championships (non pro-wrestling related) that don't have this because its unnecessary. The Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award does not have this, for one because its not necessary, and two it just clutters the table. Same thing that would happen with professional wrestling lists. Now, images on the outside of the table (if they could fit) I would support, but inside the table is a "naw" for me. I also disagree with adding match types and other irrelevant info in the notes. The only info that should be in the notes is those that affect the title reign itself or the history of the title.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 23:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is logical and very understandable, yet neither of our opinions matter. Where, in any guideline, would the images be a violation? Just because it's a "naw for you" doesn't mean its a "naw" for the encyclopedia. Like Darren, Will and I have pointed out, images could be useful to the non-knowledgeful reader. Also, your scenarios about other lists don't matter. For the same reason we try to get free pictures or FU pictures for articles, we can also try to get for the lists. Just because some champs will be missing, isn't a reason we would deprive the OTHER champs of their images. It's an encyclopedia, we are discriminate. Ra agg io 02:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You say other lists don't matter, yet your entire logic for proposing this was that other FLs used them. What you are proposing is a change to our basic style guide for title lists, which covers a lot of pages. And we're not talking about "some" champs, in some of those lists a very large percentage would not have any images (in fact, in some of the pages for older titles or small promotions, there may be only one or two with images). I'd also like to point out that countrary to what you say, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed it. We are discriminate, that is exactly what I meant. Basically, by being discriminate, it means that some might have more information than others (including some will have more pictures). And hey, I would definitely search for pictures for every champion if I were editing an article. If you want to help, knock yourself out. If not, then let others find pictures. Regardless, there's no reason why the pictures shouldn't be added. There are no cons, only positives. The only reason you give is that you personally just don't like it. Ra agg io 03:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Truco and I not just give you several cons? You even said Truco's comments were "logical and very understandable" so how can you possibly say there are no cons? 1) It clutters and crowds up the table. This is a big one because one portion of the FL criteria regarding structure says "It is easy to navigate through and includes", and the page is not: 2) It makes comparing statistics much harder. 3) A lot of other lists would not have near as many images. 4) Since all the images are tall, it adds a lot of ugly whitespace. 5) As Truco said, the images in other FLs are "about topics that only require one image because that one entry will never occur again." (are five images of Triple H in one page needed?) 6) IPs will add fair use images and it will make it harder to maintain. 7) an excess of images will make the page hard to load for those with slow internet. 8) In the end, pictures don't add much since the majority of them aren't even of a wrestler during their reign.

You happen to be convinced that you are a genius, and you don't care at all about the maintaining of these pages. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

By understandable, I never said anything he said was relevant. As for your points: 1) The navigation does not suffer. The rows become larger, but the organization is relatively the same except that a picture is on top of the wrestler's name. Just because you have to "scroll down" doesn't mean the navigation is difficult. 2) The comparing of statistics is, I repeat, TRIVIAL and NOT NECESSARY; its more of a luxury only some people (and by some, I mean compulsive) would want to do. 3) You said Wikipedia is discriminate; therefore lists shouldn't be compared by quality, as obviously discrimination would have some articles be more comprehensive than others. 4) Didn't you say "prettying up" didn't matter? Why are you even bringing up "ugly space"?. 5) We could easily use the same picture for the guy. If this is a "list of champions" and it's not called a "list of reigns", the wrestler doesn't even need to be repeated. The only reason it's repeated is because the setup is done chronologically (and this is by choice, not by guidelines). Therefore we decided to have the article this way; and it doesn't mean we will deprive Kurt Angle of a picture because Triple H decided to win the title 4 times more. 6) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, don't speculate what IPs will do. Also, some IPs will add FU images in any article whether you like it or not. The adding of images to this article does not raise that statistic. 7) We would use WP:SIZERULE to measure the internet connection problems. 8) I really would like to debate this with you outside of this paragraph. Because I am very intrigued on why you think a picture of Kurt Angle without the title would represent him less than one with the title? Do you really think readers are that picky on what accessories (in this case, a big gold belt) the wrestler is wearing in the image that portrays him? Ra agg io 06:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, Scorpion, I don't have a genius complex. And genuinely, I'm sorry if you have been offended. I don't want to have a blown out discussion. I seriously believe, and you can agree if you look objectively, that all the reasons you have given are about personal opinions and not about guidelines, and Wikipedia has to maintain NEUTRAL. The pictures do add, you even said for yourself; you just think they're troublesome because not everyone would have one. That's where we disagree. I believe it's fine with some people having and some not, and you think it should be consistent. Well, that's where our debate lies. Consistency vs. Discrimination. FYI: I do care about the maintaining of the articles; all I want to do is improve them. Ra agg io 06:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Raagio, I understand where you are coming from with this situation and I understand that you are trying to help out. But hear me out, adding images as a column into the list of reigns is just not necessary. That's what the link to the wrestler is for. Now the List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment list has images, but they have it because each entry will only occur once or maybe twice in the entire list but being a relative short list that it is, the images don't bother the list at all (mainly since its not sortable). In addition, "white space" is a no-no at FLC, not directly stated (but implied by the FL criteria) is the visual appeal of the list and "white space" is not appealing. I don't know if you understand that lists of similar genres and topics must be similar in style and formatting. Let me give you some examples of our lists, the List of ECW Television Champions is formatted one way, the List of Mexican National Heavyweight Champions is formatted another way but similar to the ECW TV list, and the List of ROH World Tag Team Champions list is formatted one way but similar to the preceding two. Especially for the List of WWE Champions, that would be ridiculous cluttering and I remember that when a large amount of photos was added to the WWE alumni list, the page load time was insane, and the same could happen with the championship lists due to all the formatting it requires. Now lets say we wanted a FT out of all the WWE titles, with some lists having images and some not or some incomplete that is not "inter-related" or "similar structured" lists. Plus we must abide by consensus of the current guideline we have for these lists, which does not include images. Now, this can always change but for now me and Scorpion are trying to tell you the down sides to adding images in the list. The only suitable way to add images IMO to lists like such would be on the outside of the table (if they could fit), like the MVP award.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 13:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Raagio, uniformity for the wrestling articles is one of the goals of this project. Even if it wasn't, as soon as you add images to one championship list, users are going to add them to all the others. Is making a couple of articles "better" at the sake of many other ones really a good idea? I'd listen to Truco and Scorpion on this one, as they both devote quite a bit of time to writing, nominating, and reviewing Featured Lists. Nikki♥311 14:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Top Combined Reigns

Earlier in my run at Wikipedia, I had added an "Average Length per Reign" section to some "List of champions article" which averaged all The Rock who had 7 pathetic reigns was ranked higher than Billy Graham who had a really long and powerful reign. The result was a list of champions listed in an order that took account the total combined reigns and how many reigns it took to achieve it. I was told (I don't remember by who) that it was cruft because "anyone with a calculator" can do it. I accepted that closure. However, now that I think of it, why is there a "Top Combined" table in EVERY single List of Champions article. Why? How is it "notable"? Why does it even matter? Anyone "with a calculator" can do it (and adding is far more easier than averaging for most people). Ra agg io 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Averaging out the reigns would fall under WP:SYN unless those figures were supported by outside sources, at a guess. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And they start to approach listcruft, combined length, I'll give you that one but once you start to breakdown the data in otherways you'd end up with 17 different list. I'd say it's plenty what's there, the rest reaches into cruft territory. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm necessarily in favour of it, but with sortable lists it wouldn't require a new list, merely a new column in the combined list. Tony2Times (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That was me. I'm still against including average combined reigns because it doesn't really mean anything, and you wouldn't be able to include wrestlers with one reign like Billy Graham anyway. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mathematically, an average can be achieved with only one number by dividing by one. Consequencely, the average will be the same number. Therefore, yes, Billy Graham could be (was) added. Ra agg io 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, a lot of times they mention in articles and on TV the importance of the lengths of reigns (Santino Marella/Honky Tonk Man and the IC title, MVP's longest US reign, Cena's Championship reign) but they never say anything about average reign length. It would be interesting, but I don't think it would be relevant unless it suddenly becomes important. Nikki♥311 19:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the combined length of reigns section is useful, but that is just me.--WillC 03:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is it useful to you? Ra agg io 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Helps to show how long a wrestler was champion during their career. Major wrestling promotion tend to think long reigns mean more as you know. So in that thought, we should show who was marketed more and who had the most days as champion.--WillC 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be shown in the main table when each individual reign's length is shown? Why is there need to sum each reign? Is there any mention of the summed up days on TV? Is it even notable? If a random user would want it like yourself, wouldn't a calculator work just fine? Ra agg io 03:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been Misunderstood

I'm sorry, I was NOT trying to convince you to add the ALR. I mentioned it and the way the project handled the section, because I definitely believe the "Top Combined reigns" is also listcruft. I believe that the pointless section should be gone for the same reasons the ALR was removed. Ra agg io 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it sounds to me that is was more one person who told you, rather than the project. I personally did misunderstand you, as I was thinking "reign length" rather than "combined reign length" in my comment above. I don't have an opinion on it yet, though, so let me think about it before I comment about it. Nikki♥311 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the community overall understand that the section is trivial? Ra agg io 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

25th Anniversary of WrestleMania

Is a disambiguation page REALLY necessary? It seems like some users are just going out of their way to point out that Wrestlemania 25 isn't actually the 25th anniversary. The very first paragraph of WP:disambiguation says "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title." If WWE for some reason decided to also call Wrestlemania 26 the "25th Anniversary of WrestleMania", then a disambiguation would be needed. But in this case, there are only two articles (only one of which uses that title) and at this point it's safe to assume that a large percentage of the users who search for the term would be looking for WM25. It should be redirected to WrestleMania XXV and a hatnote can be added. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The actual 25th anniversary is WrestleMania XXVI and that is why the terms are (and can be) confused. However, because there are only 2 terms, WP:HATNOTE states a hatnote should be added to one of the articles instead. Now, why did you choose to open this discussion if you were going to redirect the page anyway? And second of all, why do you state your opinion that a hatnote should be placed? When you redirected the article, you never placed any hatnote. That's kind of paradoxic. Ra agg io 19:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I waited several hours and nobody responded, so I figured nobody cared. As for why I didn't add a hatnote, I decided there was no point. As "25th Anniversary of Wrestlemania" is the title of WM25, why would anyone use it for 26? It's not like it's a common search term. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Were you deliberately trying to not sound senseful? "It's not like it's a common search term." Well, tell me, is Colin Delaney a "common search term"? Seriously, I think there are better chances of people searching for "The 25th anniversary of WrestleMania" than searching for Delaney. Hepatisis E is uncommon, if a patient resembles the symptoms, are you just going to ignore the possibility because it "is not common". Look, here in Wikipedia, commonness matters very little. If 1 person searches for it, we should supply the person with correct information. The CORRECT way would be to show them 2 articles: WrestleMania XXV (because WWE acted stupid and called it by that name) and WrestleMania XVI (the actual anniversary). We can show the 2 articles in two ways: Disambiguation and Hatnote. You decide. Ra agg io 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I meant and you know it. 28 viewers in 11 days is not high traffic by any means. So, if it's an uncommon search term for the event that uses it as a name, why would users use it when they mean WrestleMania 26? It's just an unnecessary disambiguation and it seems more like a commentary on the name than anything. Using your logic, we should create a redirect called "The 20th Anniversary of WrestleMania" because one person may search for that. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

New GA

We just had our second championship article pass GA. The TNA X Division Championship is the newest one. The reason I opened this section is: the belt descriptions are OR. If they are written based on images they are in correct and should be removed. They can only be based on written sources thanks to a long discussion between me an a user and on the Original Research noticeboard. So good thing this was caught in the early stages of the format change.--WillC 16:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Um its not original research. OR is when you have no source to prove certain information. Images are the source of information, so the belt design can't be OR when the image (if available) is in the article to refer to and to describe it. This is why you denote that it is based on the image in the infobox.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 01:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I did. Go to the OR noticeboard and read the giant discussion. Images can't be used as sources. It is OR because it is your interpretation of the belt design. It sounds stupid.--WillC 11:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the conversation, and it appears that one person said it was fine and one person said that it wasn't. I don't think that's enough to start removing information from articles. I thought the comparison to maps was perfect. If a map shows the path taken by a road, it can logically be assumed that the road follows that path (not original research, as determined by a previous debate on that noticeboard). It logically follows that, if a wrestler is pictured (or shown on television) with a title belt, then the picture, screen shot, etc., is an accurate representation of the belt. In fact, in a situation like this, I think it opens up the availability of more fair use images. If the belt is being described, fair use law would justify the inclusion of copyrighted images, which could include screen shots from television shows and/or DVDs. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is perfectly fine as well, but Hippo whatever was entirely against it and kept stating certain polocies allowed him to remove the descriptions. He even removed information he did not understand and refused to discuss instead of reverting. Just became disruptive and then got blocked for edit warring, which is entirely justified. Well so far it seems there are three people who agree it is not OR. Maybe this can be considered a consensus. The discussion on the noticeboard never came to a consensus that the description was OR or not. I just gave up with the arguing so the title could pass and I could go on to FAC.--WillC 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)--WillC 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In wrestling section

I'd like to see the "Managers," "Nicknames," "Entrance themes," and "Signature taunt" lists removed at least from these sections. Per WP:TRIVIA 's first line. Any valid opposition? iMatthew : Chat 18:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think managers could stay, while nicknames and taunts should go. Managers are a key part of wrestling, while the other things are trivial at best. Entrance themes are somewhat important, so I'm not sure about that. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rob that taunts and nicknames are expendable. Themes are more important, so they probably should stay. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep managers, but only if they can be sourced. Also make a clearer distinction as to the definition of manager. Do valets count? If so, list the heading as "Managers and valets." Make it clear that a tag team partner DOES not equal a manager. Perhaps nicknames and taunts should be removed though, especially if unsourced. As for entrance themes, I'd say remove them unless we can improve the the worst article we have. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why create a new section when this is talked about above? Remove them as lists. Write them out as a summary.--WillC 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The above section is a complete mess. Can you give me an example of how you would write them out in summary? iMatthew : Chat 19:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No reason to break up the same discussion. Anyway, it is simple. Styles has had ? managers during his career, those being ?. ? managed him from ? to ?, etc. Styles was given the nickname "The Phenomenal One" by commentator Don West. From ? to ? Styles used the theme ?. The section is smaller and get rid of bullet points as well.--WillC 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You aren't getting that it's a violation of WP:TRIVIA. It's not important whatsoever. iMatthew : Chat 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude everything is trivia. What importance is it that someone won a prop on tv an held it for 8 days? All the wrestling articles are trivia. You wouldn't find an article about the WWE Championship in an encyclopedia. You would possibly find one about WWE but it wouldn't be that long. So it being trivia is somewhat true. It is already stated within the wrestler's bio, so what is the point. I'm just throwing out ideas. What I'm trying to do is start ideas and make changes later.--WillC 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your whole "change everything the way I want it done" campaign is starting to bug me. Almost all of your comments are about "I want to just change things, because we need a change." You're comments above, IMO, are ridiculous. Of course and actual encyclopedia would have information about WWE and the WWE Championship. You should read WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTABLE, because you seem to be capturing the meaning of both from the title of the page, not from the content that lies within it. iMatthew : Chat 20:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL No I'm trying to make a change and improve this project, not force my way. Since the beginning of this discussion, all you've done is whine and say it is this, it is that. You aren't giving ideas. You aren't helping Matt. I hate to say it, but maybe you should just go. I opened the ideas section because I want wrestling articles better. I'm throwing ideas out and I'm dealing with people not agreeing with them. The List of accomplishments article was an idea. It got shot down. And I'm fine with that. But since some don't want things you want removed, you are having a fit saying everything is trivia. If the people agree it is so and to remove it, then I'll agree to pass the consensus a bit more. But your claims are completely false. Plus I own three encyclopedias, and none have anything about the piece of crap toy belt in it.--WillC 20:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The "LOL" just shows me how immature you are handling this. Can you make one comment without the word "change" or "improve the project" in it. Because you aren't doing that. You are frustrating a few people, rather. You have no right to tell me to leave, at all. If you read a single comment I made, you'll notice that I am not whining at all, I'm discussing things and trying to keep it simple. You are trying to extend discussions to a week for no valid reason. Every editor here is helping to the discussion, and you're rude comments that I'm not are inappropriate. You want wrestling articles better, we get it. There is really no need for you to repeat yourself in every single comment you make. I get it, you get it, everyone else gets it. Furthermore, who gives a damn if you own three encyclopedias? That doesn't make you any more special or anything. Whether or not you have articles on the championship belts there isn't my problem. That also has nothing to do with the discussions here. You're comments about that seem to be you trying to show off, which serves no purpose in this discussion. I wouldn't reply if I were you. This little chat is helping nobody. However, if you want the last word.. you got it. I won't reply. iMatthew : Chat 20:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't want the last word. But I'll give you what you want. If you want me to leave, to shut up, to not try anymore. I'll do it. You got it, I'm gone if you wish. I just thought I could help. Not cause problems. Just help.--WillC 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignore my last statements up here that are prickish. I'm in a bad mood at the moment already and I'm taking it out on the wrong people. I'm sorry.--WillC 20:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think managers and a condensed list of wrestling moves would be good, plus entrance themes (if they have a source!!!). Nothing bothers me more than fan-named moves and entrance themes. That'll keep the lists short. Sources for moves aren't hard to find (the important ones are included in match summaries all the time), and if we say "sourced moves/managers/themes only", it'll also cut down on the edit warring and people changing the move descriptions because they think they are wrestling experts or something. Taunts and nicknames should go. Nikki♥311 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki, if it's hard to find a source, then it shouldn't be in the list (a better policy is probably needed in regard to older wrestlers). Thanks, gENIUS 101 20:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to move the content to Pro Wrestling Wiki [6] instead of just removing it, if they want. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Restart

Out of all the comments above and here, it seems people like the idea on keeping the managers, themes points, and shorting the wrestling moves lists. Alright, I would like to try and keep that going. What do people think of placing the wrestling moves in tables and turning the managers and themes points into a summary like I said. Not pushing it. I would just like to get the final word on this from people since only one I read said anything about it.--WillC 21:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea. I think they should be kept in their current format. Nicknames and taunts can go, but everything else is great exactly as it is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree, though they can be tidy-ed up a little, and we should of course remove the ones without sources. iMatthew : Chat 22:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright so I'm guessing no to both ideas. Alright, any more objects?--WillC 23:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow so much bickering, lets just breathe. I support removing the taunts and nicknames; managers, themes, and wrestling moves can stay but thats it (and as long as they are fully sourced, what's not sourced should probably be removed).--Tru co ₅₀₃ 23:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as sources go, it gets tricky. I've consisently tried to use sources listed as reliable in the style guide, but generally will resort to those that are "not yet proven either way" if I need to. I'd like to think that the "he uses it every match" argument can be used even if the source is not considered reliable. No source is really ALWAYS reliable or unreliable. WrestleZone may not be considered reliable for wrestler signings, but I'd say they could be used to source a frequently-used move, provided a "reliable" source can't be found. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see how a moves table would look, and it sounds like an alright idea for managers. However I am firmly against listing theme music in a summary. A few wrestlers have prose in their music section and I think it just looks pointless - just the song, who it's by and the years used are all that's needed. Perhaps a note if they used it with a tag team or stable but some wrestlers have needless information. Tony2Times (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Making the move lists into a table might just be having a table to have a table. The way I'm envisioning it, there would only be columns, "Name" and "Description". Wikipedia:When to use tables#Table formatting (Don't do this), seems to frown on simple two column lists. Nikki♥311 03:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well we could have a few models first. I feel a table would make that section look alot better. I'll work on one really quick to show everyone what I had in mind. --WillC 13:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I created a small model quickly. Here it is. Another column can be added for pictures to represent the move when it is possible.--WillC 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The years are hard to source, though. That could be an issue. Nikki♥311 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it would be. But in your opinion, do you think that it would make that section better or worst?--WillC 00:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't like the dates b/c they are impossible to source and everyone "remembers" something different. I feel like adding that column to the table is asking for trouble. Nikki♥311 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the dates cloumn could be removed and just use rowspan to say current moves and previous moves within the cloumn.--WillC 06:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think most it should be left in lists, except for taunts and nicknames, which are usually stupid and should probably be taken off altogether. The model isn't bad, but they list keeps it shorter. For themes, I like the "Name of the song" by "Artist" (time used if known; used with whom if known) format. --WWHC 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (talk • contribs)

Misconception

Someone here seems to think that WP:TRIVIA states what is and is not allowed, format & content wise, it does NOT - directly from the "What WP:TRIVIA is not" I give you:

This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.

So how about it's discussed whether we think that in pro-wrestling it's appropriate/relevant/feng shui to have these things listed in the "in wrestling" section or if it's best to incorporate it in prose. Just opinions, not using WP:TRIVIA as a hammer to get your point across. Let the project decide what they think is appropriate and made a guideline statement in the MOS. No personal swipes, nothing off track - just focus on the point here. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--WillC 13:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Help

The TNA X Division Championship is under an FA nomination. The same editor who removed the belt description section is back and removing more information. I'm in the process of trying to start a discussion, but that may not be enough. He may cause an edit war. So I ask editors from this project to help me make sure that does not happen. So would as many as possible, please involve yourself in the discussion on the article's talk page.--WillC 02:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WWE on Twitter

Can anybody verify if WWE has a Twitter page? There is a user going around to dozens of articles of WWE employees adding links to Twitter pages saying "authenticated on WWE Twitter page". I don't see any evidence that WWE has a Twitter page and they make no such mention on their website of having a Twitter page. I think we all know from MySpace how easy it is for someone to make a fake account (I have seen some fake MySpace accounts that looked really good). Should we do the same thing we do with MySpace and require some proof that the Twitter account really belongs to the person before it's allowed in their article? TJ Spyke 04:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have a question regrading this. Jeremy Borash has an official twitter page as well. He posts some interesting information that could be usable. Would it be alright to use it as well. That is, if Twitter is reliable enough.--WillC 05:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I know we have already used Borash's Twitter page on some articles since he announced the Amazing Red vs. Kiyoshi match at Sacrifice on his Twitter page. TJ Spyke 05:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in a debate, but it should be noted that a Twitter page would be a primary source, not a secondary source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Championship lists

Because I'm apparantly not a regular PW editor, I need permission of certain users to make any changes to articles. A few days ago, I decided to try adding a references column to the various lists of WWE champions. For example, [7]. References columns are becoming more common in lists these days because it gives you one place to put citations. It makes the table look tidier and, ultimately, more professional because then you don't have random references all over the place in the notes column (even in ones where there are no notes). It does add a bit of width to the table, but not much (it only takes away from the "notes" column, and I don't think that's too big of a loss). For a few days, this was an accepted change. Until one editor returned from a block and decided to get some revenge by reverting me. His logic was that the tables didn't have the column when they were promoted to FL (2 years ago), so they don't need them now. However, FL standards have risen since then and the columns were part of my effort to bring them up to code. Anyway, this discussion is to try to gain some sort of consensus. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"a few days"? The changes were in effect for about 6 hours, not a few days. No one said you are not a regular PW editor, just not a regular editor of the title lists. Why have a separate columns for references when it should just go in the notes section? Having a separate column doesn't make it look any tidier, it just makes everything look more clumped together. You have quite and do and are delusional if you thought this had ANYTHING to do with you, all it was about was making the table look better and be more effective since the ref column makes the tables looks worse and do not help at all. The tables are up to code without a separate column. TJ Spyke 19:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can tell how I am not a regular contributor to those pages. I'd also like to note that I made these changes on June 12. You came back on June 14. How is that six hours? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see the need for specific referencing if a general ref is able to source the entire thing, such as in the List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE). Only the things that need specific referencing, like a special note should have a specific ref, but if that is done then there isn't a need for the separate column. Take a look at some of the lists I worked on, these titles have no specific refs because the general ref covers for them, like the List of ECW Television Champions.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 19:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The general ref doesn't mention things like events or other stipulations, so the specific ones are needed. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the WWE.com ones don't but the solie.org ones do. But it will looks awkward if the WWE ones have the ref column and the older titles don't, you know? Like the WWF Light Heavyweight Championships doesn't have specific refs because WWE never published them.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the ref column...it makes everything lineup better, IMO. Nikki♥311 02:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it looks alright, of course it'd only be useful in article where there are plenty of individual references, but still worth considering... and worth discussing, not just rejecting offhand. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as it can be kept to that small column to the side I'm in favour of it. I've seen tables kicking about the place where the ref column is equally wide as other columns and it looked horrid. This way pleasantly surprised me though. Tony2Times (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why

This has come up at Talk:TNA X Division Championship. Why do we have lists? The user asks why the X Title has a List of TNA X Division Champions article, when it could be merged with the X Title article, because he believes they say the samething. I also wonder why we have extra lists, though I don't believe they need to be merged because there are enough reliable sources for both to exist.--WillC 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The most obvious reason is length. The articles would be way too big if the lists were on the same page. You could also ask why any article exists. Why have a list of Super Bowl champions when there is already an article on the Super Bowl? Why have a list of episodes for a TV series? Hell, The Simpsons has a article for each episode and article for each season and a overall list of episodes for the whole series (i'm not using those as justification to keep them, just pointing out that there are plenty of lists on Wikipedia and you could ask why any of them need to exist). TJ Spyke 01:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I've never been a fan of the separate article and list. If I'm trying to check something, either to satisfy my curiosity or to help with an article I'm writing, I find it frustrating to get to the championship article and then have to click on another link to get to the list. I'm never looking for information about the belt design, the heroes vs. villains thing, the explanation of scripted storylines, etc. I want to see who held the belt. A closer Simpsons comparison would be an article for The Simpsons (season 16) and a separate list for List of episodes in The Simpsons (season 16). It has always struck me as content forking, although I'll freely admit that I have never read the Wikipedia page on content forking, so I'm certainly no authority in that regard. Anyhow, I'll be able to live with it either way, but I thought I'd throw that in there. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia exist?

Go to Wikipedia:Questions, it might help out. Ra agg io 15:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And now in all seriousness. It's actually a good point made, yet ignored. When is it appropriate to split out the list? hell I've guilty of it myself with some Mexican titles that could really have been one article without a problem. What's the general consensus, when should the article on the title and the list of title reigns be split out? I think it's done today sometimes to create Featured Lists, I'll admit it was part of the reasoning why I split some title pages. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less I can articulate a defence. The current trend is 10 reigns or more and the list becomes split but as Gary - Can I call you Gary? - as Gary said, I don't ever go looking for ought but lists. I always search for lists but while all the stuff about its history &c needs to be there, would the article be that long with it added to the bottom? Few championship articles are that long really and I find FL title reigns to be really ugly because all the information that's on the main page is repeated but crammed into one intro paragraph - if it can be called that - in an artless manner. Tony2Times (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: I believe they should be cut out of the main article at 10 reigns. The main championship article is about the championship and should be entirely about that and not the wrestlers who held that title. Like I've said before, take the WWE Championship. It is called the WWE Championship, not Wrestlers who have held the WWE Championship.--WillC 21:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So why isn't the List of WWE Champions article moved to Wrestlers who have held the WWE Championship? :p Also if the Championship article is about the championship itself, which granted the title indicates it is, why is there a section on reigns where it details who holds all the records. Those are about the wrestlers. Tony2Times (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, less than 10 reigns should be part of the title article. The only reason the Divas Title was spun off was because somebody wanted to make it part of the Featured Topic. TJ Spyke 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that is about of the history and should be footnoted, but imagine having the entire title history in the WWE Championship article along with a brief history of the belt which is in their now. The way they throw around belts these days, it seems they'll break 100 before the year is over. Would be best to just have the championship article be about the championship and a list of champions article for the title history. Though for a consensus to be established for this situation, this discussion must be brung up at WT:FL, since we are also dealing with several FLs.--WillC 00:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that comes into mind is why the discography of artists are in separate lists. Another thing that comes to mind is why there is a list of Super Bowl champions, a list of World Series winners, a list of NBA Champions, a list of winners who have received such and such award, etc. Length is the main reason why these all have separate lists. However, there are lists that can (and should) be merged into the main title article. For example the older WWF titles only had less than 5 champions, and thus no separate article is needed. A current example would be the List of WWE Divas Champions, I really don't see the need for it, you may never know, that title could disappear tomorrow, although I think that was requested for the FT. But you get my point. --Tru co ₅₀₃ 01:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and then there is an expection when a list is too small for FL and can be broken off because it is very close to being the length to pass FL and there is no doubt it will have enough champions. Like the FIP World Heavyweight Championship which has 9 reigns, and if FIP does go under the title will be unified with the ROH Title probably. So there will be 10 champions and 9 would be acceptable at FL.--WillC 01:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Would there really be a point in splitting say the UWA World Heavyweight Championship into two pages unless someone actually seriously expands the prose significantly? It should not just be the length of the list that indicates when it could potentially be split but also the amount of information that'd be left in the article about the championship when the list is split or we could have 200 new lists tomorrow but not an ounce of new information. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was already implied that the main championship article must be expanded if the champions is broken out. Well, if no one had picked on that by now, I'll just state it now. There should be the written rule in the MoS that championship articles must be expanded if the list of champions is going to be broken off into a new article. The recent lists I've made all have their main article expanded. Only around three or four are not expanded. Those being both of ROH's belt and the PWG Title.--WillC 05:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cryme Tyme

Regarding previous discussions on the subject of career tag teams - is there any need for Shad and JTG to have seperate articles? The majority of their career is the same. Shad has some detailed early life and territories stuff, though it skips the part about his OVW tag team, Gang Stars, a proto-Cryme Tyme group. Is Shad's info too much to consolidate into one article for the pair of them? Tony2Times (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about notability.

I apologize in advance if this issue has been addressed before. Does the project assert that wrestlers notability is looked at under WP:ATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrestlers are a hybrid of Athletes and Entertainers but don't fit 100% in either category specifically. Would there be a way to get a specific notability criteria established for Pro Wrestlers? MPJ-DK (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Other projects discuss it among their members and then set up notability standards. They aren't binding, but they give people something to fall back on when AfD's come up. See WP:MANOTE for an example of how a project came up with notability standards for martial arts. The main reason I posed this question is because it was brought up during an AfD discussion about a wrestler. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I establish notability when I see a wrestler by third party sources as we should. But sometimes I just believe one is notable even if there is no third party sources presented in the article. I would say if a wrestler has wrestled and won a title in one of the major companies of the world. Either that be Noah, NJPW, AJPW, TNA, ROH, CZW, PWG, WWE, ECW, WCW, AWA, etc. Maybe this could help establish a guideline for wrestler articles.--WillC 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

- That has been the other discussion...what promotions are considered notable and which ones aren't. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well all the ones I stated are considered notable. Ones that aren't covered by reliable third party sources aren't or ones no one has ever heard of aren't.--WillC 13:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why I think discussion would be beneficial. For example, I liken some of those promotions to minor league baseball. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious Will? Come on, how does winning a title make someone notable? So, I'm guessing Kelly Kelly isn't notable? How about Colin Delaney? That's a ridiculous criteria. 173.137.64.159 (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

He said winning a title makes someone notable. He didn't say not winning a title makes someone not notable, one doesn't preclude the other. Also Colin Delaney has won four NWA titles. Tony2Times (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Winning a title in a indy fed like CZW or PWG isn't notable. And winning a NWA title (unless it's the NWA World Heavyweight or World Tag Team Championship) isn't automatically notable. The NWA is little more than a sanctioning organization made up of dozens of independent promotions affiliated with the NWA. According to the NWA's own site, it sanctions 131 titles [8]. Among current organizations, I would say WWE, TNA, ROH, AJPW, NJPW, maybe Noah. Others are on a case by case basis. We definitly should be go by WP:ATHLETE since that is a bad standard even for real sports (a baseball player could have just 1 at-bat in a MLB game but would be considered notable enough for their own article according to ATHLETE), if we used ATHLETE then you would have articles for every one of those local jobbers that Vladimir Kozlov defeats. TJ Spyke 14:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to check you didn't make a typo, we should use Athlete? It's just you sound critical of it later in your comment. Tony2Times (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a typo on my part, I meant to say we should NOT go by ATHLETE. I am indeed critical of ATHLETE being used anywhere on Wikipedia because it's very flawed. TJ Spyke 14:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

PWG, CZW, ROH, etc are just as known as NJPW, AJPW, Noah, etc in the states. So there isn't a big difference. There are notable wrestlers such as Super Dragon, Bryan Danielson, Chris Hero, etc who haven't wrestled in a major major promotion yet. I believe it doesn't have to be TNA, WWE, WCW, or ECW to establish notability. The NWA is still widely known. Winning a few titles through multiple territories would establish notability in my mind. As coming to a guideline, I feel wrestling for several years through multiple promotions would establish notability. With a few titles along the way will not hurt. Though they must have wrestled in at least one national promotion. Those being in the states CZW, ECW, WWE, TNA, PWG, WCW, ROH, etc, since all tour world-wide and nationally in the states.--WillC 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

ROH, maybe (they are still pretty unknown by the average wrestling fan). CZW and PWG are not even close to being known by anybody but hardcore fans. NJPW/AJPW/Noah are the most popular promotions in Japan and like WWE/TNA are here. They can easily sell out the Tokyo Dome (which holds over 60K people) on a regular basis. CZW and PWG are super small indy feds that are pretty much unknown to anyone who isn't a fan of them. I will use a sports comparison: WWE and TNA are MLB teams (although WWE is a big club like the Yankees and TNA is a small club like the Brewers), ROH is a Triple-A team, PWG and CZW are like Double-A teams. As for indy titles, I just meant that winning something like the CZW Championship doesn't make a wrestler automatically notable, but winning something like the WWE Intercontinental Championship does make someone notable. The NWA hasn't been widely known (I consider widely-known as being outside of hardcore wrestling fans) in their current form. I am not putting down CZW and PWG as promotions, I am just saying that it's a joke to consider them even close to being well know (yet alone as well known as a promotion like AJPW, I might change my mind if they sell out out even a medium-size arena). TJ Spyke 15:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not gonna argue those promotions as big as WWE or TNA, but you're forgetting about promotions on an international scale. ROH might not be huge within the confines of America but if you include their international support they get bigger - I see a person wearing ROH paraphenalia about once a month which is about as much as WWE. Also, as well as cross promoting with federations over here, they have made the occasional solo show over here too. It wasn't in as big an arena as when NOAH came here but still, going overseas with a self-sufficient show is something. Someone said CZW did the same, I have no idea how succesful it was but it should be taken into consideration that they can get an international audience, whereas as far as I know AJPW doesn't tour. I think the way this discussion is heading, an awful lot of wrestlers would be culled. Tony2Times (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read TJ? I said this: "PWG, CZW, ROH, etc are just as known as NJPW, AJPW, Noah, etc in the states." I didn't say world-wide. In that case, it is even between NJPW, AJPW, Noah, and soon to be Dragon Gate since they got a PPV deal here in the US, WWE, TNA, ECW, WCW, etc. In Japan, they don't know what TNA is. They know of TNA, but only the hardcore fans. To them they know of WCW and WWE. I see the CZW belt higher than the IC. Come on a 3 second match at Mania with Rey dressed up as the joker and you say it is higher than the CZW belt. Everyone knows of the NWA. It is world-wide. And with WWE pushing Flair winning the NWA Belt all the time, 6 year old kids have heard of the NWA. Every major promotion in the US has had something to do with the NWA, excluding ROH you could say. TNA, WWE, WCW, and ECW started with the NWA. ROH had the NWA belt for a small period. So without the NWA, there would be no wrestling per say.--WillC 16:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I did read your statement. AJPW/NJWP/Noah are as notable in Japan as WWE are here in the US. Those three are notable even here in the US. CZW and PWG are not even well known here in the US. The main title in a very small indy fed is not more notable than onr of the top titles in the biggest wrestling promotion in the world. The NWA is not relevant anymore. I know how important it is in history, but you can't honestly say that their titles really mean anything in 2009 (does anybody even know who the hell Rasche Brown & Keith Walker are? They are the NWA World Tag Team Champions, but I would bet that 90% of wrestling fans have never heard of them). ROH is like ECW was in late 1996/early 1997 in that most wrestling fans have heard of them but they are not quite a major promotion yet (and they just suffered a setback now that they have stopped making PPV's). CZW and PWG are just barely notable and not known by anyone but a small niche of fans. To compare them to the biggest Japanese promotions is a joke IMO. TJ Spyke 16:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say winning a title in CZW or FIP or something makes ones notable. Winning many titles in various indy feds would though. How much exposure has the wrestler as an individual had? You have to take into account all the promotions they are known to have wrestled for. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you figured out what I'm saying yet TJ? I'm saying that in the US, people know of CZW, ROH, PWG, etc just as much as they know of New Japan and All Japan, because only hardcore fans in the US today even know of New Japan or All Japan and only hardcore fans know of ROH, PWG, and CZW. I've talked to people in this very project who do not know who Jushin Liger is. Most of the fan base today do not know that Misawa died. NWA is not relevant, that is your opinion. But it is still a world-wide promotion in a sense. As for very small indy fed, ROH, PWG, and CZW have all held world wide shows. CZW has held multiple ones in Europe. ROH frequently travels to Japan, Europe, and Canada. PWG has traveled to Europe often as well. I highly doubt they can be considered indy promotions anymore since indy promotions are pretty much stay in one place promotions. ROH chose to no longer hold PPVs because they feel their HDnet agreement is more valuable. They also plan to start PPVs back up again in the future one day. Now for promotions such as OVW, FCW, EWF, etc I see wrestlers that have worked for them too small to justify an article at the moment. But if they worked for them then worked in PWG, CZW, and ROH for a year. I would say they are notable. Because there are now enough reliable third party sources to justify notability seeing as most of today's reliable wrestling sites cover those promotions including some which are questionable but can help in notability such as OWOW and 411.--WillC 16:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, you are trying to say that CZW and PWG are even close to being as notable to AJPW or NJPW. Those two (and Noah) are very widely known in Japan and very popular there. CZW and PWG are almost unknown here in the US, even among wrestling fans. Liger did wrestle for WCW briefly in 1991, but that was his only real exposure here (not counting stuff like competing in the TNA World X Cup). I know NWA is worldwide, but it's not really a major promotion anymore. You can not seriously be saying you think CZW and PWG can be considered major promotions. ROH choosing not to do PPV's is a big blow to it, especially since their TV show (which I won't even get into that joke and how they tape 2 months worth of shows all at once) is on a channel that fewer than 10% of American homes even have access to. ROH has tried to get bigger, PWG and CZW seem content to be small, niche indy promotions. Can a wrestler from those promotions become notable? Sure. Does just competing for them or winning one of there titles make someone notable? No. TJ Spyke 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are major promotions. I'm saying they are close. On a scale of 100. WWE is 100. TNA is around 75. ROH is 50. PWG and CZW are 40. They need to get to 50 to be there and still then it is debatable. CZW has had specials with G4 I believe so they are somewhat trying to expand but there lets be XPW mixed with ECW with fire on top will stop them being major one day. As for PWG, it is owned by indy wrestlers who seem to like it there. So I highly doubt they will become the next TNA, WWE, etc. They may be the next ECW, but no further. I do believe a wrestler can be notable by just being in a promotion of that sort. I do not believe they must be in the big two to be notable. As for the PPvs, ROH makes a good amount of money just with the DVDs. I kind of feel a PPV, TV, and live event DVD format would help TNA. Plus taping multiple episodes at once saves money. It is a business decision and if you were involved in it you would know that would be the best decision. Plus with HDnet it is a start. You can't just wait for the NBC, Fox, etc contract. Starting small and working your way up helps. I don't know why you seem to think indy wrestling is terriable. You seem to bash it and ROH alot.--WillC 18:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bashing them because I hate them (although ROH is poor production values), my problem with them (especially with ROH) is that they think they are better than WWE and their fans seem to think they are better than WWE fans. I agree that somebody only competing in a promotion like PWG can become notable, but it's a lot harder than somebody competing in just WWE or TNA or even ROH. Basically the smaller the promotion is the harder it is for its wrestlers to be considered notable. I understand the financial reasons ROH tapes 2 months worth of shows over a 2 day period, but it's such an antiquated thing that seemed to die out when WCW finally ended their Disney tapings. ROH can't do any real storylines for the show or title changes (which was a problem they had with their PPV's since they would tape those about 2 months before they aired). I think the only reason they agreed to be on HDNet is because HDNet provides them with cameras to use, TNA was able to get a TV deal on a much larger channel in less time (although the deal sucked because Fox Sports Net put them on Fridays at 3PM, a time when the only people really watching TV are stay at home moms, unemployed people, and kids getting home from school). Maybe ROH is happy with their current standing. If they do want to be considered at the same level of WWE or TNA though, they need a lot of changes. This whole discussion is getting off topic I think since we are supposed to be talking about the wrestlers and not the promotions. TJ Spyke 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the promotions are also involved in this. Which promotion level is the least they have to work in to be considered notable. I say at the very least maybe Chikara and even that is streach in the US. Like Heyman said, they expected us to have the production that the WWF and WCW had, but with our size we couldn't. It is a matter of Budget. Today HDnet is backing them with HD cameras, etc. They look alot better. But things take time. Plus I usually see more TNA marks and WWE fanboys fighting than ROH smarks. It is usally TNA vs WWE while the CZW, ROH, PWG, etc fans just sit back and enjoy wrestling. So I don't see the ROH fans believing they are better. It is usally the other way around. As for TNA doing it faster, yes they did but looking at who was in TNA. You had the Jarrett's there and a format which could work. The weekly PPVs helped TNA more. ROH was started because RF video lost ECW, its number one money maker in dvds. It was a replacement which gained a strong fanbase and moved higher up. Gabe has been the one stopping progress. For a long time, Gabe wanted them to stay indy based. While after he left, ROH moved on to TV, etc. Gabe didn't even want PPV from what I remember. So their progress has been halted by within.--WillC 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Loads of debate, excellent - how about we move into a productive phase here, we can all agree that working (more than a one off or jobber deal) for certain "1st level" companies make you notable and winning titles in certain "2nd level" federations would also make you notable beyond the normal notability criteria. Would that be a true statement? If we can agree on that maybe we could try and compile what we think are "1st" and "2nd" level promotions. Just trying to steer this in a direction where we'd get a clear result, give it some focus.MPJ-DK (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would consider companies like TNA, WWE, and ROH top promotions because they have tv exposure versus lower promotions which don't.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also consider WCW, the original ECW, and the AWA top promotions. I don't know much about foreign promotions, but AAA, CMLL, All Japan, and New Japan seem like top promotions (or at least mid). Nikki♥311 04:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that this much discussion is going on about it and it makes some interesting reading. Now I don't feel like the question is so stupid. Obviously the issue needs discussed and some sort of consensus achieved. If we have a standard we can go by, otherwise valid articles won't end up getting the axe in AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Hart Foundation

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but can we split the page up? Keep every incarnation featuring Bret or Neidhart (the first three) under "The Hart Foundation" (it would be shortened, the similar sections would be merged, and the entire thing would be re-modelled to be similar to D-Generation X). Then, split off "Next Generation Hart Foundation" into an individual page (call it what you will, but I think "The Hart Dynasty" would be the best title). The reason is simple: Although they share a name, they are two completely different sets of stables and having them together makes an extremely cluttered page (and it will only get worse). "The Hart Foundation 2.0" could have a brief mention at the main Hart Foundation page, but it seems to be a pretty minor team so it could be removed. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For similar situations they tend to share an article. The New Blackjacks share the same page as The Blackjacks. The different variations of The Midnight Express have the same page. The Hollywood Blondes (a name used by different teams) have the same page, etc. I am not saying I am against it, just pointing out that it's not something we have done for similar situations. TJ Spyke 00:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As do the different incarnations of the n.W.o. I just think that notability is the main issue. How notable are each incarnation, and if they satisfy the guidelines to be a separate article. If it was short lived, it shouldn't. If they had prominence as a team, then go ahead. That's how I see it.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the New Blackjacks & New Midnight Express weren't around for very long, but in this case, variations of the team have been around since 2002. Add the fact that the page is a mess, and I think a split is justified. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend for the Hart article, that the sections relating to one another, such as the original Hart Foundation, The New Hart Foundation, and The (New) Hart Foundation were all related in some way so the info can remain together because if you notice the incarnations after the original are shorter prose wise. The Hart Dynasty, however, shouldn't be noted in this article because they have no ties to the original Hart Foundation or any incarnations. The Hart Foundation 2.0 can remain in the article as well. The article just needs a revamp of the section headers mainly.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 01:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course they have a connection to the previous incarnations of the Hart Foundation, they're (Wilson aside) Hart family members. I think it just needs to be cleaned up. Why should The Hart Dynasty be moved but the Hart Foundation 2.0 not be? The latter is a descendent of the former from Stampede and Maple Leaf, before Ted Hart went mental as always and went to Mexico. Also, what have The Hart Dynasty done to warrant them a seperate page? If they are an entirely unrelated stable then they've been around for less than a month and have no notability. Tony2Times (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, different variations of the team have been around since 2002. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said. The current 2.0 could be traced back to the current Dynasty, which used to go by the 2.0 name way back when and had both Harry Smith and Teddy Hart in, among others. Tony2Times (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Gate

They are starting US PPVs. They have a new add on to the company called Dragon Gate USA. Would this section also be notable or should they just be merged together? Thought to bring it here so we can fix this problem now and the project will know about their expansion into the US for the ones who don't know already.--WillC 07:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen much press coverage since the original announcement but it all seemed to me as if it was an extension of Dragon Gate. Perhaps after being around for a while it could be moved but I don't consider it a seperate company, so my personal vote would be for consolidating it into the proper Dragon Gate article. Tony2Times (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge it back into the main article, it's just a subsidiary (like Nintendo has Nintendo of America, Nintendo of Europe, etc.). If it was a separate company, it's not notable yet. TJ Spyke 14:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review: Abismo Negro

I've noticed that there are like 14 or 15 pro wrestling related Good Article Candidates right now, so I figured that I would wait to submit an article until the backlog clears up a bit. While I wait for that to happen I figured that a good old fashioned "Peer Review" would help improve the article, making the actual GAC process smooth sailing. I noticed that peer reviewing isn't very used in this project, but I figured I'd give it a shot. I am hoping to nominate Abismo Negro for GA and thus started the Abismo Negro Peer Review. I hope people contribute, even if it's just minor comments, everything helps. Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonus deal, (only for wrestling articles) - if you review Abismo Negro and provide me with a bit of input I will gladly review an article of your chosing, doesn't matter if you're thinging "Good Article", "Featured Article" or "Featured List", I'm willing to do a bit of quid pro quo if it gets people to respond :) (Please note I can't do a "Good Article Candidate" review and pass it, I'm not GA Reviwing wrestling articles even though they seriously need some attention to reduce the list.) MPJ-DK (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More new pay per view names

WWE is polling WWE universe subscribers again. There are two different polls. One is just a "which do you like better" type between these four names:

And the other is for a pay per view where all main events will take place in the Hell in a Cell. THe choices for that one are:

Be on the look out for edits. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I linked them for easier notices if they are created.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I didn't think of that. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow - why not just go with "Generic WWE PPV Number 3" instead of those options?? MPJ-DK (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know where this vote is? PXK ^T /_C 01:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wwehurricane claimed to me it was in an e-mail to WWE Universer members, but I am a WWE Universe member and I have not received any such e-mail. TJ Spyke 01:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Was I wrong about Breaking Point? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and No. There is indeed a PPV named Breaking Point. However, there is no indication that it is gonna be a all-submission PPV and nothing to indicate that WWE sent out a poll to get fans opinions. TJ Spyke 02:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Other than Wrestling Observer (which you yourself brought up as a source in that discussion) confirming what I said to be true. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Although Observer hasn't reported this latest poll, you are free to email Dave Meltzer and ask him about it. I just had an email conversation with him about it yesterday. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, would you look at that. WWE Hell in a Cell has replaced No Mercy and WWE Annihilation has replaced Cyber Sunday. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting in citations

Per this and the guideline WP:DATE, we must format refs as |accessdate=June 21, 2009 as opposed to |accessdate=2009-06-21. This affects almost all of our articles. So we must complete the task at hand little by little. But as a project, we can do this =]--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This applies to all date fields, not just accessdate.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary, so don't anybody get started running through thousand of edits changing this. I'll look around on IRC to see if anyone can get up a bot to do this. – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't expect anyone going around doing millions of edits, which is why I said little by little. But then again, a bot would be the best option here in this situation.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to change. I just checked DATE and is says nothing about reference dates having to b MDY instead of YMD. In fact, DATE seems to support using YMD. Where does it specifically say otherwise? Especially since Template:Cite Web specifically says to use YYYY-MM-DD and thus I will continue to do it that way. TJ Spyke 02:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It says..

In general, the following formats are acceptable:

Month before day: February 14 and February 14, 1990 (comma required)
Day before month: 14 February and 14 February 1990

Date formatting in an article is governed by the following three guidelines.

Format consistency

Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
Dates in article references should all have the same format.

These requirements apply to dates in general prose and reference citations, but not to dates in quotations or titles--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't say they can't be YYYY-MM-DD and the examples in Cite web use YYYY-MM-DD. That is also more neutral and avoids the whole argument of month-day or day-month. If we go back to linking dates (I don't get why we ever stopped) then none of this would matter since [[2006-06-19]] shows up as "June 19, 2009" or "19 June, 2009" (depending on what you have you preferences set as). We should just go back to linking the date (which from what I have seen is something that most projects on Wikipedia do). TJ Spyke 02:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Um TJ? Template:Cite web: either date: Full date of publication. Should be in the same format as used in the main text of the article and should not be wikilinked. --Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One person making one edit to one article does not mean that every article needs to be changed. The format that has been used for a long time is just fine. The dates in the body text have the same format (usually February 22, 2003), and the dates in the references have the same format (usually 2003-02-22). Since most articles already follow this guideline, no changes should be made. Crisis averted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm no, you just stated that they don't use the same both in the text and the reference in each article - not that the references across all articles should be the same. It definitely isn't like that today, but a bot could fix it and we should just remember it going forward. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is still effective just to let everyone know.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 16:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Okay, I tried to keep a discussion going then just let it die so the drama would die down as well. Seems like it finally died for now. There is alot of debates going on above which is good. Now I have a question about the pro wrestling event template. Who would be opposed to adding a date aired section, caption section, and having a function like with the tag team/stable template in which you get to choose if this is a PPV or just a plain old event? Arguments for each one are as follows. The date aired section would be useful since ROH's PPV events aired on tape delay. at least one I know of from WCW aired on tape delay. WWE put on a few from overseas and aired on tape delay. Dragon Gate, which will have a section opened under this since they should be seperate, are starting US PPVs and are having them air on tape delay. This function would be greatly useful. The caption section would be similar to a film article were it says "Promotion poster released for such and such", you get the picture. Now this would also help for events which have no poster. They may have a home made picture to help represent the event, a DVD or VHS cover, etc. You name it, it would be useful to tell what is in the infobox. Thirdly, the added live/PPV event function. There are quite a few articles regarding events which did not air on PPV. They use the PPV template. Lets add this function to clear that problem up and so future event articles can have a template. Since I'm finding quite a few reliable sources for events which did not air on PPV from ROH, CZW, PWG, etc they may become notable one day as well.--WillC 07:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, have one "wrestling show" info box and indicate if it's a PPV or not, it would give promotions with annual events the same options as annual PPVs, the "air date" is also a good addition to it. Isn't there already an "image/Caption" option? I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest there. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now there is no caption option for images in the template (caption being something that actually shows up on the page, like the caption at The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess says that the image is of the North American Wii version). TJ Spyke 18:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold and added a date_aired parameter to the template. I wouldn't mind featuring the other parameters as well but I'd like to ask if we can move the theme and tagline fields to the bottom of the information section. I don't see why exactly it should be above probabily the more crucial information such as the event's date, promotion and venue. It should also make an image caption field more attractive on the template. -- Oaks ter 18:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with moving theme & tagline down, there are much more important information that should be featured at the top of the infobox.MPJ-DK (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The current look of the infobox is perfect, and the theme/tagline should remain at the top. TJ Spyke 19:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Any actual argument for not moving other than "You don't want it to change"?? MPJ-DK (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't provided any argument for changing it. I already said that I think the current format look best. The tagline and theme are usually emphasized a lot by WWE (less so by TNA). Hell, they usually promote them more than the venue of the PPV. TJ Spyke 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Silly me I thought "there are much more important information that should be featured at the top of the infobox" was an argument, but apparently that only makes sense in my world, I should have said "I don't like it" first eh Teej? MPJ-DK (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the tagline and theme is in keeping with the promotion of the event as is the poster. The date, venue and attendance are facts. Thus it makes more sense to have taglines and themes at the top as part of the creative aspect of the promotion and the cold hard facts at the bottom. Tony2Times (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see this is still going. I'm glad the date aired section has been added, but I don't believe it fits very well with being in parenthesis over the date taped. I would believe it would be better if it was it own section. Like I show below. Though if everyone prefers the current format, then I guess that will be fine.--WillC 04:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

|date=June 21, 2009 = Date= June 21, 2009
|dateaired=June 21, 2009 = Date aired= June 21, 2009

--WillC 04:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave it that format to comply with the one similarly used in Infobox championship. Personally I see the airdate as more of an additional date and an additional field would lead to the messy real/billed height/weight fields as seen in the wrestler infobox (not that I'm implying we should use the parenthesis method in that case though). Anyway, I've done some more proposed changes to the infobox in my personal sandbox, with one showing what the theme/tagline movement would be like. Also there is a "ppv" field which when marked "Y" will change "Event chronology" to "Pay-per-view chronology". -- Oaks ter 09:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, is it time for Intuition IV again? How about the date aired field as an optional one that we only use if the PPV isn't live? Thus we wouldn't clutter the infobox on too regular an occasion. I still think it looks odd having the tagline at the bottom. Tony2Times (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I like Oakster's first template idea, with the tagline and music below the more important information. That to me is more correct. The tagline and music should not be above the more important info. Tony can you explain better? You've lost me.--WillC 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The perspective I'm arguing from is that the poster/artwork is promotional. It's used iconically and is created to promote the event. Similarly the music and tagline (particularly the tag line which can often, though not always, be found on the poster) are created for the event and used to help promote it. The venue, city &c aren't created and are cold hard facts about the event taking place. I think it looks odd to have the promotional creative poster, then the factual information about date, place, ticket sales and then the promotional creative tag line and theme music. The tag line and music fit in with the poster, while attendance is related to venue which is in a certain city. I'm not saying that tag lines are more important than places, I'm just arguing that there are two sides to the infobox, one creative and one factual (for want of a better word, as they're all facts obviously) and it is better to keep them together rather than have the created poster, the facts about the company, place, date and attendance, and then the created tag line and the theme music. Any clearer, or still lost? Tony2Times (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clear, but I'm going to pull I like it and say I like it the other way. But which ever way is done is fine with me. As long as we make a decision. Who is for adding the caption section and the live event function?--WillC 04:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Christianwwflightheavyweight.jpg

The image file states the image is from

Online World of Wrestling

Which is true, that link does work. However, said picture is also found on WWE.com

Does this change the status or validity of the fair use rational for this pic. I'm not very knowledgeable as far as image policies go, so could someone please handle this? Thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, as long as it is in low resolution. The image isn't needed anyway. I would just say delete it. There are plenty of images within the article, just not one of him as lightweight champion, but one of his as champion isn't needed.--WillC 02:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference dispute

Can I have some people's input into an issue please? Another user, BigDaveyB (talk · contribs) and myself are having a dispute over a reference on Milena Roucka, as can be seen here My problem with the reference is that it links to the homepage of a website, and you then have to click through numerous links to get to the track you want. A direct link to the page is unobtainable. Following this, the reference does not say that she uses the track as an entrance theme, and it must be compared to a youtube video to gain this conclusion. User:BigDaveyB also brought it to my attention that this reference (i.e. the link to the homepage) is used on Jeff Hardy, and as a result, possibly a few other articles, so I would like a consensus on whether using this website as a source is acceptable. Comments/opinions please. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not had the patience to try and find the page so maybe you can tell me - does the page just list the track? or does it mention Milena Rouka at all? If it doesn't mention her then it's not a source for anything at all. The fact that you cannot directly link to it is unfortunate, flash sites have that problem and I dunno how Wikipedia deals with this, but if the text on the page confirms something I'd suggest using the "quote=" part of the citation tag to directly quote what the page says. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is no direct link then it has to come out, and all similar links. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that? MPJ-DK (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does what say what? I'm giving a comment/opinion. I clicked on the link and if there is a reference then it is hidden in page after page of flash, it can't be a good reference if you need an instruction manual to find the relevant information. And if there pages use the same page then I would suggest removing them. BigDaveyB did leave an instruction on Nici's page as how to get to the relevant link, but we can be instructing users how to get to a link. Either it links or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then it isn't of any use. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, it sounded like you stated a fact, ignore my comments. Wikipedia has a load of sources that aren't linked, books, print sources etc. I agree it's problematic to cite a website without being able to link it directly but that's not a question for the wrestling group but a general wikipedia query. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Nici acted correctly in removing the link, as the comment left by BigDaveyB shows how difficult it is to get to the link. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From his comments it also looks like the page doesn't confirm it's her themesong, you'd have to listen and make the call yourself - then it's not a source of anything but the song existing and thus irrelevant to the article. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It doesn't mention anywhere that the song is used as her theme song, you have to actually compare it to a youtube video. A copyrighted youtube video I might add. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Wikipedia talk:Citing sources on a take on this problem, it may not be the first time it's been brought up. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy Red Lyons

Hi, I have created a stub on the recently deceased legend that is Billy Red Lyons; any improvement would be much appreciated! Cheers, Giant Snowman 23:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stilsbury (2nd nomination)

A discussion is currently taking place regarding the notability of Peter Stilsbury, who portrayed Outback Jack in the WWF from 1986 to 1988. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

^ Jericho interviewed on Bubba The Love Sponge, 2008-10-31

[1] Jericho interviewed on Bubba The Love Sponge, 2008-10-31

[1]