Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

FYI

The Straight Edge Society. Do with it as you please. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I started a AFD if anyone wants to comment. TJ Spyke 22:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Potential virus in Molly Holly reference

Reference 8 in the Molly Holly article immediately led to a widespread system infection of my system. Rather than continuing an 'undo edit' tag session with Nikki I am putting it here. If someone wants to verify the link is clean (and I can testify that it wasn't a few weeks ago) be my guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksaturn (talk • contribs) 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Whether or not a pop-up blocker would prevent infection is irrelevant, as the site should still be considered unsafe. Blacksaturn 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksaturn (talk • contribs)

Perhaps an alternate link for a review of the dvd would satisfy? [1] Blacksaturn 22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't even really link to that page.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 22:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The user was this IP before registering. And I have no problem with the link. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That IP is used by many people (government). It has been so long since I edited wikipedia I couldn't remember my login and created a new account. Blacksaturn 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksaturn (talk • contribs)

I was adding the link as your account had no edits to Nora Greenwald, you talk of an "undo edit tag session", so I was giving editors the link. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Refrence 8 (at least in the last version by Nikki) is PW Torch, so I doubt it's them as many people here use that site and would have reported something. TJ Spyke 22:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what she said too, but I had to reformat my machine all the same.--Blacksaturn 23:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksaturn (talk • contribs)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Lou D'Angeli

An editor with good research skills who knows where to look would be greatly appreciated at Lou D'Angeli- a completely unsourced BLP but a subject seemingly with some claim to notability. HJMitchell You rang? 14:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look and work on it if I have time. He is certainly notable.--WillC 18:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bill Dannenhauer is also in dire need of attention from anybody who has the time! I wouldn't be surprised if I'm back here with more. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there are tons of articles that need help that are wrestling related. In most cases if they aren't current WWE talent, they have a small chance of getting expanded.--WillC 20:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to find sources for a lot of wrestlers from before the turn of the century, though he's briefly mentioned in Have A Nice Day just for one source. Tony2Times (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers

Forgive me for bringing up an old issue but I've been looking over Wikipedia and have noticed that certain Spoilers are being removed, and I was wondering as to why, the edit which brought my attention to this was by Tony2Times [2], and although this is just 1 edit, I'm sure multiple like this are made throughout the day on Wikipedia, anyway bring this up because of WP:SW which is a style guidelines which does state "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." which I feel is the reason as to why most are removed, I'm not totally sure if we've come to some sort of consensus on Spoilers but I would just like to bring this to the projects attention. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers should not be an issue, per WP:SPOILER, so long as they are cited by reliable sources. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue with that edit is predicting the future. It is not January 22, and though she may have made her debut at the tapings her match may not air. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering anyway, no biggy. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 16:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of spoilers, I was wondering if anyone would be opposed to just adding Doug Williams' reign to List of TNA X Division Champions? He won the title at the tv tapings. See here.--WillC 07:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the rule was nothing is added until the first TV airing? ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the usual rule but we have a source for it. Why are we waiting all the time anyway?--WillC 07:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand either why we have the stupid TV airing rule we have the sources and theres no real rule against posting spoilers. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 14:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if there is a reliable source on the subject post it, spoilers or whatnot be damned. I have not checked the link but is it actually wrestleview that reports it or do they just post a "fan submission"? Someone going "Hey man I was at Orlando and saw this" does not constitute a "reliable source".  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there were a number of sites a few weeks ago reporting that Rey Mysterio defeated Batista in a singles match to face Undertaker at the Royal Rumble, when in actual fact the match ended with a no contest with both of them taken out. Wrestleview wasn't one of those sites, but still it's an example of not taking the spoiler reports as 100% reliable.--  Θakster   20:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of which are RS or CRYSTAL issues, none of this applies to SPOILER. If any information has a reliable source then is can be added to any article, in the case of TV tapings reliability is the main issue, not spoilers. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said I was complaining about them being spoilers? I was only pointing out the reliability of the reports. --  Θakster   20:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you were, my comments were an addendum to yours and referring back to the first question (and title) in this section. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies then. :) --  Θakster   22:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not Crystalballing though - it HAS happened, it's just a matter of if it'll be shown on TV or not and if shown in what edited state. Invoking crystalballing in this case is like saying "if it's not on TV It never happenened", but it has already happened. It's not predicting, it's reporting what took place at a TV recording.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  01:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The only relevant Wikipedia policies keeping anything from a TV taping off Wikipedia has to be the reliable sources requirement, if a reliable source can be found I have not seen a single valid argument for not adding it.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  01:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that spoiler reports are not reliable. For one thing, they often have errors (as someone already pointed out, a couple of weeks ago many reliable sites posted spoilers saying that Rey Mysterio beat Batista to become #1 contender. What happened? The match went to a no-contest instead). The sites have no way to verify the accuracy of them and are just passing them on to everyone else. TJ Spyke 01:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Even the most reliable publication will be incorrect at times. WV is just one of many reliable sites that report spoilers. If no one has a problem with adding the reign, I'll just go ahead and add it?--WillC 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The info can't be confirmed, they are relying on unverified fan report. TJ Spyke 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The above source does not say anything about a fan report. Also there are other sites such as The Wrestling Observer which can be used. These sites are reliable for their fact checking, so of course the information has been verified before being posted. It is not our job to determine what is right and what is wrong, just posting what the sources say.--WillC 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The fan reports are not checked, they are counting on the fans e-mailing them in to tell the truth (it would be almost impossible for the site to check the accuracy because they usually post them the same night as the taping). The story is taken from PWInsider, which took it from a fan report e-mailed to them. As I said earlier, the sites make sure to say they are just reports e-mailed by fans. The fan reports themselves should, at most, be taken with a grain of salt. TJ Spyke 04:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure PWInsider doesn't rely on a single fan report, but many fan reports. Unless the audience is a group of pathological liars, it should be fine. — ℳℴℯ ε 11:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is what the fans saw (and I'm sure they give an accurate report), it's what will air, and no fan can know that, which is why we wait until the broadcast. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As an example other than this no contest thing, last year during the Hardy feud Matt was reported to have explicitly said that he burned down Jeff's house but by the time SmackDown rolled around that bit was edited out as they obviously wanted to leave it ambiguous. Similarly when I went to see Raw a year and a bit ago there was a lengthy segment involving JBL and Cryme Tyme stealing his money in the middle of the show that was cut from air. While with TNA they only record front of house bits in front of the audience with backstage segments not being aired, so if spoilers were added someone may have added on Tuesday that Mick Foley attacked Bischoff and was fired, however after last night's taping we can see that it's more likely Bischoff was faking. Darren's right, no-one outside of the respective companies knows for sure what will and won't air, even if submissions from fans - and we don't know how they collect their infomration either so we shouldn't speculate, PWTorch always credits one person so it would seem they just take it from one person - are sort of correct most of the time. Tony2Times (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Plain and simple, yes WP:SPOILER allows spoilers, and for scripted television shows it works because their episodes are done and final for airing, which differ a lot from professional wrestling when many edits are done before the final airing every week not just by season like tv shows. So in that case, WP:CRYSTAL applies because we cannot predict the future and what the professional wrestling company will agree to air from their tapings.--Truco ₅₀₃ 21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

However an issue of spoilers does present itself once the show is broadcast as sometimes pre-recorded shows are broadcast in places other than the US, or conversely are broadcast outside the US at a later date, in both cases details from the broadcast program are reliable and so can be added to any affected articles in line with WP:SPOILER. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I would think that common sense comes in to play with title changes because of course they are going to air.--WillC 21:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And the infamous "Dusty Finish"? Sometimes a title change isn't a title change, until the program is aired. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We can always change back if it isn't. Not our place to determine what will happen, just what has happened.--WillC 22:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

But to bring it back to the edit in question at the top, Tony2Times was right to revert it because 1) it had no source, 2) it was dated 22 January on 20 January and so violated WP:CRYSTAL. Spoilers didn't enter into it. And it may be the case that the segment never airs (though it probably will). Darrenhusted (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We aren't the place to report news, its an encyclopedia. So once it airs somewhere, then it can be added. Remember, edits are made to tapings before they air. --Truco ₅₀₃ 22:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You all are missing the point. It is a title change, even if it doesn't air, it still happened. We are an encylopedia and as such we are to be accurate. If we leave out a new reign because it didn't air (even though the match it happens after is being advertised next week on Impact!) then we fail a guideline. Adding a new reign would be fine, but not saying when it aired takes on crystal. Like "reign: 42, Wrestler: Doug Williams, Date: January 19, 2010, days held: 3, location: Orlando, Florida, event: Live event, Notes: Williams cashed in the X Division Feast or Fired briefcase to win the championship. This changed occurred at the tapings of TNA Impact!." Says everything that is in a source.--WillC 22:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia written on paper. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will be edited for tone, grammar and when new information is available. If a spoiler is posted, and it has reliable sources, it isn't a big deal if eventually it has to be edited because corrections are going to be made anyways. Wikipedia's foundation is based on material being written and it being altered over time so that exact details are more clearly understood with reliable sources of information. The crystal ball policy is specifically about "a collection of unverifiable speculation" meaning that hasn't occurred and no reliable sources can be found. Examples can be found outside of spoilers. Lets take an unrelated article, say 2100s (decade). The article states "By 2100, 12% (about 1250) of the bird species existing at the beginning of the 21st century are expected to be extinct or threatened with extinction." Quite obviously this is the same kind of issue we are dealing with, which other editors taking more of the 'add it and edit it later' approach. The 2100s (decade) article cites with a reliable reference, an event that is expected to happen in or by 2100. With it being ninety years away, surely anything and everything is bound to happen. Common sense tells us that it will be edited (if Wikipedia is around ninety more years). Does that mean we should delete material with reliable references because we don't know what's going to happen in ninety years? No, we edit the original statement or add more material with other reliable sources that are more accurate as details are more clearly sourced. Reliable sources of information should tell us what to write in the encyclopedia, not what we individually perceive to be the truth (or in this case, what we haven't seen on television yet). The only question is, what is considered a reliable source for our information, not whether or not we should post it. Deleting cited material from Wikipedia because we are afraid of making corrections (all of two or three days days or weeks later, nonetheless, when it finally airs) because it was edited out of the taping, is counterproductive, and leads to unimportant discussions and wasted time doing something better. Wikipedia can and will be edited again if there is a mistake. — ℳℴℯ ε 23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note, this specific note was brought up based on TNA, which frequently tapes 3 weeks worth of shows at once (not just 2 or 3 days early). TJ Spyke 23:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

<s>'d out. Point still taken, I hope. — ℳℴℯ ε 23:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit above was correctly made though, and as it turned out the wrestler in question did appear but not under the name reported, thus underlining the problem with adding information without a reliable source and before the TV episode airs. I have no problem with title changes at TV tapings as I know WWE will acknowledge a change before the episode airs in most occasions. But in most cases (as with almost everything) edits should be made with a reliable source, and reverted if one cannot be provided. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tournaments in championship articles

What is the consensus on tournaments in championship articles? I thought that tournaments that were notable were included, such as inaugural champions or tournaments to crown a new champion after a notable incident (ie. WWF Light Heavyweight Championship 1997 tournament to crown WWF Champion after Japan relinquished the title). I bring this up because the WWE Divas Championship article has the tournament of 2010 (after Melina's injury), and I was wondering whether that is acceptable since other championships have had numerous vacancies due to injury and resulted in tournaments but they aren't noted.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though I was under the impression that they should be left out. As it is that tournament has a ton of overlink with wrestlers and programs. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I took it out, but Wrestlinglover feels otherwise about my decision.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I placed it back in mainly on the point we can source it and it is a big part of the history. All tournaments revolving around titles are significant to their history. The bracket doesn't have to be in everytime, though it is useful, but the mentioning is at least noteworthy.--WillC 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's poorly written, for a start should it not be "Divas" not "Diva's", why are there a series of Capital Letters Telling Me There Was A Tournament, and why is Raw link three times and all the wrestlers linked more than once? If you're going to restore content then at least give it a proof read. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed capitalization, apostrophe and overlink errors. No stance on whether it stays or not, as of right now. — ℳℴℯ ε 23:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think a brief mention like "(so-and-so won the title by winning a tournament brought about due to an injury by the previous champion, Melina.". That small blurb still gets the point across that the title was won via a tournament, and doesn't put unnecessary bloat into the article.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the tournament brackets should only be included for the tournament to crown the first champion (or when it was abandoned and later revived like WWE did with the US Championship). TJ Spyke 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with TJ.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The tournament for Wrestlemania IV is notable enough to warrant inclusion in that article, IMHO. Prior to that, I had never before seen a wrestle four times in one night, as Randy Savage did.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 00:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In what article? It's not in the WWF Championship article is it? I think only the tourney to crown the inaugural champion should be included; tourneys that conclude at PPVs/Supercards can feature on the background/event pages of those articles. Tony2Times (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You all act like there are 7000 tournaments for each title, if it can be sourced and presented in the correct way what's the problem? It's a part of the championships history after all and I though the page for the championships listed it's history. I've not seen a good argument for not including a tournament if it can be formattet and sourced correctly.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  08:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not 7000, 700 maybe :P, nah just kidding, imo if there is a good background which can explained, I don't see any reason why they can't be implemented. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 12:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MPJ, in fact one reason I agree with inclusion is seeing them posted in articles MPJ has expanded. It got me to start thinking if they were notable and I determined certainly a tournament just for the championship is notable to the history. Number one contender tournaments I would disagree with however unless they are huge much like King of the Ring, etc.--WillC 15:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true, only tournaments for actual vacant titles should be listed, otherwise we stray into cruft area.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  17:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why exist a List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling tournaments, where we can see ALL the tournament of TNA? Why don't exist a List of Wolrd Wrestling Entertainment tournaments?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and do you know how long a WWE list would be? Crufty and would never be complete.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  21:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The TNA tournament article has the ability to be complete I would like to add though in case anyone is wondering. I was trying to expand that to GA in a subpage but got off track.--WillC 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So just because one company can have a completed list doesn't mean every other company can, that just makes pro wrestling championship articles look inconsistent and biased.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, if we can put the info together then why not? Reliable sources help determine notability and there are tons for TNA tournaments. If enough info can be put together for a WWE list, then go ahead.--WillC 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

How does it make a championship page look inconsistent and biased with a list of miscellaneous tournaments? different subject matter all together means they don't have to look the same and biased? In what way. With title histories it's also pretty easy to determine how many tournaments there have been for vacant titles, so it's able to be actually be complete.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  22:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been numerous championships which have had numerous tournaments to crown new champions, mainly the old titles. If we were to add these tournaments, that would be a page list of tournaments basically. That's the only negative side, I have no problem with adding them, its just that some pages may be over 50% tournament brackets.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a similar problem at WWE Women's Championship. My personal opinion is that only the inaugural tournament or some sort of annual tournament would be noteworthy...anything else is listcruft. Especially for the titles with long histories (and thus many many tournaments). Nikki♥311 04:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Extreme Rules/One Night Stand Split Needed?

I posted this on the talk page for Extreme Rules last month, but no one ever replied. I thought I'd bring it here so you guys can decide what to do.

Basically, the new issue of WWE Magazine that was coming out at that time (it was early December, but I'm not sure if it was the December or January issue) stated that the 2010 edition of WWE Extreme Rules was the "Second Annual Extreme Rules." This is supported by the fact that the wwe.com subpage for Extreme Rules doesn't have a history section like the other events do (Night of Champions for example) and, in fact, makes no mention of past events that I can find. The current version of the article states that Extreme Rules is a continuation of the One Night Stand lineage, but there is currently no source to support that. The reference that is used is a dead link. Since this would mean splitting Extreme Rules and One Night Stand back into two separate articles, I figure this needs some group discussion. Being as that WWE Magazine is an official source, I'd say the split is needed unless someone can find a more recent source to dispute it. Since I know better than to be WP:BOLD, I leave it now for your discussion. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think one, can we see a pic of this 'text'? Second, I think its best to wait until Extreme Rules 2010 comes along, because the ONS page is still up separately, and the new ER page has no history section like you said. But when the 2010 edition comes along, they make make it one whole page, or not. So its best to wait until then before splitting them up, remember, the 2008 edition of ONS was 'One Night Stand: Extreme Rules'.--Truco ₅₀₃ 04:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the magazine on hand at the moment, but when I get home (I'm at work) I'll be more than happy to snap a pic with my cell and let you see it if it helps. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd personally wait a bit like Truco says. Taking a similar case with Night of Champions and Vengeance, they both had separate sites in 2008 but were merged together for the 2009 event.--  Θakster   10:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point about NoC, but right now the fact, as can be verified through a reliable source, is that ONS and ER are considered separate events. Isn't that what Wikipedia is supposed to be about? Facts that can be backed up with sources? Anyway, here are the pics. The quote is from page 28 of the Holiday 2009 issue of WWE Magazine (with John Morrison, Ted DiBiase, Evan Bourne and others on the cover). The pictures are kind of blurry, but the text reads "The Second-Annual Extreme Rules PPV takes a bow." This first one is a full page view so you can see the other stuff around it: [3] and this other one is a closer view of just that panel: [4]. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason they were put together in the first place was I think because WWE Magazine last year (before the ER event) said it was the same event with a new name. I'm sure it's either on the events talkpage or one of the archives here. In fact, it was you Wwehurricane who even said that: Talk:Extreme Rules (2009)#History. TJ Spyke 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, but the most recent evidence directly states otherwise. That's why I've brought it up here for discussion. Things change and right now, the WWE considers the two events to be separate. There is no recent source to prove otherwise, but there is evidence to support the split. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now there is no reason to do anything as WWE is contradicting itself as they have also said it is the same event. The event is still several months away and WWE may clarify the situation in that time. I see no reason to split it right now. TJ Spyke 00:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to argue your position or state mine over and over. I gave you all the info and now everyone else can post their opinion on what should be done. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw Online or WWE Online

Friends, what is the official title? I need to know it.

--189.216.74.63 (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The name is WWE Online [5]. TJ Spyke 15:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In Wrestling Section

It is my opinion that a lot of information included in wrestlers' "In Wrestling" sections should be taken out. For example, Signature Moves. It almost seems like if a wrestler has ever been seen doing a certain move more than once, it's listed there. Triple H has 15 signature moves listed which includes things like Drop-toe Hold, Chop Block, Abdominal Stretch, and Sleeper Hold. All of these things are common every-day moves that multiple wrestlers use. Christian's page is worse. It has 16 signature moves listed, but of those Drop Kick, Spear (which I don't think he uses anyway) and "Multiple DDT variations" (which goes on to list 4 DDTs) are all common moves, not unique to Christian in any way. Chris Jericho has 23 signature moves listed including Backhand chop, Missile Dropkick, 5 different suplexes, School Boy, and Scoop Slam. Signature moves should be limited to moves unique to that wrestler, but aren't necessarily a finishing move. Some could say that all moves are copied from someone else and that's true, but within certain companies, wrestlers do have moves that only they use. Christian for example is the only person in WWE to use the pendulum kick in the corner. THAT is a signature move. Triple H is the only person who uses the Kitchen Sink and High Knee moves. THOSE are signature moves.

Next, the accomplishments section. Why is the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards listed here? While I don't question Meltzer's reliability as a source, the awards are his opinion and his opinion alone. What prestige do they offer? I would say none.

I think the Nicknames section should be removed completely, but if it MUST be there, things that a wrestler calls himself should be removed. Chris Jericho has "The (self proclaimed) best in the world at what he does" and "The (self proclaimed) Face of Smackdown" and "The (self proclaimed) Living Legend" all listed as nicknames. You can't "self proclaim" your own nickname. A nickname has to come from somewhere else and, most importantly, other people have to call you it.

Anyway, there are other improvements that could be made, but these are three glaring problems that I feel should be addressed. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

While I have various things to say in regards to this, it's late so I just want to emphatically state my hatred of "(self-proclaimed)" and "(bestowed upon by...)" seeing as that's the only two ways one can acquire a nickname. To be fair you can give yourself a nickname, which is why the term sobriquet specifically (in most cases) means a nickname bestowed by other people but I get your point. Also with Matt Striker's penchant for alliteration everyone in WWE has a new nickname each week. If we're to have them I think the only ones that should be included are ones included in their ring intros as TNA is fond of and things like CM Punk being the Straight Edge Superstar, but I wouldn't mind them being removed and supplemented in the main prose section to inform the reader about gimmick changes and character evolutions at the time the article is covering. Tony2Times (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Next, the accomplishments section. Why is the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards listed here? While I don't question Meltzer's reliability as a source, the awards are his opinion and his opinion alone. What prestige do they offer? I would say none." Meltzer does NOT pick the awards, they are voted on by the subscribers of the Observer, just like PWI's awards (or so they claim). Before you say something, know what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for explaining that. If this is indeed how they are picked, then I have no issue with them being there. Could have done without the snipe at the end though. Should be used to it around here though, I guess. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that the lack of discussion here means that you all are fine with me making some changes to this section. I'll give it a little longer to see if anyone has anything to say. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on the wrestler and the move. The elbow drop, for example, is a very common move but it of course is listed in The Rock's section even though it's not a finishing move either (well, I guess that is debatable. He won many matches by doing a Rock Bottom followed by a People's Elbow). As for nicknames, I have never liked the "(self-proclaimed)" thing as many nicknames start out with the person calling themselves that (i.e. Shawn Michaels started calling himself Mr. WrestleMania, The Rock started calling himself the People's Champion, etc.). I am not sure it's really worth noting who coined a nickname unless it is really notable (like I think Steve Austin has given JR tons of mentions for coming up with most of his nicknames). Matt Striker coming up with new nicknames has made editing a little more annoying since every week an IP wants to add one of Striker's nicknames despite the fact that only a small amount become actual nicknames (meaning they are used on a regular basis and not just once or twice). TJ Spyke 01:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that common names shouldn't be listed except in the special and obvious cases. Self-proclaimed nicknames probably shouldn't be listed as anybody could proclaim themselves something all day long...an exception being the when they turn into more long-lasting nicknames like "The People's Champion". Nikki♥311 01:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you on the nicknames. I also agree with what TJ said about the moves. Elbow drops are a dime a dozen, but The People's Elbow is unique to The Rock. DDT's are common, but only Randy Orton uses the hangman DDT. I would even say the Cripple Crossface is a signature move of Triple H and Shawn Michaels now since they are the only ones who use it on a regular basis (The Great Khali's ONE use of it doesn't count). Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree on the "self proclaimed" and especially the "bestowed upon by" stuff. As for signature moves, I really think they best way is to list only those that sources can be found for. This is not to say I advocate removal of all unsourced moves. I do advocate the removal of them after someone searches for a source and doesn't find one, on the other hand. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Rumble article expansions

If anyone is interested in expanding post 1997 Royal Rumble PPV articles, PWTorch is doing flashbacks to their articles in the following week. Tony2Times (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXVII venue

According to this interview (33 minutes in) with the president of the Atlanta Sports Council, the venue for WrestleMania XXVII (which seems to be either Atlanta or Miami) could be announced as early as next Monday. As I mentioned last month, I have already been looking for city bid sources for XXVII, so an article for the event should be alright when announced, but it's worth having a watch until Monday. --  Θakster   11:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve Borden

Need some more eyes on this one. A new editor has come in and is trying a small re-write to the article to what he thinks is a better written version of what's already there, but I don't see it that way so if others could chime in on it it would be appreciated.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 18:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs heads-up

I don't know if anyone in the project is one of the many who watch the leader, but recently one editor (with the tacit agreement of Jimbo) deleted a whole mess of BLPs, and given that outside of championships, companies and PPVs a hefty chunk of this project is given over to BLPs. On Jimbo's talk page there is the start of a move which could affect this project greatly (or not, I don't know the numbers). It may be a large slice of tl;dr for most people but what it boils down to is the automatic tagging of all unsourced biographies and the automatic deletion of all those that are left unsourced. I don't know the numbers and most BLPs for wrestlers have hundreds of sources, but there are a number that don't have anything and may fall into the net for this step-change. Those interested may wish to read the section in question and raise any concerns with Le Grande Fromage himself. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Several of our older unsourced BLPs have already been prodded and a couple sent to AfD. When they are tagged, they appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Article alerts. Just adding a few good sources is enough to save them. Nikki♥311 02:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag team names in title lists

This is a trivial issue, but Wrestliglover will insist on discussing it here anyways. For title lists, should we list team names or wrestler names in parenthesis? What I mean is which of these should be used:

#	Tag team	Reigns	Date	Location	Event	Notes
17	D-Generation X (Triple H and Shawn Michaels)	3	September 21, 2008	Rochester, NY	Friday Night SmackDown

#	Tag team	Reigns	Date	Location	Event	Notes
17	Triple H and Shawn Michaels (D-Generation X)	3	September 21, 2008	Rochester, NY	Friday Night SmackDown

I think the first one looks better as the reign is for the tag team, so the team name is more important. Take band names for example, you name the band first and then the members in parenthesis. TJ Spyke 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always preferred the first for the same reasons above. The team that won it is D-X, it's a tag team championship. Obviously not every tag team has names and where the top says "team name/wrestler's name" it won't quite match up when there's no team name but this isn't Wikipedia simple English, people who have enough brains to turn on a computer and type and read would be able to work it out. Tony2Times (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer the first for the same reasons as Tony.--Steam Iron 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first option and will personally go through all Lucha FLs and change it if the consesus is reached, I'll also help with any other list that needs to be updated.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  19:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The first, hands down. Team names always have priority over singles names. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 19:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is a team then the team name should come first. With "thrown together wacky mismatched pals" teams (such as Rikishi and Rico or The Rock and The Undertaker (1 day reign!)) then just the names, obviously. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer listing the team name first. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason the second option is used today is because that was the agreed format when we changed the tables. Another reason the second is used, is because of consistent sorting. Sorting by team name then wrestlers name causes an inconsistency and is not a clean effective system.--WillC 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's what happened, you proposed 2 tables (similar to the above ones, although you wanted to included wrestlers real names too) and Truco said he liked the second one. No one else even commented. So far everyone seems to like putting team name first. TJ Spyke

TJ, it seems you have forgotten all those links to past discussions I gave you. The above format was introduced by Truco in mid-2008. A majority consensus was later established on this very page a bit later. Here is where the format was brought up for the second time and here is where it was agreed too.--WillC 04:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

First, reasons are the same as the above ones.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorting a tag team alphabetically is wrought with problems too. In the second table if I sort by alphabetical order to find Shawn Michaels under S or M it's not gonna come up anyway. Also if it's that much of an issue can't you use the {sort function anyway, although I'd still argue the team name should take precedent in sorting as well. Tony2Times (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the issue with both now. The first is that obviously not every tag team has a 'name'. The second is that you can't sort by each wrestler if you wanted to. So here is what I propose. 1) No sort function for the tag team column. [In this way, the whole issue is avoided because of the inconsistency.] 2)Sort by the tag team name and for teams without 'names', sort by the wrestler whose name comes first in the alphabet.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I could agree with that if I had too, but I disagree that just because it is a tag team article it should go by the team name. The team is made up of wrestlers, not the team name. That is their moniker. The champions are the wrestlers. People want to know who the wrestlers are first, not the team name. I would view having consistency in all tag team lists and in the article columns themselves would be better. FLs are supposed to be sortable, so sortability should become a major part here. Depends on which word you are sorting by; the first or last if there is one? Alphabetical isn't a problem for me since I've been doing that for some time now. Just my opinon, but only one or two in 2 years have ever had a problem with the current way, so why try to fix something that isn't broken?--WillC 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Why fix something that isn't broken" - did you tell yourself that when you decided to change the format yourself? Sorting is not that big a proble, by team name if they have it, by last name of the first team member if no team name exists, easy enough to do. So frankly sorting is no argument for one way or the other. Oh and the first discussion on table format is 99% about a TOTALLY DIFFERENT format, and the other one you say "yes" and then it is actually about sourcing not formatting, quite a "majority consesus" you showed there. Final comment, "two years" the format has not been used in FLs for two years, and there have been objections to the format, from me for one but was given the argument "that's the format used in recent FLs".  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  06:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The links work fine for me, go down to the bottom of the section in the first link for this format. Also, I copy formating for my first articles from the most recently passed ones. I didn't change anything, I just followed others examples. Mainly List of ECW World Tag Team Champions for List of TNA World Tag Team Champions. So changing format myself, not sure where you are getting that from. Still don't see a point to listing the team name first, the articles are about the champions, not the team name of the champions.--WillC 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right it works, I edited my comments, so you didn't originate it - the "don't fix it" comment still applies to plenty of what you've done "because you like it" so maybe someone else originated it here (less than a year ago). There was still no consensus, the format was suggested very late in the first discussion with one guy saying "yeah I like it" and in the second discussion you said "I agree" and the rest talked about sources. 3 people is not consensus, so let's just drop "well it was agreed upon" argument and discuss the format instead. And if you can't see the point of a TAG TEAM championship listing the TAG TEAM NAME first, then the members I can't convince you otherwise, but it seems you are in the minority right now. I've said my piece, you've said yours - how about we just let the rest speak their mind and see where the actual consensus on format is.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  06:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you the ruler now, I can't be involved in the discussion? I know you've had something against me for months now MPJ but get over it and quit trying to blame everything on me. I've always tried to be nice to you. If people like a change in FLCs then I usually stick with it since that would be an agreement. I don't see much different from lists I do from ones you do. I just try to help out the project by expanding the lists, etc. The second link had several say they agreed to it and it ended in a consensus. Doesn't matter how many are involved. The tag team is the wrestlers. The wrestlers should be mentioned first, the team name is a backdrop in my view. A tag team is two wrestlers not two wrestlers with a name. Yes, I said the don't fix it if it isn't broken comment. And I see no reason to change something that hasn't caused any real problems that I have seen. No guideline against it and no massive edit war. I followed other FL formats when I started an the tag team name was listed second. I didn't know why but I discovered why. I want people to discuss. That never happens around here. I'm not stopping anyone from saying anything. I've given my view and you've given your's. Let the discussion continue. I'm all for making sure articles are at their best. If people agree the team name should come first, then so be it.--WillC 07:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am the rule now since I totally said you cannot comment. I've stated my arguments, you stated yours - now you're just repeating them, not adding anything to the discussion. I don't want this to turn into an argument where you keep repeating your arguments every time someone disagrees with you, I want to hear what people in general have to say, the more people chime in the better an idea of what the actual consensus is, so since I don't want to derail this conversation I'm going to stop, I've said my piece and I encourage everyone who's not yet said which version they like to chime in so we can truely get a consensus on the matter.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  07:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As it stands the name sorting it flawed for several reasons; it includes "The" so that "The Basham Brothers" are sorted at the bottom and not under 'B', when sorting wrestlers it sorts Billy Kidman under 'B' and not 'K', and the naming of teams of two wrestlers means that one wrestler can be in three different places because his tag team partners are all alphabetically all over the place, rendering sorting useless. Given all these flaws; what is the point of that column being sortable? Darrenhusted (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because if nothing is done then yes it sorts weird but the {{sort}} or {{sortname}} templates are made for just such problems sortname if it's a last name and sort if it's a team name with "The" in front of it. They're pretty easy to use, even I could figure them out ;)  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  13:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, MPJ is right. The sort templates help that problem.--WillC 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me if I've missed something within the whole long argument but my opinion is that it looks better that the Team name is in small, since I would think the important thing wouldn't be the pretty name which they won the belts under but would be who's actually holding the belts at the time, like I said excuse me if I've missed something but thats my opinion. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 16:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Afro. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Afro as well. What I have been trying to explain.--WillC 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate I think the team name is of more importance as it is a team belt while I'm here but I'm mostly posting just to say that I have had a problem with it being the way it is and always wanted to say something but assumed a consensus has been reached. Also it never felt right because things have been volatile at various times, but I have most definitely always wanted to see team names first. Tony2Times (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering also since the small is frowned upon within the Notes section, why are we putting the Team name/People winning in small? surely it falls under the same line of context as putting the notes in small. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And call it a bad example if you will since its like an 8 year old video (I feel old V_V) [6] but The Fink at Survivor Series 2002 announced Regal and Storm's names first and the Tag names second, the point I'm trying to make is it seems the Tag name is secondary. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a bad example ;) Are Super Bowl winners listed by the names of the players or the names of the team? If a band wins an award are they listed under the Band name or by the individual members? I'd say those are better examples - not that they can straight up compare but those are two of the examples I can think off for other walks of life where there is a "team name" / "Member name" type of deal. Oh and can I just say I hate the small text, it's been removed from notes and frankly should go all together, in some browsers it makes the table look weird too.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also argue that point doesn't hold much water as WWE mostly bill them by team name exclusively, let alone first, on their official history. I am a big fan of small text but I'm guessing that decision is out of my hands if it's a Wiki guideline. Tony2Times (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is wrestling not football or music. Most teams don't even have a name. Names are just used for promotion anyway and are usually a backdrop and some times disappear. Take for instance Priceless, The Kongtourage, Jerishow, etc. Also there are teams who change their name, take for instance Joey Ryan and Scott Lost, who won the PWG World Tag Team Championship, as The X Foundation and The Dynasty. We can't forget these other promotions, afterall this isn't the WWE-pedia or Wikipedia:WikiProject World Wrestling Entertainment. Small used with text hurts because you can't read it at times. It all depends on the browser in most cases, sometimes a table can look perfectly fine on my end but on someone else's it look off-certainered, etc. In the way it is currently used I would say it is fine, considering the main point is the actual wrestlers, not the name.--WillC 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are wrestlers who change their names too, there are plenty of non-WWE teams who actually have names, who's saying it's "WWE Exclusive"? I mean do I really work on WWE articles that much? Team names are not a new thing, nor a WWE thing it's a "Tag Team" thing and these are "Tag Team Titles" so I think it's appropriate. And since wrestling is not consistent with how it lists the teams looking to other areas for inspiration isn't really a bad thing. And all the teams that don't have names are already formatted in a way everyone can agree on so that's not the problem.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The WWE reference was toward Tony since he mentioned their official history. I repeat, a tag team is not just two wrestlers with a partnership name it is two wrestlers period, so this thing about it being a tag team championship so the tag name should come first is just weak. A.J. Styles and Tomko is as much the tag team name for A.J. Styles and Tomko as Christian's Coalition or The Angle Alliance was for them during their TNA Tag Title reign. My position on the matter is still being for consistency and for the wrestlers being listed first and their billing team name second. What next, adding in the nicknames because people are billed as that as well.?--WillC 07:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Now to totally fuck up this discussion, should the consensus ultimately be all titles or title to title, now I say this based on the official title histories New Japan for example lists just the Wrestlers names, All Japan does the same, Noah does too as far as I can, That's some of Japans top belt histories, now as shown before the WWE tends to list as Tag teams, TNA tends to also, and so does ROH. I just thought I'd add this into the discussion and maybe it'll help the project come to a consensus quicker. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No question that this should apply to all - consistency is the key. No quandry at all, they should all be presented the same way same with six-man/trios titles, same format even if it's three men or four or whatever. One agreed upon format (whatever it may be).  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I would think by the official histories it'd show that the names in different regions have different importances levels, it surely should be taken into account. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not trying to define a "regional format" or establish which is more prevalent in wrestling. We're trying to establish how Wikipedia articles on tag team championships should be formatted. Yes look around for inspiration, but once a consensus is reached it should be uniform throughout the articles on wikipedia.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  19:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm just saying that maybe we shouldn't rush into a big universal type of consensus as like I've stated different places hold different importance and it wouldn't be correct in my eyes to apply the format on names which is used for the North American Belts/Whatever to belts where the names really hold no relevance, I'm just getting this thought out in the open, because maybe we should decide once agreed on a format what we should apply it to, and if the agreement in the end is for it to be universal I'm not saying I have any real problems with that I'd just like the facts to be presented and the facts are with the Japan Titles the name of the team isn't really presented as any real importance in the histories, and I think that makes sense... Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing "style" here, not regional importance, could we please stay on the subject of actually getting a consensus on the style, instead of steering discussions 17 different ways away from it please?  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  21:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I didn't mean to use WWE's own title history as evidence/example of what we should do, I just meant it to debunk the previous example of a WWE announcer saying the names then the tag team. I think, though I haven't given it extensive thought for exceptions, that all tag titles should come under this consensus whatever that consensus ends up being. Tony2Times (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Under this projects own "Scope and goals" it states - and I quote - "To establish a uniform style for wrestler biographies, wrestling events and wrestling promotions.", a uniform style does not mean "different formats for different promotions". One style, one consensus wether it's team name or wrestlers name first, small or large - one consensus that we can then all stick to in the future. Thank you.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course we should only have one consensus. We barely can keep track of one, if we ever come to one in most cases, multiple would be madness. It comes down to accuracy and consistency. The tag team name is just a moniker. The name didn't win the title, the wrestlers did, as such they should be mentioned first. I say the team name should be in small text because it throws off the table with it in normal, but I don't care either way. While notes shouldn't be small at all. Sometimes it would be helpful but most cases it hurts.--WillC 10:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is swiftly making itself apparent as an ideological dispute on what a tag team is; whether it is a team or whether it's individuals working together (I can't quite articulate the semantic differences but I hope you get my point). I still argue that the emphasis is on the team, not the individual wrestlers which is why the Freebird rule exists. In 2003 Low Ki and Elix Skipper won the NWA Tag Titles but Christopher Daniels was recognised as champion, not because as a wrestler he won the belts but because he was part of the team that did; similarly the original Freebirds in many cases too numerous to mention and likewise in 2006 Kenny and Mikey defeated Kane & The Big Show yet Nicky Nemeth/Dolph Ziggler is a one time World Tag Team Champion in WWE. Tony2Times (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another point which just occurred to me (trying to stay out of the debate about the project itself below) is that while a tag team champion, wrestlers will often be billed as and call themselves "one half of the Tag Team Champions". I'm not saying it's an absolute, but more often than not I hear this phrase depsite it being a lot more cumbersome than "he is the/a Tag Team Champion". I truly believe this, combined with the above point, proves that the team takes precedence over the individuals. The individual wrestler is only part champion, the team is better than the sum of its parts so to speak. Tony2Times (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The story so far

Just a quick talley of who's supported what format, it's been a long discussion after all.

• Team name first

1. TJ Spyke
2. Tony2Times
3. Steam Iron
4. MPJ-DK
5. ArcAngel
6. Darrenhusted
7. Scorpion
8. C23
9. Raaggio

• Wrestlers names first

1. Will
2. Afro
3. Wwehurricane

• Undecided

1. Truco

Lots of debate, which is cool, but maybe it's time to wrap up the debate as it just goes round and round and no one changes their minds? I'd like to encourage anyone who has not already stated their preference to do so.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  17:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Team name first (when the there is a name) and Wrestlers names sorted by surname (when they have one) with the earliest first, would be a summation of my full position. The team name is better for team that have multiple members and thus the actual title holders could be disputed (Spirit Squad, Freebirds and Demolition off the top of my head). But I'm fine without the surname sorting if it makes tables too unwieldy or would be prone to edit warring. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another problem with this project, everything ends up as a WP:VOTE. I stand with no sorting, because there is just too many inconsistencies that come into play when trying to sort (ie. wrestlers changing their names, tag teams changing their names, a stable winning the tag team multiple times with different wrestlers holding them on each occasion, or wrestlers holding it under the freebird rule).--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies? sort by team name if they have one, by the last name of the team member that's alphabetically first if there is not team name. While not 100% easy it's hardly Rocket Surgery. And we're trying to get a consensus, which means it's rather important to know what the actual consensus is.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  22:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In most cases voting is unacceptable. Debate should determine the consensus. Afterall, most arguments are just someone liking it. I still stand for wrestler names first since afterall they are the champions and the team name is still just a backdrop. Sorting the column helps and in the MoS consistency in format is the key. To stay consistent with each section, the wrestler names should come first.--WillC 23:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a vote, I was trying to illustrate the fact that there were three people (and only two discussing it) who wanted to go with the "name first" making the argument that in a team event it's the individual that's important, in other words "I like it better", which is what the other side is saying as well, it's just being repeated at nauseum by the very limited group of people. All it boils down to is both sides saying "I prefer A or B", round and round it goes so maybe it's time to look at what direction the actual consensus is going here.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  23:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And yes some arguments are "I like it", others are "it's a team title" so it's "personal preference" vs. "type of competition".  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and as such I doubt we'll ever get to a consensus. One reason I just stopped commenting. Why fuel the fire when it isn't burning anything? is what popped in my head.--WillC 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if no consensus is reached here then the previous standard stands, the one that's used in 90% of all tag team title lists - Team name first, after all Truco changing it for a few FLS and Will adopting it claiming that there was a consensus doesn't actually make a consensus to have wrestlers names first.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Really there is no standard. It is up in the air. However, looking at passed table discussions, the current way is how it was presented and it was agreed upon there. Really, I feel it would come down to user's choice; afterall FL reviewers are fine with the current way today it seems. 90% would be an exaderation.--WillC 01:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this will end this silly argument. Not every article (even FLs) of the same subject/topic must follow the same standard, they can differ as long as they meet the requirements of the project's MOS or WP:WIAFL. In that case, both ways can work.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Won't that just lead to people owning articles and that sort of thing? Tony2Times (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, well it shouldn't. When I review FLs, I see many of the same type of lists come to FL and some present different format/styles. I question it sometimes, but at the same time their new way works as well because there are different styles and ways to make lists/articles meet WP:MOS, the project's MOS, and WIAFL. Reviewers tend to allow it because there is more than one way to present information in a clear and concise way.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere has it been shown that it was generally agreed upon the style with team member names first, then team Will, that's already been established much earlier in this discussion so don't perpetuate such falsehoods. Now we're discussing if there is a consensus or not, when the main opposition is from one guy (Will) with one other guy (afro) making a few comments and the third guy (hurricane) sayin "I don't like it" and that's it. Un-freaking-believable, just unbelievable that one or two people can block for actually reacing a damn consensus, I thought that for once something would actually get resolved here. Un-freaking-believable.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  04:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry MPJ that I have an opinon and so do others. But currently there is only 4 people even discussing this subject. No one has shown any consensus for any format really. Most things people call a consensus where never discussed. They were just done, and as such this project says that is a consensus because it has been done like that. The current usage was introduced with the new table format. That is the only thing that even remotely seems like an agreement.--WillC 04:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, why lash out MPJ? I said both ways can work. --Truco ₅₀₃ 04:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Because this project never comes to a consensus and introducing talk like "well we don't really need a consensus" just makes it that much more certain that this time it will once again not reach a consensus once again and FLCs will just be that much more problematic because "personal opinions" on the format will drag it around in circles.

I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth either. It's that type of thing that contributes to this project being the joke that it is. Instead of discussing things and letting it play out, people resort to name calling, putting words in other people's mouths, and lashing out like you did above when they don't get their way RIGHT THEN, even if the consensus seems to be leaning in their favor. Please go back and actually READ my ONE POST in this discussion and you will see that there was more to it than just "I don't like it." Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A thousand apologies I guess I did not capture the essens of your long, thought out and very articulate "I agree with Afro", especially since his original argument boiled down to "I think individual is more important than the team name", or basically "I like it better that way". So I'm sorry I shouldn't have said you said "I didn't like it", I should said "I agree agree with the guy that said he did not like it". Well it's official I'm going to stop with this crap all together, because trying to get more people to chime in instead of going round and round between 3-4 people who've stated their oppinion repeatedly so we can actually GET a consensus is clearly about me getting my way.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  05:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe you need to go back and read Afro's post too since his reasoning as to why his opinion was a certain way was much more than just "I don't like it" as you keep claiming and I was agreeing with his reasoning. Your last sentence just backs up what I said about your tirade above and people not getting things "MY WAY, RIGHT AWAY." Wwehurricane1 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I gave a perfectly good reason as to why I think the Names of the Competitors holding the belts should come first, and I tried to also put the facts out there in hopes that we could reach a consensus quicker and I don't see how my argument can be made out to be "I like it better that way". I think its childish behaviour, do what you want with the consensus I don't care anymore. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 14:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not a consensus if only four people are discussing it out of the list mentioned, if those were only one-time visitors, then its on a consensus. Is it wrong, to have two ways?--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely a non-issue. The tag team name should be listed first, because it is a tag team championship. We're not discarding their individual names, we're just placing them in parenthesis. It seems adequate. 206.248.118.209 (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, a tag team is not multiple wrestlers with a name, it is a team of multiple wrestlers in general. The wrestlers make up the tag team, not their name. So this whole "it is a tag team championship" is a bit dumb.--WillC 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

See above (under the other header). Tony2Times (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, if the focus is on the individual champions why are they only referred to as one half of the champions? It's not a dumb argument to point out it's a tag team championship, because it is a championship dedicated to teams which is why a) one wrestler holds half of the championship and b) wrestlers who didn't win the championship can defend the belt so long as they are part of the team that did. Tony2Times (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You do know several tag team championships have been held by just one wrestler. Like the PWG Tag Team Championship for a short time and the TNA World Tag Team Championship twice. I repeat, a team is two or more wrestlers. They don't have to have a group name. Teams like A.J. Styles and Christopher Daniels is as much a team as DX is. In most cases, teams do not have names. The championship is one single thing represented by two title belts. The belts aren't the championship, they are just the prop.--WillC 05:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23 question (no, not that)

Could someone please take a look at the last couple of edits to this article (by the IP beginning with 69)? It seems like vandalism, but I don't know for sure and would rather steer clear of this article anyhow. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's vandalism, the same vandalism that seems to pop up every few weeks. I don't know if it's the same person or not because the IP's are always vastly different (usually if it's one person IP hopping they keep the same first set of numbers). TJ Spyke 17:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PPV Infobox addition?

I was noticing how many of WWE's pay-per-views, and possibly TNA's have advertising partners that help present each event. For example, WrestleMania XXVI is presented by Slim Jim. Yet we don't note that anywhere, I say at least have it as an infobox parameter, I doubt enough info can be found to state how WWE and Slim Jim teamed up. Just wondering.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If we started adding production sections to all PPVs like Turning Point (2008), then that problem would be solved.--WillC 05:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is sponsorship that notable? I wouldn't be against it but it doesn't strike me as all that relevent unless there's some sort of tie in (eg the Turtles making a cameo last year or RoboCop saving Sting). Tony2Times (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Like Tony said, most of the time the sponsorship isn't that notable. All it does is like 10 seconds on a show saying who is the official sponsor (although they used to have signs in the arena too). This is a rare situation in which I agree with Will, maybe a 1 sentence mention in the article (like the SummerSlam 1997 article could say something like "The official sponsor of the event was Stridex"). Part of the reason it may not be all that important is that the sponsor is already shown on the official posters, at least for WWE. TJ Spyke 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about events that are produced by corporations other than the WWE. Of course otherside parties are notable. If we have a reliable source for information, in most cases it is notable.--WillC 06:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't a infobox parameter sufficient?--Truco ₅₀₃ 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it would do if all events were produced by outside parties, but not all have. Usually only WWE events are, we got ECW, WCW, TNA, ROH, etc events that aren't. Production sections would enhance the article much more than another section in the infobox. Though the extra section doesn't hurt, I'm for it, but would rather we just start doing production sections for every event.--WillC 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A thought

This is just a thought I had on my mind concerning Kane and The Royal Rumble, since it seems to be brought up every year for Kane if it'd be worth adding some sort of Table to Kane's Accomplishment section detailing his history in the Rumble similar to Taker's winning streak table. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 05:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is he doesn't really do much in the Rumble, he just happens to be there. It's sort of akin to Michaels' moniker of Mr WrestleMania. While he has been in so many Rumbles, he barely even eliminates people anymore (in what I think is a bid to stop him overtaking Austin's 36 record). I think perhaps the intro of Kane's should be extended not just to say he has the most eliminations in one Rumble but also that he has appeared in 12 consecutive Rumbles and 13 overall and then say how many people he's cumulatively eliminated. Tony2Times (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Bearer

There has been huge fluctuation lately in the list of "Wrestlers managed" on this article. There were 27 wrestlers listed on January 22. By the 31st, there were only 11 listed. The Undertaker has been re-added, so the list is now at 12. If anyone is familiar with his history, it would be great if they could help fix any problems with the current list. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it a bit later. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 06:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Demonio Azul move requests

• Demonio Azul → Blue Demon
• Demonio Azul, Jr. → Blue Demon, Jr.

Found on Talk:Demonio Azul.  MPJ -DK  17:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why AndreaFox2 decided to move it in the first place. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Listing all of the unreferenced biographies of living people Carlos Cabrera

Jerry Stubbs and Carlos Cabrera has been tagged as an unreferenced Biography of a Living Person since 2007. I am no wrestling fan or expert, can someone reference the article then delete the BLP tag at the top? Otherwise this article will be deleted.

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have Cleanup listings, Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project.

It is very easy to add to your project: simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions

A list of examples is here

Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WWE NXT

FYI, According to WWE, NXT debuts on February 23 which means the last ECW will be February 16. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that has been known for over a week now (and mentioned in the WWE and ECW articles plus various other articles like 2010 in American television). TJ Spyke 02:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

He was referring to me because I changed it on the ECW article because WWE still has SmackDown/ECW listed as an event for Feb 23.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jerishow

The term JeriShow redirects to the WWE Roster page's "Stables and tag teams section"... Now that they're not there anymore, where do we redirect it to? 206.248.118.209 (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, because redirecting it to one article would be biased towards one wrestler.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The traffic at the article is barely existing, could we not just delete the article? I also support Truco's idea but I thought I'd throw out the idea of JeriShow having their article? I suppose now it's over there's no need but they were together for six months main eventing PPVs and had a protracted follow up angle with the strikes and Tyson &c If no-one's up for making it though then yeah the Unified Tag page. Tony2Times (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bret Hart

his return to the WWE section looks like it gets bigger and bigger with each new part of the ongoing storyline in the wrestling programme. i am not familiar with the wrestlers articles in general but wouldnt it be enough to mention only that he has returned. since when are complete storylines part of wiki wrestler articles? GBK2010 (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I toned a lot of it down.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder

I know a lot of you don't want to hear from this again, but I think it's time for a split. Hawkins is in a stable of his own on FCW, he even has a tag title reign in it to boot. Ryder also is on ECW, fought for the ECW title, and even competed in the Rumble. I think they have done much without the other already. What do you guys think? Raaggio 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the majority of their career has been together as a tag team. The only difference in each article would be how Hawkins is in FCW and Ryder is [was] in ECW. They will overlap and basically be content forking of the Tag Team article.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If somebody wants to create a article on subpage to show he is notable, i'm sure people would take a look at it. TJ Spyke 01:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not this again I side with Truco it would be content forking as neither of there solo careers have been anything more then a few things here and there lets wait some more time.--Steam Iron 01:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Truco (no surprise I'll wager) because they did spend 5 years together as a team and 1 year apart. Also they haven't done much to write about since they've split up. Hawkins has won a title but there wasn't much of a storyline around it while Ryder had a throwaway title shot on a show with a roster so shallow I'm in line for a title match. The title shot wasn't part of much of a storyline, there's very little to write about. I don't think you could expand the paragraph currently on their joint page much and it's a small page which hardly seems worthy of a page of its own. Tony2Times (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm up for re-visiting this idea, but in a sandbox. That's probably the best way to judge right now. HAZardousMATT^toxic 14:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If both have met the criteria for notability (ie. they are both discussed in some detail in reliable sources and have both competed at the top level in their sport), individual articles are warranted. Even if that means moving the information from the tag team article to two separate articles, that's what should happen. Lots of articles repeat information (eg. The Bushwhackers, Brian Wickens, and Robert Miller (wrestler), or, for an example from outside of wrestling, Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen. So be it. The criteria have been met, there is obviously substantial demand for separate articles, and the constant refusal seems to be just to prove a point most of the time. At the very least, it is time to Ignore All Rules and create the articles. Sincerely, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Priceless

Although sad, when an editor arises a discussion on an article's talk page, it is usually ignored. Therefore, I am reposting a question that originated on Talk:The Legacy (professional wrestling).

To summarize it, an IP editor notified us of his concern that the "Priceless" tag title reigns weren't included in the page. The concern was answered 11 days later by Tony firstly stating that "Priceless" was only a fan-given name and not an official name. The IP eventually posted proof against that claim in the shape of a link from WWE's website officially listing them as "Priceless". Other than the comments about wether or not the name was official, the discussion about including the tag title reigns was inadvertently ignored.

I think the IP editor has a point and that both tag title reigns of Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes should be listed in the Championships and Accomplishments section with a side-note stating it was won as Priceless and not as Legacy. Raaggio 12:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How long were they "Priceless"? Sometimes names are tried out, used on TV or online before a final name is chosen. I would think that in terms of the career histories of Ted and Cody, "Priceless" will appear only as a precursor to Legacy. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I kept on meaning to reply about the Priceless thing (not just the nickname) but forgot about it, I didn't immediately answer it as at the time I'm fairly sure it'd been discussed already on this page that Priceless and Legacy were seperate entities with different gimmicks which was why the tag title reigns weren't included. Tony2Times (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

True, I do agree with you to an extent. I understand that we shouldn't add the tag reigns to the Championships and accomplishments section if we consider them completely different entities, but why on Earth is the whole history of the formation of Priceless included in the History section? If we achieve a consensus to consider Priceless completely different from Legacy, then the History section should begin with the first interactions between Priceless and Orton (as that is when the Legacy stable began its early stages). Raaggio 16:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the initial bulk of the article and felt that the background info was pertinent as it showed how Rhodes&DiBiase came to be tag champions which was why Orton originally interacted with them. But if people disagree those four lines could easily be removed. Tony2Times (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment is.... FAKE?

Could someone keep an eye on World Wrestling Entertainment? User:Sourside21 seems to think its worth noting that WWE is... UH... FAKE! I think he just found out about professional wrestling... Uh-Oh... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow...you really are a funny user. haha Sourside21 (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, even though you may think you are very funny with your sarcasm, the WWE thinks and pretty much any major news article that ever comments on the WWE thinks it is worth noting that it is fake. But you don't care about that, do you? DUN DUN DUN Sourside21 (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're obviously new so I won't bite the noobie. That said, I will make just this one comment; did you just barely find out about professional wrestling and if so do you feel cheated as a result?

1.WP:PW would like to inform you that WWE is a company that produces scripted entertainment and thus criticism in regards to their product being fake is a bit ridiculous and hardly Notable.

2.Judging by your edit history, it appears you have a tendency to assume bad faith. As such, in this scenario I advise you to "know your role..."

3.That said, don't take things too seriously because I guarantee you that if you do and you decide to get into a silly argument, you will lose.

Regards. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what needs to be pointed out here is that WWE is a pro-wrestling company so to note on their article that there has been criticisms for it being "fake" (it's scripted, if I tell you I'm gonna throw you off a ladder, it still hurts) is to imply that other pro-wrestling companies are either a) not scripted or b) not criticised for this. That kind of comment belongs on the article of pro-wrestling, not one company specific page. Especially as a lot of WWE's output isn't 'fake'; their biography videos of late are mostly out of universe, their music isn't fake because it can't be, Tough Enough wasn't fake either nor was their bodybuilding. Tony2Times (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tony2Times for a response. User:3bulletproof16 seems to be the type of user who resorts to threats when he has run out of arguments, as he has threatened me three times on my talk page. Although WWE is professional wrestling, they are not one and the same, as you have noted. I have addressed criticisms specifically directed at WWE on the WWE page, and criticisms specifically directed at professional wrestling in general on the professional wrestling page. I think this would be the best way to keep different criticisms apart. Cheers, Sourside21 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Tony2Times just told you everything I told you and you still don't get it. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Breaking news! Did you know that... Star Trek is also fake? No, seriously. Now I'm pissed off that they deceived me, so we must note this on the Star Trek article! As I mentioned before, pro wrestling by it's very nature is fake. WWE is just doing what all other wrestling companies past and present have done. Why should we add a section of the company being criticized just for doing what is supposed to? By the way, TV.com (one of the sources you are using) is not considered a reliable source and thus is not useable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrestling fans are a sarcastic bunch, aren't they? Anyways, as you would already know if you have read my comments, WWE differentiates itself from other forms of media by sustaining a constant atmosphere of roleplay, and therefore attracting all the criticism it gets in the mainstream media. And sorry, I was not referring to the site itself, but the primary source documentary within. I will write a more accurate reference in a minute. Cheers, Sourside21 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, the time magazine article that you keep pointing to does not say anything along those lines. In fact the only comment along those lines, "The comment didn't do much to stamp out persistent rumors that the fights are rigged — but hey, at least she was honest" was obviously just some toungue in cheek sarcasm. Either way, the article was just about the WWF/WWE name change. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourside, have you read professional wrestling, script (recorded media), mock combat, and sports entertainment? These are all elements of pro wrestling, and thus, WWE. WWE contains all these elements, and are noted. WWE happens to just be more advanced in their production methods is all (ie. HD, films, NXT, music, etc.) which makes them different than other companies.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history I'd say Sourside21 drove past 3RR a while ago; reverted to 7:34 10/02/10, 1:00 11/02/10, 1:20, 1:32, 1:54, 2:13, 2:20, 2:40 11/02/10 7RR, 3RR at 1:00, diff of 3RR warnings at 2:29. Is there a reason this guy isn't blocked? Everything for a 3RR report was there at 1:54 this morning. And he's not a n00b he registered in August 2006. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum, I found the 3RR report and reformatted it to make it clear Sourside was warned 1 minute before his final revert, and that he had edit warred the day before on another page. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I smell an agenda here. TNA fan maybe? When Sourside's 48 hour ban ends, we should all keep a sharp look out on the WWE article. !! Justa Punk !! 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The most minor of style points

Just curious as I've seen it done differently, is there any consensus about how to list C&As? Sometimes each promotion has a space between them, other times not, sometimes the sub bullet points are a colon/asterisk other times two asterisks. I prefer the latter in both cases but I don't wanna change other people's work if I'm being erroneous. Also Playboy cover girl isn't an accomplishment, right? Tony2Times (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Playboy, it was agreed that this is not a championship or accomplishment (at least a wrestling one) and thus should not be listed in the C&A section. As for the first two, the style guide (Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Championships and accomplishments) doesn't specify, so it's pretty much up to whoever wants to edit them. I personally prefer no spaces between promotions (as putting a space doesn't add anything) and two asterisks. TJ Spyke 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to standardize it then I would use the three FAs as the guideline; CM Punk, Bobby Eaton and Shelton Benjamin. They have passed the FA review, and FA is the goal for all articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Punk and Benjamin are normally my go to standards but Punk has no spaces while Benjamin does. Tony2Times (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I would go with "editor's choice", make them match. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'm at it

Do infoboxes need source citations for facts later sourced in the article? ie If the article states "She debuted as The Lightning Thingy in Wrestling Promotion X (WPX)" and that card is sourced, do I need to replicate the source in the infobox? I ask because when I was attempting to take a cricket article to GA I was told facts in the intro paragraphs don't need sources if they're later cited and I wondered if the infobox was included in this because a) it is just replication and b) it looks ugly - which is obviously a lesser concern. Tony2Times (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary for the most part, but I've never found it worth arguing with reviewers over that point. If they ask for them, I add them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

While he's at it

Can someone please clarify this statement from the project's Manual of Style? "Unless the wrestler is commonly known by his ring name, which means that they gained prominence under that name, it is unnecessary to list their birth/legal name." Is this not backwards? To me, this says that a birth name must be given only for wrestlers who have a more commonly known name (ie. it would be necessary to state that Hulk Hogan is Terry Bollea, but not that Phineas Godwinn is Dennis Knight). Am I reading this wrong, is it actually backwards, or is it just a remnant from a guideline that has since been abandoned? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think you're reading that right as being backwards. But I think that was from when we were putting everyone's real name in brackets so it can probably be ignored/deleted. Tony2Times (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

World of unpredictable wrestling

World of unpredictable wrestling - prod? ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea Prod it.--Steam Iron 05:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The creator is being a bit protective. He has been removing the tags and they have been replaced. I've left a message on his talk page about what's still needed. I wonder if this is a WP:OWN issue. !! Justa Punk !! 00:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WWE Elimination Chamber = No Way Out in Germany notability?

I would think that Germany promoting the event as WWE No Way Out was notable due to their history with that term in the World War II era, but TJ doesn't think so. I see his point, however, that its not notable because other countries may use other names to promote it but that is mainly in terms of language barriers. Here they have the old name which WWE kicked out the door. Thoughts? [Note: There is no official confirmation that this is why they did it, but it would be everyone's guess.]--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the reason I question its notability is that stuff like TV shows and movies get re-named in other countries all the time, but that info is rarely notable and thus rarely mentioned in articles here. TJ Spyke 00:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait are you saying the event is being promoted in Germany using the No Way Out name?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think it to be notable if it happened in another English speaking country - to parallell with films American Wedding was marketed over here in Britain as American Pie 3: The Wedding which is noted on the article. However there is no British Wikipedia or American Wikipedia so both should be included; there is a German Wikipedia so the information should definitely be there but here I don't think it's as vital unless a number of countries choose to retain its erstwhile (and so much effing better) PPV name. Tony2Times (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the name being used is "No Way Out" [in English].--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On a German website for a German company watched by German people. By the looks of it they also call Mania WrestleMania because it's a branded product. But it still only pertains to German speaking people. Tony2Times (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Another note... Do we know yet if WWE is sees EC as a continuation of the No Way Out event?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony and Bullet: I see that point, but to use a name that WWE now considers a whole different pay-per-view seems notable to me. (So yes Bullet according to the website of EC, NWO is a diff PPV.)--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok so do we also know if other countries are also using the name? Maybe we should wait until the event, check back at the german site and see if its still promoted that way?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot of countries, but from my knowledge, Germany is the only one.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm that said... If its only used in Germany, I dont think its notable, but its no big deal. If you feel strongly about it, a small note wouldn't hurt in the production section. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not strongly opposed but unless a number of a other countries use the name I don't think it's all that notable. But EC and NWO seem very related (the past two years of NWO have had two EC matches just like this year) I just think we need official confirmation which might not happen until there's a history section on the EC page which I think someone said took a year for Vengeance/NOC. Tony2Times (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony, there is no such thing as a regional Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia is based off the languages, not the countries. Therefore, just because something is in Germany doesn't mean it should only be included in the German Wikipedia. What about every English-speaking person in Germany? Do they necessarily have to use the English Wikipedia or do they necessarily have to use the German Wikipedia? Their knowledge of both languages gives them the opportunity to be able to read either of the articles and when they see one of them has more information than the other, their obvious reaction has to be "What the f**k?". If something or someone is notable in a country, then it is notable on this Wikipedia. For example, there are many articles of foreign singers, actors, doctors, etc. that have never spoken a word in the English language. As there also are excerpts and anecdotes in their articles that have nothing to do with the English language or American/British/Australian/... soil. We can't be discriminate towards the country where the information comes from only the notability of the information. The information is notable because WWE is marketing this year's Elimination Chamber PPV as the 12th annual "No Way Out" when there is no confirmation that either PPV continues the history of the other. Raaggio 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, calm down I said I was fairly indifferent to it. Besides which I watch Korean cinema, listen to Icelandic post-rock and Finnish hip-hop and research the advances made by international doctors but I watch PPVs in Scotland. I just think one country having a different name isn't all that notable especially as it's a third party source. When WWE airs the PPV on TV I doubt it'll have a NWO graphic during the event and I'd be interested to see if there are posters or TV guide adverts from WWE and what they title it. This could just be inaccurate reporting from Sky Germany. Is it proof that EC is the continuation of the NWO legacy? I'd like it to be (it's clearly the same event) but I don't know if it's strong enough proof. Tony2Times (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to reply to Tony's questions, WWE's main website is indeed promoting it as the "first-ever WWE Elimination Chamber pay-per-view in history" and the "inaugural pay-per-view". That being said, WWE's German website is also promoting it as No Way Out (and a warning in advance, unless you're from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium or Luxembourg, the homepage is as far as you're going to get with that site). --  Θakster   22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So is a note applicable or not?--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is, it has been reported by reliable third party sites. No question in it anymore. The evnt is now Elimination Chamber and if it is being promoted by something other than that somewhere, it should be noted in the production section.--WillC 20:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Being real is NOT the same as being notable. So don't say "of coarse it is". There has been nothing given to show it is notable. Also, what third party sites? The only site stated here or on the PPV's page is WWE's official German site. TJ Spyke 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you forgotten WrestleView and PWTorch have both published this? Also, use common sense, the event is called Elimination Chamber, and it isn't being called that somewhere else. That is worth noting in every possible way. Can't believe this convorsation is going on.--WillC 08:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it's not notable but we are debating it anyways. Again, how is it notable? I never said it wasn't real. An event being called something else in another country happens all the time, what makes this one notable? TJ Spyke 18:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Because in this case, the different names isn't as a result of language barriers, its a result of politics (WW II/Holocaust). Majority of the time countries promote under the name used in the US. Why is it hard to see that a "EXTINCT" name (if you will) that WWE put on the shelf (that being No Way Out) is being used by WWE to promote the new name Elimination Chamber in Germany?--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing but speculation on your part why they are using that name in Germany, so that argument invalid. So we are back to how is this any different than movies being re-named? I went to IMDB ad picked a random movie. 3 Ninjas, known in the UK as "3 Ninja Kids" and in France as "Ninja Kids". I see no mention of any alternate names on its Wiki article. I could provide other examples too, but it would just show the same thing. Most of the time it is not notable if something is re-named (especially if it is just for one country). TJ Spyke 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That argument is just another version of other stuff exists. This matter is regarding Elimination Chamber, not 3 Ninjas or anyother tv show or movie. I've seen no vaild reason to not place the different name in the article.--WillC 20:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny, because there has been no valid reason to include it. The burden of proof is on those claiming something is notable. Hell, so far there hasn't even been any mentions of this other than from WWE's official German site. Since no one has shown why it is notable, in a few hours I will remove the statement (per WP:N). TJ Spyke 20:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another judgment call by the "ruler" of this project. Do what you want, because you obviously can only live with your way. Btw, those three examples are bad references. They all have the Ninja in their name, uh NWO and EC {totally different names}.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you acting like i'm the bad guy? All I asked was for someone to show why it's notable. No one has even produced third party references to it, yet alone why it is notable. As for the movie one, I said that was just one example I could provide. TJ Spyke 20:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

TJ, Are you actually asking why different names are notable? Ask that to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Sean Combs, Heroin The Boat That Rocked (and almost any movie that has different titles)... I know it's not the same in all articles, but you can't say its preposterous for it to be notable. 206.248.118.209 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said different names are never notable, I asked what makes this particular one notable? Hell, your last point is the same one I made, MANY movies (a large percentage) have more than 1 name but very few are notable. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone made hundreds of millions of dollars and the box office and sold millions of books, the US name is easily just as notable as the UK name. Not sure your point with Sean Combs, as that has nothing to do with this point. The last movie is more known as Pirate Radio but is at that odd name because it premiered in the UK first. TJ Spyke 22:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed PPV change: "Other on-screen talent"

In the past, we have discussed the use of words such as "talent" and "superstars" when referring to people. WWE uses the terms, but consensus has been that the words should not be used in an encyclopedia because they violate the neutrality policy. They have been removed from (at least most) roster lists and articles. I think that we may have overlooked this in pay-per-view articles, though, since they still feature a table titled "Other on-screen talent". I believe that this title should be changed, and I imagine that most people would want consistency if this is to happen. My suggestion would be "Other on-screen roles", since it carries essentially the same meaning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of tables, could convert them to the format in Turning Point (2008)#On-air employees.--WillC 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stick with tables, since they're better for a quick reference. Converting it to prose just muddles things up in my opinion and forces people to wade through a dense paragraph of prose-for-the-sake-of-prose to find a minor detail. I think the articles are long enough already and that the table actually does a nice job of breaking it up a bit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the tables, too, for GCF's reasoning. "Other on-screen roles" sounds good to me. Nikki♥311 19:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely in favour of the tables as it keeps what is largely unimportant information concise and neat. I don't mind talent being changed to on-screen rles or other employees. Tony2Times (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I question the use of the on-screen talent in general, since it is hardly ever sourced. One reason I use prose now instead of tables, is it can be more indepthed.--WillC 20:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In depth how, what does that prose tell me that a table wouldn't? Tony2Times (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

More so it could tell which referees were apart of which match, who else appeared on camera in a bigger way like wrestlers in backstage segements, anything big like Michael Buffer announcing a match and saying more information on it, etc. The table gives some information, but much more can be given imo.--WillC 05:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Help please

TJ Spyke appears to be not able to read those diff things correctly. On Sheamus O'Shaunessy's article I removed white space in the middle of references, e.g. changing "|date=2009-12-10| accessdate=2009-12-14" to "|date=2009-12-10| accessdate=2009-12-14" in the professional wrestling career section, changing "irishwhipwrestling.com/images/results/result080804.html| title=Peaders Beer" to "irishwhipwrestling.com/images/results/result080804.html|title=Peaders Beer" in the Irish Whip Wrestling section (first paragraph), and and "|date= 2008-09-18" to "|date=2008-09-18". He claims I'm adding white space. Could somebody please explain to him that he's wrong? He apparently doesn't think that ip editors are ever right and refuses to accept my version of events. In addition, you should probably keep an eye on his contributions. Per my talk page, he does know how to utilise grammar or the English language correctly. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.209.60 (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the IP seems to think that me removing white space is somehow adding them (when I suggested it might be their monitor, he/she attacked me and claimed I was the one with the problem). When I explained this, they attacked my and called me retarded, after I have him/her a no-attack warning, they attacked me again. As for the grammar, I don't need to explain this but it was because I made a typo on their talkpage by writing "all" instead of "are". I don't think anyone will take this IP's joke suggestions seriously. TJ Spyke 19:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Em, if you meant to type "are" instead of "all", your comment still does not make sense. "I know not how Brits are rude like you." is horribly wrong grammatically, and just generally. In any case, I was hoping for help or opinions from another editor. You have made your position clear with your little "warnings" and by ignoring the examples I pointed out. I would very much like another registered user to comment. Maybe you'll listen to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.209.60 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

First, please learn how to sign your comments (you have not signed ANY of your comments). Second, you continue to attack me on your talkpage. "Little warnings"? You are attacking me and and calling me retarded, that is not allowed on Wikipedia (maybe it's OK in Ireland to attack people, but not here). If you can't see all the extra whitespace you are adding, that is your problem. I don't feel like arguing anymore with a IP who can't see they are wrong, especially over such a stupid issue. Attack me again and you will be reported. TJ Spyke 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No reason to say "argue with an IP", editor is a better term. No reason to discriminate against someone just because they don't want a user. Raaggio 22:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've asked before, can another editor please comment? I have no wish to interact with the above editor, who feels that it is fine to make generalisations about the Irish based on his ineractions this evening with one Irish editor. Basically, I would like to know whether I am the one removing the white space, or whether it is the TJ Spyke user. Thanks in advance to the other editor (i.e. not the above one) who comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.209.60 (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously all this over whitespaces in a reference? Perspective, look into getting some please.  MPJ -DK  20:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've slapped a 3RR warning on his talk page as he is on the verge of breaking it. It's an edit war anyway in my book and the IP is the one at fault. There's nothing wrong with TJ's version against the IP's. !! Justa Punk !! 23:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn that complicated monitor resolution crap!!! ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WWE Copyright

Someone has put a copyright concern tag on the WWE article. I've asked for more information on the talk page. We should keep an eye on this one. !! Justa Punk !! 09:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's quite clear in the edit history that it's because of the use of many "non-free" logos on the page.  MPJ -DK  11:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is ridiculous because 3 or 4 non-free pictures is well within the allowed limit for FU. TJ Spyke 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There's 5 copyrighted images on that page. What is the limit? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

MPJ, there are allowances for the use of non free images, aren't there? As long as they used within a certain criteria of course (can't remember what off the top of my head). !! Justa Punk !! 21:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• No clue, no interest - I'm just telling you what the guy who tagged the article put as reason.  MPJ -DK  00:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the concern. The logos don't add anything to the reader's understanding of the company. Fair use laws aren't limited to the number of images used; they also include how and why the images are used. In this article, they are nothing more than illustrations. The rationales are weak at best—the infobox image says that it illustrates the text, although this is clearly copied and pasted and does not apply. The next logo says that it helps identify the company, although I'm not sure how it does so. The next one says that it helps people make sure that they are reading the correct article (huh? rather than looking at the title, they might scroll down to make sure it contains a logo that hasn't been used in 12 years?). The next one is the same, word-for-word (in case people see the third logo but aren't quite convinced yet that this is the correct article?). The claim in the image descriptions that it is a subject of public interest is absolutely meaningless, as copyright violations of famous companies are still just copyright violations of famous companies...the only difference is that they're more likely to bring lawsuits. The image of the Montreal Screwjob does nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of the article, as the event isn't even described (just a see Montreal Screwjob link). The person who added the notice does extensive work with image permissions, and I think he's totally correct in saying that the article is, at present, a lawsuit magnet. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, lawsuit magnet. Yeah, i'm sure WWE's attorneys will sue because their logos are being used on their Wikipedia page. Maybe the wording needs to be improved, but most of the images (minus the Montreal one) more than meet fair use requirements. TJ Spyke 02:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't. They add nothing to the reader's understanding. And no, they probably won't sue, but that's not what fair use is about. It's about respecting copyright law and not using images needlessly. If they did sue, however, Wikipedia would have a very hard time justifying infriging on WWE's copyright in pursuit of pointless illustrations that are almost entirely irrelevant to the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A company's logo is how they choose to present themselves to the public, showing how the company has changed that image over the years DOES add to the reader's understanding. The article does meet fair use requirements. TJ Spyke 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets quit worrying about the damn images and care about the text. The text will inform a user way more than a picture. Dear God, if you all would worry about the actual text in the articles as you all do on this minor shit, the WWE article would be featured. There is only one need for a fair use photo, and that is one logo: the current. Since they use that for promotional and would be useful on showing that.--WillC 04:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ferrin Barr, Jr. BLP

Hi. I'm working through Oregon's unrefed BLPs. I haven't been able to find much on this guy, so I may prob it or redirect it to his dad's article. Please save it by adding refs if you can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ECW Championship

Now that the title is retired, there appears to be some debate as to what the article should be named. 3bulletproof16 unilaterally moved the page without even mentioning it anywhere. I could have just moved it back for the same reason, and I may end up making a move request (even though bullet should have had to do that to move it). I explained why on that talkpage, but basically the title is better known as the ECW Championship. Yes it was called the ECW World Heavyweight Championship for a longer period of time, but time doesn't mean much. The title was exposed to more people in 2 years as the ECW Championship than it ever had as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship, the title became more known and bigger than it ever had in ECW. TJ Spyke 17:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like something worth worrying over on either side. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NAME, the most common name should be used that appears in reliable sources. I would agree on either name just simply because "ECW Championship" is a shortening of "ECW World Heavywetimeight Championship" (like "WWF Championship" -> "WWF World Heavyweight Championship") since they are all mouth-fulls. For 4 years, the championship was exposed internationally by WWE under three names, with about two years as "ECW Championship". I believe clearly that the nearly 10 years under ECW as the "ECW World Heavyweight Championship", even though it mostly was domestically, will be mostly recognized through history. --Truco ₅₀₃ 18:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've only known it as the ECW Championship. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This would have a knock on effect with regards to the WWE European Championship and WWE Hardcore Championship both of which spent only 2-3 months without the WWF initialism and in 2002 when the '90s wrestling boom had died down. Tony2Times (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There is a misconception about the reason those titles are under those names. Initials are different because their only purpose is to denote ownership. What that means is that a championship's name really is Hardcore Championship of WWE or European Championship of WWF. Since the company was known as WWE at the time of deactivation it would be inaccurate to use the WWF initials. The common name of the titles however remains unaffected (that being Hardcore Championship and European Championship). Now as for the ECW and WCW World Heavyweight Championship, the case is different because both never used the WWE initials. The common name for these titles has always been "___ World Heavyweight Championship." The misconception however with move the "WCW World Heavyweight Championship" article to "World Championship," as that particular title was last known.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's a question of ownership then why is it the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) and not WWE World Heavyweight Championship? WWE/WWF isn't part of the title to indicate ownership, the titles were regularly announced as the WWF European Championship and the WWE Hardcore Championship. Tony2Times (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Tony has a point. It's the same situation. The initials are just part of the name, it would be inaccurate to have the ECW Championship article be at ECW World Heavyweight Championship as that was not the name of the title when it was retired and hadn't been called that in over 3 1/2 years. TJ Spyke 22:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That would result in the WCW title being moved to World Championship TJ. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick reminder: This doesn't matter...at all. End the debate and do something productive...on Wikipedia, with your family, outside...anything is a better choice than giving this even a moment's thought. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GCF, just follow the concept we used before with other titles, ie. WCW World Heavyweight Championship.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

that was the idea!^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that was only done with that title (the only 2 reasons being that it was only called "World Championship" for about 1 month, and also because that name would have required a disambiguation to be used). Other titles use the name they had when they were retired. bulletproof has not show how the title is more known as ECW World Heavyweight Championship. TJ Spyke 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

GCF, It matters to someone, I guarantee it, and if we don't deal with it now, we'll have to deal with it later. IAC, imo, ECW Championship is likely the common name, and as far as officially, I'm sure on tv it may have been refereed to as the "World Heavyweight Title" more than it was "ECW World Heavyweight Championship", for brevity. I say keep it at ECW Championship, and bold the other titles. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ECW World Heavyweight Championship should be the name. It was most successful when it was known under that name in it's original run, and it is MOST KNOWN for being the main championship in ECW. In ECW, it was referred to as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship. Rawisrob (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Combined TNA Title History Page

TNA's title history is a mess. Because of their deal with NWA and using the NWA belt, TNA used that belt for the majority of their history, and when NWA left, they made their own belt. As a result, Wikipedia treats both belts separately, and keeps a separate title history for both. This is accurate and appropriate, but I do not feel it gives a useful view of TNA's history for either their World or Tag Team Championships. I propose making a "List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA" main page, that separately links to both the NWA and TNA Championship pages. This way, we can explain the situation while showing the complete title history in TNA.

TNA themselves has done this on their page: http://www.tnawrestling.com/stars/tna-world-title-histories

Making the page would be very easy as all the data already exists and would only need to be copied and pasted over, fix up the days held, and done. I think it would be much more useful than what we have now, and would clear up any confusion when they mention AJ Styles's previous title reigns, or Jeff Jarretts, etc. I can see no reason not to have this page made. It does not remove either existing page, and only enhances and show the appropriate scope of belt history in TNA. 71.246.1.102 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

I wouldn't be opposed to this. Making one for the heavyweight and the tag titles was a future plan of mine anyway. I already got them both set up in a subpage. I could pull them both out pretty quick. FLC ready as well.--WillC 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need ANOTHER page that just duplicates information without adding anything new? Personally I'd say no - The simple solution would be to add another section to the TNA World & Tag lists that duplicate the NWA title history from when TNA controlled it, yes it does duplicate a little part of the list, but at least it does not actually add ANOTHER article that would have to be maintained.  MPJ -DK  21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that's a valid reason not to. There are planty of editors from this project with thousands of pages on their watchlist that they maintain everyday.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think MPJ has a point, the article would basically just be a duplicate of the TNA World title page with the 5 years of the NWA title history added to it. The page would not have any new info. TJ Spyke 22:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly TJ - and if "Does not add anything new" isn't a reason not to create a page I don't know what is?  MPJ -DK  23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I must see a different list then you all do. The list I see is half list, half article. Has extensive prose which almost classifies it as an article rather than a list. It is one giant table from Shamrock's reign to the most recent. It speaks about the history of the heavyweight championship in TNA in better detail than on both the TNA Title and NWA Title pages. It would definitely add new information plus slove a 3 year long dispute.--WillC 23:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly duplicate information. Especially the days held tables, the reigns listed tables, and it does give a more complete picture. Plus, that is the proper information for a TNA World Title or Tag Title History - the other pages give you either a snapshot of TNA's history within the NWA history, and the other is a very small sampling of TNA's History. Neither will ever give the complete story and should not be the main TNA Title page. That's what this is.71.246.1.102 (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

It's duplicate information if you take both the NWA bit and the entire TNA list and put it in a new article - just add the NWA portion to the TNA one instead of having two different articles that list the current TNA world champion, that has to be maintained on changes and everything. MPJ -DK  07:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The only problem would be that is original research. Those reigns are not TNA Title reigns, they are NWA reigns in TNA. Stating the NWA Title was the previous one would be accurate and not OR in the TNA title list. If given a few days, I could probably pull out a raw verison of what the list could look like.--WillC 07:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Will says he has something in mind for a page like this that differs from what you have in mind. Why not let him cook something up then? At the end of the day if it's something you don't agree with you can always AFD it. It's no big deal and certainly no cause for concern. Besides WP:PW has worse pages with non-notable content that don't need to be maintained. (World of Unpredictable Wrestling) Why don't you and TJ focus on that instead? ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? As for Will, I know you've have the page as a work in progress, I've seen it in the past. I'd really appreciate if you brought that one out. Thanks for everything guys. 71.246.1.102 (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

Yeah, I can bring out both lists. May take me a week though, but I can pull them out.--WillC 05:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

This article is currently rated as a B class, would someone mind reviewing it, and suggesting improvements? I see a possible GA or FA article here. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unified WWE Tag Team Championship

I'm semi-active and therefore am not sure if this discussion has already taken place, but is there a need for the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship article? Since the unification, there has been 4 reigns and a year has passed by and yet the WWE doesn't give it its own title history on WWE.com. The article links to each respective tag team championship's history and the statistics fully ignore all previous tag title reigns before the unification. I doubt the Unified Tag Team Championship is considered a "new title" (the way the kayfabe South American Championship merged with the North American to form the Intercontinental) because WWE continues to update both its WWE Tag Team Championship and World Tag Team Championship (WWE)'s histories.

I think the way to go here is to eliminate the page, redirect it to World Tag Team Championship (WWE) with a hatnote to WWE Tag Team Championship or vice-versa. WP:HATNOTE pretty much covers why I think that's the best option. Of course, I recommend this only if we can achieve the consensus that the article is unnecessary.

Thanks, Raaggio 11:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't like it, I would keep seperate articles only with sections in both articles about the unified title. The WWE Undisputed World Heavyweight Championship had a longer history and is technically more prominent but does not have its own article. It is likely that once the titles seperate, the unified championship will fall out of common use, i.e. A wrestler will be referred to as a former tag team champion. We are unlikely however to reach a positive consensus here I think however. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Actually it would appear that many are against it having its own article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. As a result of the AfD, the page should be a disambiguation, but as the current article serves the purpose of disambiguating and tracks the lineage in one place, I can accept it until the championships are split. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference with this unified tag team championship and the undisupeted WWE Championship is that the Undispudeted WWE Championship only retained the lineage of the WWE Championship and was just a simple name change. In this case of the Unified Tag Titles, both championships are considered active with separate histories (hence both titles representing the one championship and WWE.com having each different history although they call the titles as a part of the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship in the title header).--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for removing any mention of it as a title in its own right (which is why I previously voted against a list of unified champions list), but I'm not particularly keen on having the page simply redirect to one of the two articles as it shows too much bias towards one title when in the past year, both titles have been treated as equal in this unification. That was, and still is, my stance on this situation. --  Θakster   17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As Truco said, the difference between the Unified Tag and Undisputed WWF Titles is that the WWF Championship gained the status of being the Undisputed World Heavyweight Title whereas the Unified Tag Title is two titles unified and co-existing. No-one has challenged any of the champions in the past year for one of the two titles, the matches aren't announced as being for the WWE Tag Team and World Tag Team Championship as when X-Pac owned both Light-Heavy and Cruiserweight Titles. They exist as an entity of their own and besides which there've only been 5? champions since they've been Unified so why bother with an article list when, as it's under 10 champions, if there was going to be a list it would be on the same page. Tony2Times (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oakster, I don't think it shows bias towards any title, because there's a hatnote. That's what WP:HATNOTE is for. Raaggio 00:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But in this case, WWE refers it as the "Unified WWE Tag Team Championship" not the "WWE and World Tag Team Championships". Yes, each title retained its identity but WWE considers both titles as one championship, thus not only one set of the titles is defended.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This actually raises a question for me. On The Miz's article someone added that he's holding three championships simultaneously (allegedly the first in WWF/WWE to do so). For that purpose is the Unified Tag Championship considered one title or two? HAZardousMATT^toxic 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Unified WWE Tag Team Champions has been created once again. I redirected it, thought to let everyone know so they can watch it, maybe get it deleted once again.--WillC 09:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Its the same user using socks. Its obvious that he saved the former List of Unified WWE Tag Team Champions page on MS Word or something and is pasting it back onto the recreated article. I suggest a full page protection to prevent recreation of an AFDed article.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to Matt, in this case I would go with two because its considered on championship (although with 2 belts). You can note however that it is three championships overall.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be noted as three championships at all. It's a small, but indicative semantic point, that that ShowMiz won the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship not the Unified WWE Tag Team ChampionshipS. The Unified Titles may have the same lineage but they are a new(ish) title. Tony2Times (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who put in the note about Miz having 3 Championships. The WWE (via WWE.com's title histories) still list the World and WWE Tag Team Titles as separate entities with separate histories. Thus anybody who wins the "Unified Tag Team Titles" is credited with both a World and WWE tag reign.

Add that in with the U.S. Title, and Miz is the first to hold 3 different championships all at once (which can be verified on WWE.com's title history page by seeing who held which belt when).

He's the first to be a triple champion, thus it should be noted.

Vjmlhds 23:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is OR to say he is the first without proof to back it up (and saying that people should check dozens of different title histories to try and compare who held a title when runs into OR and SYNTH problems). If you can find a source saying he is the first, maybe then. TJ Spyke 23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody ever held 3 belts at once?

The answer...no.

If something can be backed up by checking records, then it is not OR.

OR is something grabbed out of thin air without anything to back it up.

There have been only a handful of guys to be double champions, and never a triple, until now.

Vjmlhds 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source he is the first? No? Then it's OR. The first line of WP:OR goes against you: "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas;". Do you have ANY published statement that he is the first to hold 3? To take care of your other argument, this is from WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (which is what you are telling people to do). Also, Lance Storm held 3 titles at once in WCW (US, Cruiserweight, Hardcore). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)

I was just coming to ask people to keep an eye on this. User:Vjmlhds appears hellbent on ignoring WP:SYNTH and WP:3RR with regard to Mike Mizanin, particularly the fact that info should be "attributable to a source that makes this statement explicitly" regarding Miz and the 3 championships situation. I've warned him for edit-warring, but quite frankly, he should have been blocked by now with 6 reversions since 01:46, February 15, 2010. I'm logging off shortly, could people keep an eye on this and he reverts again report him? Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm Vjmlhds?? Read this article - Último Dragón - then tell me there have never been a "triple" champion until now, I do believe 10 is higher than 3 ;)  MPJ -DK  10:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And MsChif is currently a legitimate Triple Champion having won each belt seperately. The J-Crown was contested for singularly, so I'd consider Dragon only a Triple Champion with the J-Crown, NWA Middleweight and WCW Cruiserweight Titles. Being a double champion is quite notable (MVP in 2007) so does that mean we should include this information on everyone who's held the Unified Tag Team Title(?) Tony2Times (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The J-Crown was similar to the unified tag titles. Yes the titles were defended together, but they were still 8 separate titles. The point is moot anyways, as you said Dragon also held 2 titles that were not part of the J-Crown (and it was pretty cool seeing him come out on WCW TV with all 10 belts). TJ Spyke 16:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Except they're totally not. None of the titles were defended individually, they were a championship in their own right. The WCW Cruiserweight Championship, however, was defended seperately from the J-Crown (against Jushin Liger in December 1996) and the J-Crown was defended seperately from the WCW Cruiser Title (again against Liger at the Tokyo Dome show, 1997). And they're not announced as the WWE and World Tag Team Champions or the *insert all 8 J-Crown titles* Champion either, yet Kurt Angle was announced as the WWF Intercontinental and European Champion not the Eurocontinental Champion or anything else when he held two belts. Tony2Times (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Think what you want, but it's a fact (not an opinion) that the J-Crown was 8 separate titles. TJ Spyke 16:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As stated by who and where? Tony2Times (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

What is Wikipedia's stance on photos? As in, if we obtained the rights to use photos from WWE/TNA, could we have photos for each PPV? So that, it's not the same picture of Mick Foley signing autographs when describing him in a Hell in the Cell match? I feel that really distracts from the quality of the article with so many inaccurate photos. Obtaining the rights is different, but I'm just wondering if we ever did if we could put one to three photos up per event just to enhance the pages and increase their accuracy. (It especially gets frustrating when following PPVs from one event to the next, and the same photos of the same wrestlers are on each page.) 71.246.1.102 (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

It's not quite that easy. Even if WWE was willing to allow Wikipedia to use their pictures for free, they would also need to agree that the pictures could also be modified, reproduced, sold for profit, etc. Not many companies are willing to give up their copyrights in exchange for nothing at all. If people buy tickets to events, take pictures of their own, and upload them under those conditions, that's a different story altogether. That's what it would take to get specific pictures for each event, though, and I just don't see that happening. As such, we work with what is available and, ideally, try to stagger the images so that they're not repeated for consecutive events. To be perfectly frank, if people want to see more variety in images, those people should get to events and take their camerasGaryColemanFan (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What about using those small blurry photos that we do for posters? Can we use that reasoning?71.246.1.102 (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

I don't know if things have changed, but the last WWE live event I went to - an announcement was made that all photos taken are the property of WWE and can not be used for anything other than personal use (off the top of my head). This was a few years ago admittedly, but WWE's gung ho attitude to trademarks makes this something of a rocky issue. !! Justa Punk !! 11:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if i'm not mistaken, legally that is still the policy. Although it may only apply to video media. IAC, When talking about superstar photos, concider that even if we had more pictures, take the quality into consideration. How many people can get a floor seat picture of a superstar in good lighting, or as evidenced from my last house show, get a picture of a superstar outside of the ring. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles like "2009 Raw episodes"

I remember their being a discussion on whether to create articles like "2009 WWE Raw episodes" (or the similiar) that listed all Raw episodes and results, but I cannot for the life of me remember if the outcome was "If you can actually source it go for it" or "Nah it's listcruft"? I mean technically if it fullfills Verifiability and the topic is generally Notable was there a reason not to create these pages? Or has it just not been done due to the enormous workload?  MPJ -DK  03:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say if it can be fully sourced and not just be a list, I would say it is okay. Season articles would be better. Explaining production, significant moments, reception, etc. Alot like other TV Season shows, but these broken down by year.--WillC 06:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well depending on what the eventual format of the show would be, I was considering experimenting with seasonal articles for NXT with something like "WWE NXT (season 1)" when the first season ends in a few months time. But that totally depends on whether there is some kind of contest featured within the season, and the actual ratio of reality/live event content (as it'll be hard if the whole show is nothing much but training but I don't really want it to be a list of results either). --  Θakster   16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Cole said on Raw last night that the rookies would be competing for a Raw contract.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We already knew that they would be competing for Raw or SmackDown contracts (not just Raw). TJ Spyke 21:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to Oakster's comment about "whether there is some kind of contest" in the show. Cole's comment was the first I'd heard of there being a competition for a contract and he only mentioned Raw. The show's own article said they wouldn't be competing and that all rookies will graduate to the main shows until I updated it. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't catch Cole mentioning it the first time I saw the show. Thanks for pointing it out. This does somewhat help my plan for seasonal articles in the future.--  Θakster   23:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, MPJ, this page can probably help you [7]. It even gives you the names of the episodes. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't the names of the episodes, just the titles for the articles (the SmackDown articles don't match the names of the episodes, which for some reason are visible on the Australian broadcast). TJ Spyke 23:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides WWE's own website, TV.com also lists those as the episode titles. That's two reliable sources. Speaking of which, MPJ, here is another site to help you: [8]Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

TV.com has never been considered a reliable site (they have been semi-reliable at best), ESPECIALLY for wrestling info. 2 reliable sources? WWE doesn't say those are the episode names, only Wwehurricane is saying those are the episode names (and I just pointed out those are NOT), and TV.com relies on users to submit the info. They don't verify them. TJ Spyke 00:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WWE doesn't say those aren't the episode names, only TJSpyke is saying those aren't the episode names (and I just pointed out those are). You've stated your stance and I've stated mine. Let's leave it at that. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only TJ; the last time this was raised I pointed out that both the pre-opening credits for SmackDown don't match the article title and when there was a Raw script leaked last year it also didn't match the article title. Tony2Times (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you all go on too far, I was not planning on doing a Raw related page - WWE isn't my main area of expertise after all ;) the show I'm looking to work on definitly has at least 2 weekly reliable souces, a wrestling magazine and a sports newspaper plus miscellaneous sources covering it. Still not sure if I'll tackle it or not, but at least it's not against any established guidelines or anything-  MPJ -DK  00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is curious this is what I had in mind: List of CMLL Super Viernes shows in 2010.  MPJ -DK  12:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this looks a lot better than I thought it would. Must have taken a heck of a lot of effort too with the sourcing. By the way, presuming you'll never expand each show into an article of its own, is there a need for Super Viernes chronology? I could understand if you made a CMLL chronology so it fitted into supercards and PPVs but given that some of the prose is very brief, I think some white space could be removed by taking out the chronology line as the next show just continues below. Tony2Times (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I may have to split it into months due to size but I get what you mean and yes the CMLL Chronology would be best, I'll see what I can come up with. As for source, I'm blessed that the show is covered in an actual sports paper and regularly on various Mexican magazines and news sites to make it easier to source than most US shows.  MPJ -DK  16:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

PPVs

I was going to be bold and do this myself, but I really do not know what to do. Do we eliminate all the PPVs after WrestleMania from the list, because that seems a bit bizarre. But I strongly feel those ridiculous MitB, Four-way and Wild Card PPVs should be removed due to WWE eliminating their whole PPV calendar from their website. No longer a reliable source in the existence of these three lackluster events. I guess WWE learnt their lesson... The WWE PPV article cites the calendar as the source for the information and the calendar now only has Mania listed. Other than removing these PPVs, do we keep the old ones, remove all of them, or just keep Rumble, SummerSlam and Mania? IDK, let's open for suggestions... Raaggio 02:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Extreme Rules is still listed on the live events schedule. Beyond that, I'd change them all to TBD until WWE get's their crap together.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The events were confirmed, so they should stay listed unless there is a reliable source that says they won't happen. TJ Spyke 19:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WWE clearing them is a reliable source. Use some common sense.--WillC 22:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Under that logic, let's delete WrestleMania XXVII, SummerSlam 2010, etc. Use some common sense. TJ Spyke 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Right because WWE would NEVER get rid of one of their biggest events like Survivor Series... oh wait... Unless an event is listed on WWE's schedule, it shouldn't be listed on ours. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Except they came out and said Survivor Series has ended, they did not for any of the others. There is no source WWE has canceled every PPV after WrestleMania. TJ Spyke 23:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said they cancelled the pay per views. We just don't know what the names will be at this point. There is no source for what the names of any events after WrestleMania will be except for Extreme Rules. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Line up has been changed again.--WillC 23:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Wrestleview on our list as a reliable source? !! Justa Punk !! 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the SG says only for reports (though I must I admit I've gone beyond that in some cases). However, the Torch has also reported it and that's deemed reliable so I've updated it now. --  Θakster   13:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And the official WWE site now has all the PPV's through to Hell in a Cell in the usual spot, just to confirm it. !! Justa Punk !! 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

About mexican championships

Hi, i have a question. I have looked that, the names of mexican wrestlers are in the original language, spanish. For example, Mísico (Mystic), Rey Bucanero (Buccaneer King) or El Hijo de Perro Aguayo (The Son of Aguayo Dog). But, Why the championships are in english? I think that, if we respect the original name of wrestlers, we have to respect the original name of championships. Of course, we can put in the article the translation to english, but the article must to be in spanish. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia. Default they must be in English and not Spanish.--WillC 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between a proper name which aren't translated (just like mine is "Martin", it's not "Maurice" in another language) while the championships are "titles", kinda like "Doctor" or "Member of Parlament" and those are translated when talking about them in English. It's also not just WIkipedia that translates them, websites in English list the titles by their English names, so pr. WP:COMMONNAME it's the name they're best known as in English (as in "when referred to in Englishlanguage teksts).  MPJ -DK  23:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

SEScoops

The WWE Roster page has the signings of "Incognito", "Lance Cade" and "Super Nova" referenced by some site called "Sports Entertainment Scoops". Just the title to me screams "BLACKLIST", so what is the consensus on this particular reference? Raaggio 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Signature moves revisited

I really don't see the need for this section, its almost trivial. The finishing moves I can understand because they are (or were) mainly used as their trademark maneuver. But signature moves change time to time and references are difficult to find to verify all the moves they use. That stuff belongs on the wrestling wiki, not on the Wikipedia Wikipedia. Thoughts?--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As has been mentioned before, the section just needs to be trimmed most often. Take The Undertaker's Old School move for example; it has never been a finishing move, but it his one of his iconic moves and should be mentioned. TJ Spyke 16:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That is okay, but some articles have basic moves as signature moves. I would understand Cena with his five knuckles, Eddie Guerrero with 3 Amigos, or Benoit with his 3 german suplexes.Truco ₅₀₃ 16:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Well signature moves can be quite important, but then again I would only say that when people list one finishing move which isn't the case here so that argument quickly fades away. Many years ago my friends and I regularly talked about how weird it was that the Rock Bottom was only a signature move and the People's Elbow was his finisher, but on here both are listed as finishers which seems to remove that problem. Still, moves like the Three Amigos and Old School are so synonymous with their respective wrestlers that it seems like something would be missing not to mention it, yet they are not finishers. Tony2Times (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I say remove anything that does not have a source that says it is signiture. Drop kicks may be a normal move, but doesn't mean it is signiture. A.J. Styles' dropkick combo is used in all his matches and is a signiture move though. If that can't sourced though, then remove it. Too many moves listed anymore.--WillC 19:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And let's please all be clear here, it needs to be a source that in some way says it's a signature move - not just a source that says that "Jiminy Buffet used a wrist lock against Long John Bronze in the opening match of Bungle in the Jungle 2009", like I've seen added to "source" the inclusion of 50 moves.  MPJ -DK  23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Same with finishing moves, it's not because a source says Big Show or Henry won a match with the Bear Hug that it is THEIR finishing move. Jeangabin (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, but "Long John Bronze" sounds like a porn name (and made me laugh). TJ Spyke 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually he's Long John Silver's less successful little brother ;)  MPJ -DK  07:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah Bungle in The Jungle '09. It really was a special event; I think we'll all always remember where we were when we saw it. Tony2Times (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need to make sure it says signiture from now on and explains what the move is if it has a name in the source. Might as well just remove the section. I think a small paragraph on moves would do better than a bullet list.--WillC 00:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone should suggest a guideline on the signature moves so we can get an actual consensus together and clean up the mess.  MPJ -DK  22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For every move listed as a signature, why not add at least two sources that mention said signature move? PCE (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with that. We need something to add to the MoS so these bios can be more organized.--WillC 11:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of John Hill (wrestler)

This is an article that I have been meaning to work on for a while. I'm looking for someone to work with me on it, because I am at a point where I feel little motivation to continue to work on Wikipedia. If someone is willing to help, I'm sure that we can get this to GA status. I'd like to wait a few days for the article to stabilize, but there were already some good sources from SLAM! Wrestling, and a bunch of sites are likely to focus on his career this week. Is anyone up for this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I could help a little bit. Like you, I have very little motivation to work anymore. But if someone needs help, I'll help.--WillC 07:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Triple Crown

This Triple Crown Page is total WP:CRUFT. I just read the whole thing, and it definitely isn't notable enough to have an article. If we decide to keep the article, I have to point out that those tables are a huge mess and with all the color-scheming, it is really hard to read. Do we change the format or do we just remove the article all together? Raaggio 01:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, WWE has its own feature on WWE.com dedicated to the "Triple Crown Club", but no one has decided to use it as a source in the article. It gives a list of Triple Crown Champions and also defines the criteria (sadly excluding the United States Championship) (http://www.wwe.com/magazine/magazinefeatures/featureoftheweek20090423a/). Anyway, I'd like to discuss if this article deserves its place on Wikipedia or not. Raaggio 01:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it also constitutes original research to say that it is an accomplishment in only WWE and TNA. Surely other promotions recognize their own Triple Crown champions. I also don't like the color scheme and think that the information about which brand a wrestler was competing for is unimportant. In addition, the "potential" winners section is useless, as everyone on Earth is a "potential" Triple Crown champion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed it from the article, but Darren reverted my edit saying that the potential champions was not cruft and was indeed necessary in the article. I don't see how necessary that is really... can we achieve a consensus here? Raaggio 23:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Cruft and should be removed, next we'll have "Potential world heavyweight Champions" MPJ -DK  05:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for what is essentially a "Double Crown" champions section. The articles for Triple Crowns in horse racing, golf, baseball, basketball, snooker, surfing, etc. don't list non-Triple Crown champions. Neither should the wrestling article. Getting rid of this cruft would also eliminate the "problem" of people removing AJ Styles (a Triple Crown champion) from the "potential" Triple Crown champions section. This whole section makes as much sense as a list of wrestlers who have unsuccessfully competed for the WWE Championship being added to the WWE Championship article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't have said it better. It is essentially list cruft and it isn't notable to the article. Raaggio 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

An amazing Flickr Gallery

I was just looking around on Wiki Commons and I found this gallery which has some amazing pictures that could really come in handy. The photographer has already allowed a Lita and Chyna pic to be released but if anyone has a Flickr account and could message them to release as much as possible there's some really good stuff here: Foley in his Dude Love and Mankind personas; Undertaker in his Ministry like costume (the article is currently using a picture from 2009 in the 1998 section) and possibly the most exciting is a picture of Bret in his pink&black wearingthe Winged Eagle from two months before the Screwjob. Also there's a picture of Kane in his original costume and Owen. Maybe I'm just too much of a picture mark but I think a lot of these would really help fill in the blanks from mid-90s articles. There's also a picture of HHH and Flair during Evolution which isn't quite as needed but still cool. Tony2Times (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I sent him a message, but never answer me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a damn, damn shame. Those pics are a treasure trove. Tony2Times (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But I won a war. The following account put all of his photos with the correct licence. The guy has a lot of photos of indys promotions, but we can find relevant wrestlers as Jerry Lawler, Kenny Dykstra or Colin Delaney. http://www.flickr.com/photos/10542402@N06/ --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Nicknames

Hi. I was looking an article when I saw a particular nickname. All of us know the sotryline of Abyss and Hulk Hogan, but I have seen that Abyss have the nickname od The Monster of the Rings. When I saw the soucre, I saw that is a result of TNA iMPACT and the author is Daniel Wilkenfeld, form PWTorch. My question is, where is the limit of a nickname? for example, one time, Sting called Jeff Jarrett the Cancer of TNA. Is it a good nickname? Jeff Jarrett called himself the Greatest IC Champion of All time. Is it a good nickname? I question again what is a good nickname? Who must to said the nickname, the wrestler, the commentator, the PWTorch people...? Thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Cancer of TNA is a good nickname. But I think you misunderstand the PWTorch source, Wilkenfeld didn't call him it or coin the nickname, he was just writing a live text report of Impact! during which he writes that Hogan called him Monster of the Rings. I think the general consensus for nickanems is that they have to stick around for a while and have it used by a number of people, otherwise Matt Striker would have us extend the section indefinitely. Tony2Times (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say for it to stick, it should be used for 6 months at least.--WillC 08:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think that 6 months is a good thing. Because Hogan can call Abyss The Monster of the Ring one time in his live. Also, I think that we can put the nickname if it is in the entrance of the wrestler, like "from Houston, Texas, blablabla, "The Blueprint", Matt Morgan".--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not very professional imo. It is a bio, it is about his entire life, not just his wrestling carrear. I would think, nicknames should be left for later.--WillC 06:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what he means is that when a wrestler is announced with a nickname when they come to the ring, as in "hailing from Houston, Texas weighing in at X pounds, 'The Blueprint' Matt Morgan" would qualify as a nickname notable enough to be listed. I would think that's acceptable unless there's some wrestler who has a nickname changing gimmick. Tony2Times (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: /Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Batista-WWE title on Raw?

Didn't Batista explicitly state a few weeks ago on SmackDown that he was heading to RAW? Doesn't that make the title RAW property again?--24.18.29.199 (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think he ever said that. WWE still considers him a SmackDown wrestler, although they oddly list the WWE Championship in both the Raw and SmackDown sections (even though the tag titles are only listed on Raw). TJ Spyke 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember Batista saying anything like that but he hasn't appeared on SmackDown since winning the title, the only reason the WWE Championship is on the SmackDown page is because Batista's still a SmackDown roster member. Tony2Times (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WWE.com lists the WWE Title on the Raw page because they want to make it clear that the belt is Raw property, but held by Batista due to his deal with Vince McMahon. Batista has been persona non grata on SD since winning the belt and for all intents and purposes, he is pretty much a Raw guy now in all but name. Vjmlhds 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You do know that your reply is contradicted by the statement you are replying too? As I already pointed out, WWE has made it clear that the title is part of BOTH brands. TJ Spyke 20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No they haven't made it clear at all. The WWE Championship is yet to appear on SmackDown this year as far as I recall and no commentator has said anything about the title being bi-branded or SmackDown exclusive. Batista is on the SmackDown roster, nothing was said about him being drafted to Raw it's just the Road to WrestleMania, the WWE Championship is property of Raw, again nothing has been said otherwise, and that's the only reason that it's on both pages, because one guy is one place and one champion is another. Any other time a belt has moved brand it's been talked about explicitly by commentators. Tony2Times (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

tag teams

Okay, bringing back this discussion so we can actually have a consensus. TJ Spyke suggests a consensus was formed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 75#Tag team names in title lists. Clearly, there was never an agreement nor was their a vote. In fact, there as a discussion on why no one would agree. Lets finally establish a consensus! I say we just allow it to be editors choice. Whoever expands the article, gets to choose the format.--WillC 02:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If we went by who expanded it, then all of the changes you did to WWE title articles would be reverted. That section clearly shows a consensus, you just disagree with the result. TJ Spyke 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TJ if there was a consensus you wouldn't be the only one changing stuff. Plus, all the changes I've done to those tables were discussed before hand here. I've given you the links, which you convently ignore because they don't agree with your view. There are also MoS guidelines which you've seen a hundred times like overlink, yet you delink anything you can in tables. TJ, quit disrupting wikipedia and get a life.--WillC 22:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and you can't have a consensus that states "there is no consensus on format" like you proposed, either there is no specific rule or there is - can't have a rule that says "There is no actual rule".  MPJ -DK  23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm all for making a format, but no one has shown which one should be used. It is all "I like it" or "I don't like it".--WillC 23:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Team name first

Well since it's been stated that all the opinions on the formatting of tag team championships were of the "I like it" or "I don't like it" type allow me to make the following statement. But first the format I endorse.

#	Tag team name Wrestlers	Reign	Date	Days held	Location	Event	Notes
1	Los Guerreros del Infierno (Rey Bucanero and Último Guerrero)	1	August 4, 2000	455	Mexico City, Mexico	Entre Torre Infernal	Defeated Mr. Niebla and Villano IV in the finals of a 16-team tournament

And now "Why it is my belief that Tag Team names should come first in tag team championship lists.

Through out history the term team has been understood as "A team comprises a group of people or animals linked in a common purpose." It's the team effort that wins the titles, it's as a team that the titles are defended and challenged for, it's all about the team, not about the individual. While in recent years especially the WWE has had a distaste for regular tag teams with names choosing to to "reinterpret" team as "two individuals put together for a brief period of time", it has been a long running tradition to have two wrestlers compete as a team reaching back more than 50 years - The Fabulous Kangaroos brought it a new level in the late 1950s and 1960s, Jim Crockett Promotions had the strongest tag team division ever in the mid-1980s, Tag Teams has a long history behind it, a history of unity. The Fabulous Kangaroos are better knwon than Al Costello and Roy Heffernan individually, Demolition as a team were more than just the sums of Ax and Smash as individuals and what about the Road Warriors? Hard to think of Animal without Hawk. Throwing away decades of history by claiming that the individual is the most important is just plain wrong, it's professional wrestling - not "what Vince McMahon likes", the TEAM over the individual.

To quote a really worn out cliche "There is no I in team".

Think of any other team sport - do we list the 2010 Super Bowl winners as New Orleans Saints or as Drew Brees, Mark Brunell, Chase Daniel ect? No we don't, the TEAM won the Super Bowl, Demolition won the WWF World Tag Team title, the Briscoe Brothers are the most dominant TEAM in ROH and Rey Bucanero and Último Guerrero is the most talented TEAM today.

In summation - it has nothing to do with personal preference that I support the logic that a tag team championship lists the team name first, it's the team that won, not the individual.

So my suggestion is: Team name first if it exists, team members alphabetically. Thank you and good night.  MPJ -DK  18:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet that would cause for an inconsistency in the table. Like you said "A team comprises a group of people or animals linked in a common purpose." does not say a team has a name. A tag team is a group of wrestlers, thus the name is just a backdrop. The names come and go and in a few cases, tag team championships have been held by a loan wrestler; see PWG World Tag Team Championship and TNA World Tag Team Championship. Anyway, lets stay on subject. This is not football, this is wrestling. As for "it's the team that won, not the individual.", I don't see both wrestlers gaining the pinfall in a match. As for promotions, if you look to Japan, the name is not what the teams are listed by. Instead it is the individual wrestlers names. Afterall, it's professional wrestling - not "what American wrestling likes". The real team is the wrestlers, they are the focal point. Their name is not wrestling the match, they are. They are the champions, they shouldn't be small notes. The names are just a promotional tool. And in alot of cases, teams don't even have names.--WillC 21:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look to America the name is what the teams are listed by. After all this is professional wrestling - not "what Japanese wrestling likes". Tony2Times (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency? The fact that some teams have no names will ALWAYS make the tables inconsistent, no matter what's listed first, so that's not really an argument either way. "Names come and go", so to wrestlers ring names, that doesn't mean we list them by their real names, it's extremly rare that a team name changes during their title reign. And to say that the rule for Tag Team format should be dictated by the exception (the 2 times out of 12000000000 that it's been held by individuals) is not logical nor does it really speak to why a team name is less important. It's not football, thank you for pointing out the obvious - instead of saying "I don't like it" i try to draw parallels to other sports that have teams in it to illustrate the point that in team competition it's the team, not the individual that's important. Since there is no defining source on wrestling formats it's not unreasonable to look to other fields, it's part of forming an informed opinion instead of it just being "I like it this way". Your argument that "It's not both wrestlers that gain the pinfall" is valid if it was actually emphasized, title history says who were the champions, not who got the pinfall - I know you don't want to look beyond wrestling but football teams win the game, not just the guy that scores the touchdown. "It's not the name that's wrestling the match" - to which I counter "it's the team that wrestles the match, irregardless of name, but if it has a name then it's "Beer Money Incorporated" who wrestled the match as a unite more so than it's Bobby Roode and James Storm who "just happen to work together". How the focal point of tag team wrestling isn't the team is something you have not been able to explain, yes teams are made up of individuals - all teams are, that's kinda obvious. The "real team" is more than just "Bret Hart and Jim Neidhart" it's the Hartfoundation, the sum, not it's parts. Also the "in a lot of cases teams have no names" is pretty easy - in that case we ALL agree on what the format is, so please focus on the part that's actually in dispute, teams with names will ALWAYS be a slightly different format than teams without names, it's natural and already consistent in the title lists. That's all I'm going to say on it, I've said my part, you've said yours - neither has changed much since last time they were stated and I'm not going to go round and round with you over why I believe that it's natural that the team is the focal point of a championship for teams. I got better things to do than argue this again, nails need trimming, paint needs watching and all that.  MPJ -DK  22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One last point - Japan. Most teams listed for NJPW, AJPW and NOAH tag team titles do not even have an official name, they do not have the same tradition of team names as they do in North America or Europe so they tend to omit the names all together, so unless you're advocating that the "That's how it's done in Japan" argument is a little flawed. They also list people by their last name first in Japan, not a strong argument for us to do the same.  MPJ -DK  22:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

MPJ you seem to be confused at where I stand. Take Beer Money, that is their stable name. But the team is Roode and Storm. Beer Money is just their promotional name. Why would their name be more important than the actual members? The team members are the important part of the equation, not the name they go by as a team. I don't see the point, why the team name would be more important than the actual team members.--WillC 05:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I see "Beer Money" as the team, the unit, the "sum of it's parts", you just see it as "a name", I cannot convince you otherwise so it'll be wasted time on my part to even try. I've stated my opinion and will leave it at that.  MPJ -DK  17:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And I have stated my view several times before. This leaves us with only one option, find a compromise. Any suggestions?--WillC 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could think of one because this debate as last time has come down to a fundamental case of semantics or principles or whatever. The only thing I can think of is a seperate column for team name where applicable but I think that would make the tables look too cluttered and no doubt we'd argue over which was first. Tony2Times (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to be convinced one way or the other, if there is a general consensus for one format I'll be happy to follow it whatever the consensus is, I can like or dislike it and still follow it after all.  MPJ -DK  23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a tag team title. The name of the team, if an official one exists, should be listed first. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Gary that would work, if a tag team had to have a name to be a tag team. But no, a tag team is not a group of wrestlers with a name. It is just a group of wrestlers. I could agree with Tony's idea. I wouldn't care which came first, either the tag team name cloumn or the tag team. Maybe, we could have notes on the name of the team instead of listing them with the wrestlers. I'm all for making a consensus around here. It would be nice if we could make one for a change. It is rare we get one.--WillC 08:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How about you just let people state their opinion without repeating your opinion every time they comment? We all know what your feelings are on the matter, no need to beat the dead horse any further, we all get it.  MPJ -DK  10:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to have a discussion here MPJ. No need to get offensive and lash out at anyone. I think we've heard everyone's opinion. We've had several discussions over table formats varing several subjects. The same people have commented so far as in the last discussion. My previous reply, was more-so directed at Tony's, rather than Gary's comment. I have the ability to simply disagree in a respectful civil manner to Gary's statement. Now lets continue please. Anyone is welcome to comment and state their opinion.--WillC 11:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a discussion when all you say is "no you're wrong because..." and then repeat the same argument over and over. People state their opinions, since we don't have a measurable standard opinions cannot be wrong, they are each person's personal take on the matter. I am not lashing out, I've just read the same argument over and over from you every time someone has a different opinion than you and it gets a little annoying, stating the same argument over and over when other people disagree with you does not add anything new to the discussion. I will now take my own advice and stop repeating comments.  MPJ -DK  11:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

MPJ, I have repeated myself, yet no one has shown why that is bad or why my statements are wrong. I have not said anyone was wrong either. But I am not going around saying I am the only one right. I simply said I disagreed. I have that ability. If you have a problem with that, then that is your problem. That is a debate, people disagree. Not the entire project's. I have also tried to make a compromise, though you ignored that entirely. Here is a new one: not having the wrestler's name in small print like they are in most lists. I still don't agree with the team name first, but this is a start.--WillC 12:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read the entire discussion above, and my belief is that team name should go first per the reasons stated by MPJ. Nikki♥311 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, just in case there was any ambiguity. Tony2Times (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that means we've established a consensus. If team name exists, it comes first. Now what about the small template. I would feel using small text on the wrestler names is uneeded. They afterall are the team, and shouldn't be a backdrop.--WillC 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I intentionally left out the small test on the proposal I posted here.  MPJ -DK  06:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well technically we are just switching posotions at the moment. Would be best to make sure we agree on removing all small text all together.--WillC 08:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally wanted to keep the small text in regardless of which way round the consensus ended up, purely for size reasons. However I'm pretty sure that small text is, by and large, to be phased out so it seems like the right thing to do would be have both team name and wrestler names in normal sized font. Tony2Times (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)