Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78→Archive 80

Sources that don't source everything

In WWE Roster, I noticed that each wrestler has the link to its profile on WWE.com / FCW.com which is a fantastic idea because it is a very good reference to prove their employment, brand classification, etc. But what about the real names? None of the sources source that and yet all the tables include it. There is absolutely no source that I am aware of that can prove "Tamina" is in reality Sarona Snuka. This isn't the only article that suffers through this problem. What do we do about these sources that only source some of the content written in an article? Raaggio 21:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment for Independent circuit article

Needs to be assessed after a recent overhaul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.72.80 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The assessment is still the same (start class), as the article still contains cleanup tags and not a single source. Nikki♥311 20:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Heath Miller (wrestler)

Some one has moved this page can someone take a look to see if that should have happened--Steam Iron 05:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Subject objecting to having real name in article

Lacey (wrestler) is the article. I've made my comments on the talk page but would welcome more input. --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

If anyone needs a constructive project, a list of unreferenced BLPs is updated daily at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Unreferenced BLPs. I'd appreciate some help in decreasing the list. Thanks. Nikki♥311 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice job nikki311! To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dozens of vandalism edits

If anyone has time and energy, IP 98.14.200.37 has made a few dozen vandalism edits to pay-per-view results. The complete list is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.14.200.37. Thanks for any help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow up on "World Wrestling Entertainment is.... FAKE?"

Just a quick follow up on the page disruption notice from a month back... [1]

Since Sourside21's initial block expired, the user has resorted to IP use to continue his campaign on the Professional wrestling article. [2] Note Sourside21's original text [3] [4] and now note the IP [5]

Dcheagle has requested a semi-protection of the page. [6] Note Sourside21's reaction. Additionally Sourside21 has filled a faulty 3RR report on me using diffs that date back to the month of February, from the time of his initial disruption. [7]

I advise project members to keep Professional wrestling on your watchlists as well as World Wrestling Entertainment if you haven't already. --UnquestionableTruth-- 05:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional note. It would appear this issue could go back even further if you look at the talk page from 2008! Sourside's last edit is still there by the way, and the page has now been fully protected. Where do we go from here? !! Justa Punk !! 09:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected the "3RR report" which is nothing more than en extended personal attack on 3bulletproof16, the disruption at Professional wrestling was coming from an IP so I don't know why it was fully protected? Sourside21 should be warned for personal attacks and being point-y. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As for where do we go from here. Do we allow Sourside21 to put in what he wants to put in which all it states is that pro wrestling is fake which is all ready stated in the articles.--Steam Iron 18:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The admin who fully protected the page wants us to discuss it with him on the talk page. It's on the page where Bullet asked for semi protection. It looks like that admin may be on Sourside's side at the moment. !! Justa Punk !! 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
[8] Here's what he said. It was GedUK. !! Justa Punk !! 01:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourside21 is trying to add a paragraph to both articles which is already covered by the first sentence of the pro wrestling article, and fourth graph of the WWE article; and was trying to use an IP sock to do it. Then they filed an incorrect 3RR report against 3bulletproof16 as some kind of revenge for the 48hr block a month ago. Their editing it tendentious and point-y, and at no point have they ever attempted to discuss their edits or behaviour (on either article talk page). I'm surprised they are getting this much lee-way. The 3RR report should have been dismissed as a personal attack, and Sourside21 warned for bad behaviour, as it is they are being indulged. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I have observed, you guys seem to be really obsessed (focused) on taking this personally (the personal side of things). I am just trying to add reliable citations to facts that are already mentioned in the article, as you guys have noted. Thanks. Sourside21 (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No, what you through your IP, which you do a horrible job at hiding, are doing is for some ridiculous reason adding a criticism note towards the subject of professional wrestling being fake for producing fixed matches and engaging in storytelling[9], something the subject doesn't even deny of doing in the first place; in other words a Straw man argument. It is due to this informal fallacy that your argument is rendered invalid. On a side note, would project members mind keeping my User talk page on their watchlists as well to revert vandalism from Sourside21 and it's IP? --UnquestionableTruth-- 04:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I especially like the way you sign your "warnings" with my signature [10] --UnquestionableTruth-- 04:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourside, your conduct at present is not above board as you like to think that it is. GedUK has suggested that your issue be discussed on talk pages (Professional Wrestling for example) or even here. Instead of just pushing your edit, you should start a section about the subject, and discuss the matter so that we know where you stand and then we can present our case. There is no need for you to attack Bullet because all that does is prove that you are the problem and not him. You've got a 48 hour block in your history for your conduct, and you could be facing another one if you persist. !! Justa Punk !! 04:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So, what do people object to in his edits? Is the information untrue? Is the information unsourced? Is it simply that people believe that the information would be better if it were added somewhere other than the lead section? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The information is superfluous. The lede for both articles says Wrestling is fake, Sourside wants to add a statment that says wrestling is fake right after both articles already say it. I have no problem with the Time source being tagged on to the sentences that already state that fact but the re-wording he has attempted does not improve the understanding of wrestling's so-called "fake-ness". In addition they have never discussed the edit on the talk pages, and the pro-wrestling talk page is nothing but discussion about how fake pro-wrestling is, so it is not as if they can't see that the matter has been discussed to death, then resurrected then discussed to death ad infinitum. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
He seems to be pushing for inclusion of the word "fake", which is not currently part of the lead. Since the article does not currently address the issue of professional wrestling being "fake" vs. "pre-determined", I would recommend moving his (properly sourced) statement to later in the article (out of the lead) and using it to help begin a new paragraph that addresses the claim he wants included (eg. "Due to the fact that writers, who write the "stories" for wrestling matches up to weeks before the match actually happens, there has been criticism directed at professional wrestling that it is "fake".<ref to MSNBC> People involved in the business, however, point to...to support their statement that the matches have pre-determined outcomes but much of the action is composed of..."<multiple references>). You can fill in the blanks with whatever you want, but a response to the word "fake" is certainly essential to the article. I would remove the time.com reference from his statement, as it does not support it (it uses the word "rigged", which is very different from "fake" in this context), and the howstuffworks.com source probably wouldnt stand up well to WP:RS (I may be wrong on that, though). Would that address the concerns on both sides? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes the "it's fake" argument that's so clever - if only wrestling would admit that it's "entertainment" and not a competitive sport... maybe some kind of hybrid called "Sports Entertainment" it would be in the same acceptable category as the collected works of Shakespeare or Avatar. Pathetic.  MPJ -DK  22:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Sourside should be invited back to comment on GCF's suggestion. I'll do that now. !! Justa Punk !! 21:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the word fake is like to broad in the case of professional wrestling, which is why "scripted" and "pre determined" are used to describe what WWE is, and all other companies, which is "mock combat" in the world of "sports entertainment".--Truco 503 16:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Okay, I think it's clear that Sourside has done a runner otherwise he would have said something by now. So in order to have something to fall back on, let's see if we can get a consensus on what to do;

  • Revert When the page Professional Wrestling comes out of editing limbo in a couple of days, take out the change made by Sourside's IP and hold to that.
  • Alter Per GCF's suggestion make some minor tweaks that fall half way between the revert and the leave option.
  • Leave Leave it as is and let Sourside have this one.

We need to do this fairly quickly as I think there may be a couple of people who would be willing to revert the instant it's possible. I'm voting Revert. !! Justa Punk !! 05:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Revert per Straw man argument issue. --UnquestionableTruth-- 00:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Per the Wikipedia guideline, I choose not to vote. I will, however, contribute my thoughts to the discussion, although I have no doubt that it will turn into a majority vote anyway. With that said, people get upset at the claim that wrestling is "fake", in large part because it reveals the ignorance of the person making the claim. This is a perfect opportunity to respond. Use reliable sources to explain the different between "fake" and "pre-determined" (or whatever other adjective you prefer). If Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge and is focused on educating people, it makes no sense to say, "If you don't already know that, you don't deserve to find out". GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay I've bitten the bullet and re-fixed the edit now that the article is back, and I've put the article's talk page in the edit summary and added a note on the talk page. We may need to watch it again. !! Justa Punk !! 09:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"Fixed", as in removed information with a reliable source and simply decided that your preferred version was consensus despite a lack of input? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
No. !! Justa Punk !! 08:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Triple Crown Championship and Grand Slam Championship merger

After putting much thought into it, if we are not going to prod these articles, then we should at least merge them. Occupying to different articles is a waste of space for articles that are relatively the same. All Grand Slam Champions are Triple Crown Champions and they are even listed in the Triple Crown article (by using bold). What do you guys think? Raaggio 04:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be best. If they are merged with anything, it should be a new article on accomplishments and awards in pro wrestling.--WillC 05:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Why don't u think that would be best? Are they not relatively the same thing? Raaggio 02:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Well they are both individually notable. Not all Triple Crown Champions are grand slam champions, and they have both went through AFDs I do believe, so they have both been agreed as notable enough to stand alone. If anything, just a giant page of all accomplishments in wrestling, like the J-Crown, GS, TC, etc would be nice.--WillC 05:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say they were deemed "notable" Will. The results of each AFD was "No Consensus". We should definitely try and reach a consensus though, as I strongly believe that the article is not notable for the encyclopedia. If WWE doesn't even dedicate a page for the topic on their main site, they obviously don't find it notable themselves. It can be argumented that WWE doesn't think of it as important and therefore neither should we. Raaggio 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Merge. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I say merge them. They are very similar. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, although the J Crown is sufficiently different and would need to keep its own article (for example, the J Crown was defended in matches, unlike the Triple Crown). "Accomplishments in professional wrestling" would just be too broad. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Right. I was under the impression that the J Crown was a unified championship. Nikki♥311 04:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It was, there were just eight belts representing the "J-Crown" but it was defended as a unit while it existed.  MPJ -DK  20:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If not a delete, then I am totally for a merge which is the initial reason why I posted this topic. Other than Will, are there any oppositions? Raaggio 05:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not against a merger entirely. I just don't like the one proposed, with one table. I feel it could be done differently. Where they could both have seperate sections since they are both seperate accomplishments.--WillC 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anyone pushing for a single table. I do see a possible problem in deciding on the title of the merged article. I would suggest merging everything to "Triple Crown Championship" (or possibly specifying that it is for professional wrestling in a qualifier, since that is what every other sport does, and the term definitely isn't better known as a professional wrestling topic than it is in any other sport. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Raaggio/Triple Crown (professional wrestling)

Here is a prototype of the merged article consisting of Triple Crown Championship and Grand Slam Championship. Personally, I hate the color scheming of the tables and I would prefer for it to be more like List of WWE Intercontinental Champions. But regardless, what do you think about the article? Raaggio 17:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. I invite anyone to edit the user-page as if it were a main-space article. Anything to make the article better. Raaggio 17:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User deleting mentions of WWE events from articles on venues

Can someone please look at the contributions of Stan Simmons (talk · contribs)? He appears to have some sort of bias against professional wrestling and has deleted mentions of WWE events from articles on several venues where the events occurred. I reverted one edit on Safeco Field, which is on my watchlist, and he re-reverted my edit, calling the information superfluous. I ordinarily wouldn't object to this except he has been specifically targeting mentions of wrestling events and not deleting other events that may be considered "superfluous", such as concerts or religious assemblies. Need some other opinions from people who are more knowledgeable about pro wrestling on WP than I am. Thanks! —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone give this guy a look?--UnquestionableTruth-- 16:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but professional wrestling isn't notable enough to be used as a subject to take over and flood articles with non-notable (and sometimes non-verifiable) information. Stan Simmons (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c x2) Within the last hour he again removed the mentions of WrestleMania XIX on the Safeco Field article, calling them "unreferenced". Then I reverted that and added a reference to a Seattle Times article, then he deleted it again ([11]), completely disregarding that the citation I provided was a reliable source and not from the WWE website. I've asked him to explain his actions here. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) And please explain how a multi-billion dollar business holding events at major arenas is "non-notable" and "non-verifiable". I agree that mentioning every single taping of every single weekly event is probably going overboard, but you deleted mentions of events that have Wikipedia articles while leaving other one-off events that may be considered superfluous, for example two performances by Elvis Presley and two by Selena at the Reliant Astrodome that don't have their own WP articles. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Find a source that isn't obviously parroting a WWE press release. Stan Simmons (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I cited an article that falls under the criteria of reliable source. It's an article by a staff writer of a major print newspaper. It is not an op-ed piece, letter to the editor, or blog entry, and the publication is not of the alternative newspaper variety. If you still don't believe it, then you aren't going to believe any source that anyone comes up with. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The cite is a newspaper article that republished a figure from a WWE press release. I've edited the article to include said claim, while clearly stating that the attendance figure is a claim from WWE. Stan Simmons (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand that some of you take professional wrestling very seriously (possibly too seriously), but good-faith edits are no reason to attack an editor and accuse him of "vandalism". Even professional wrestling is not exempt from Wikipedia article standards. Stan Simmons (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Update: the witch hunt begins! Stan Simmons (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Update: What part of "removing notable information without an explanation is vandalism" don't you understand? No witch hunt here. !! Justa Punk !! 04:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Checking source reliability

I want to get some views on the following two sites when it comes to reliability.

The first one looks like crap to be honest. The second one appears to be okay though. Can we have some other views on them? !! Justa Punk !! 08:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Big no on the first one, I try to take them out of my Google News searches when looking for sources. It's pretty much fan submitted news and opinions, hardly reliable. --  Θakster   09:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, I'll add it to the MOS as unreliable. Any thoughts on the second one? !! Justa Punk !! 21:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've seen PW on many pages now. I think it qualifies as reliable. –Turian (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
To establish if they are reliable, we must known if they are backed by other third party reliable sources, where they get their information, how they check their information, their staff, etc. Are they a creditable website, or just another dirtsheet who will publish anything they find regardless of checking if it is factual. We can't just guess, we have to be able to state why they are reliable in reviews, etc.--WillC 04:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
That's why I felt the first one was rubbish, Will. It's fan contributed etc. Just another dirtsheet like you said. Can't say that about the second one though - at least not at a glance. !! Justa Punk !! 04:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The second one looks like it just reposts stories from PWInsider and Wrestling Online and the likes - if that's the case use the original, not the repost and you're better off. I'd use the second one to find articles on the actual reliable sources at most ;)
You've guys have probably seen PW Torch instead, I believe. If not, this PW news source is not anymore reliable than the other blacklisted sites on the MOS we have, such as LoP or WrestleZone.com.--Truco 503 20:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Beware!

I just wanted to put out a warning that people will start coming up and trying to split JTG and Shad. Beware!--— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Thanks. --Truco 503 20:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Should Cliff Compton be merged into Deuce 'n Domino?

Cliff has done very little on his own: a dark match, 2 matches in XWF and a loss to the Big Show is all I see listed. Almost all of his career has been teaming with Domino. His partner Domino has held titles at the least. I personally think Compton could be redirected to the team article. This was brought to my attention from this discussion: [[12]] (note: that tag page serves home to both wrestlers, because they have spent most of their careers teaming together). I'm not sure why people didn't catch this sooner. We certainly don't need duplicate articles like this, that overlap so much... especially since people have been against a Hawkins/Ryder split for THIS exact reason: there isn't much different from their wrestling careers. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few tag teams that could do with being merged as their pages are listcruft but a lot of them are from the '70s and '80s when tag teams were 4 Life and so their tag team careers are really long and I haven't been arsed to go through it all and collate it. I don't think there'd be much of a problem of putting Cliff Compton into the D&D page seeing as neither CageMatch or OWOW have anything of his career before OVW or after WWE. Tony2Times (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd support a merger he hasn't really done anything to distinguish himself, after all if we're opposed to splitting up Hawkins and Ryder who've probably done more than him, then he probably shouldn't have his own article. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 19:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course it shouldn't be merged. He meets the notability guideline, and the team also meets the notability guideline. Merging would accomplish nothing but removing information and bringing on unnecessary edit wars. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep it the way it is per GaryColemanFan. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder Split (Another Look)

Since the last time Curt and Zack was mentioned here a lot has happened. Zack went to Raw. Curt lost titles. More reasons to split them. So what do you guys think?--C23 C23's talk 20:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No split. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain?--C23 C23's talk 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How about totally cut and dry - Do they qualify per the Notability rule? If yes then honestly what's the point of not creating separate articles? Let's not overcomplicate this, look at the facts.  MPJ -DK  21:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, do they have reliable third party coverage focusing more on them as separate people than as a team? Nikki♥311 21:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I said, please don't "Interpret" my comments. It's very clear - Zack Ryder, does he fulfill the Notability criteria? Alone or as a team - the criteria does not differentiate. Curt Hawkins, same question - if the answer is yes it's just silly to stand in the way of creating an article. How long as it been since they've teamed up anyway?  MPJ -DK  15:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't interpreting...I was trying to clarify. Notice the question mark at the end of my comment. Nikki♥311 18:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And while the subject hasn't been broached here in eight weeks the talk page for CH&ZR is nothing but non-stop requests for a split. It's been suggested that Curtis makes two articles so that editors can assess the separate careers, so I suggest that you do that Curtis. Make two articles at User:Curtis23/Curt Hawkins and User:Curtis23/Zack Ryder and show us what they will look like. Because saying why? over and over again (as you have done on the talkpage) does not help your case. Though looking at the userpage Zack Ryder article I don't see enough to justify a separate article. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't edited it in awhile.--C23 C23's talk 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Curt hasn't done anything on FCW but win the tag titles and that's like maybe one or two sentences.--C23 C23's talk 22:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How about you guys take a look and then tell what you think.

What?--C23 C23's talk 23:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know what he means but I have a few suggestions for your attempts at a single page. The key thing is that their tag team page shouldn't just be replicated onto this article; notice the difference between Legacy's page and Randy Orton's page (though I think the latter is a bit scant on details). A lot of what's on the tag team page can be trimmed on their respective single's pages and you could probably leave the Tag Team section of their career in WWE as under one header rather than the sub splits. Also don't forget to include their NYWC career, though once again it will be brief. Listing off "competetive" matches against people that didn't develop into any storyline isn't notable as previously discussed, I don't think the double team moves need to be listed on the singles' pages either and I don't think Ryder needs a split between ECW and Raw as it's only one and a bit paragraph. The case is getting stronger for Ryder to have his own page, but with the way Raw mid-carders are sucked into a vacuum of nothingness doesn't make me think it'll change too soon. Tony2Times (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that the main body of the article starts out with four levels of headlines "Career / World Wrestling Entertainment (2006–present) / Tag Team Career (2006-2009) / Developmental territories (2006–2007) before there is any text - FOUR! headlines and no text? Partly it makes it look really weird, partly it makes it look like there was no career before they signed with the WWE and partly I hate, hate, hate the need to put a "federation name (from-to)" headline on every little section.  MPJ -DK  13:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Have separate articles on each, but this is on the tag team of Hawkins and Ryder. It's good to have an articles on both Hawkins and Ryuder because if you add information on their stuff outside of the teaming, it will get too long, thus need to be separated anyways. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Converting weights

Look at Jake Hager's weight and billed weight. The second is 3 lb heavier but 1 kg lighter. It needs |sigfig=3 in the lower weight to correct the problem. There may be others with the same problem so someone might want to check them. The best thing would be to add it to both weights. something lame from CBW 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Speaking of needing an article move ;). And I'm surprised to see the mistake in calculations, thank you for pointing out how to fix it, I'll definitely make a note of it myself.  MPJ -DK  13:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

List of World Heavyweight Champions

User:Raaggio/List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE). What do you guys think? Raaggio 19:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorting is off numerically all throughout the table. In respect to the addition of images, the main problem is that not all championship articles will have images enough to suffice. Luckily you've found all images for the entries. Not every image is also from their respective reigns, which could potentially be a problem if ever going through FLC again.--Truco 503 20:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It is alright, but several problems occur with an image format. ips always changing the pictures, we not having enough photos for lists thus inconsistency, columns sort oddly..throws off the entire table, etc.--WillC 21:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Pictures make it look extremely skewed and uneven. Plus, they are so small you can't make out much detail. It would just be easier to expect people to click on the link to see the image. –Turian (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
That looks a lot bette than I would have expected it to do, but I do worry that it's something you could only do for a handful of titles. Any championship that goes back before the '90s, which is most of them, would be hard to source and even modern ones like the ROH World Title would only have a few pictures. I suppose not everything has to look uniform, but I kinda think it should. If you could make them all look like that though, I would be very impressed. Tony2Times (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I know that not all of them will have pictures, but there are many list articles that implement pictures and don't have one for each installment like List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees. Raaggio 03:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what pictures add to the articles. They are just another hassle and the main point is the information being established. Not a photo of a guy with a prop. Instead of thinking about adding photos, we need to worry about getting these lists updated, reliable sourced, and in good condition. Adding a format of pictures to an article like List of WWE Hardcore Champions or List of WCW World Television Champions would be extremely difficult and downright hurtful to the format.--WillC 20:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right, it would be difficult. But the articles are already reliably sourced and in good condition. Pictures can only add to the article. I've made prototypes for User:Raaggio/List of ROH World Champions and User:Raaggio/List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions. Personally, I think the format looks great. Raaggio 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I think with images, there is a fine line between a nice addition and a hampering. Take a look at List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States. A while ago, there was an image for each building, which made the page unbearably slow. So now, you see a reduced version of the images. I think it is superfluous, especially when we are going to have trouble finding 7 appropriate images of John Cena. –Turian (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Championship reigns list

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

All of the championship reign lists articles are deemed "List of ____ champions", but technically, the articles aren't "lists of champions". If they were lists of champions, the champions wouldn't be repeated. In reality, they are lists of reigns. So I think we should rename all the championship reigns articles. Isn't it more appropriate? Raaggio 15:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is kind of splitting hairs. Essentially, the lists are both. What do other lists do for MMA? –Turian (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a fair point, I wouldn't stand in your way if you wanted to do it. Tony2Times (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Never really been a problem before, it is kind of obvious.--WillC 19:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Meh, you're right. Ignore it. Raaggio 20:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Taping spoilers, again

I know this has been discussed before, but with the events at Smackdown this week it seems to be of greater concern again. What's the general viewpoint on posting material that's sourced only to online wrestling sources, based on fan reports, before the show airs? Currently, we've got a major spoiler sitting in the lead paragraph at Jack Swagger's article, and Chris Jericho has been active as well; the issue I see here is that the show reports are all essentially based on a fan sending an e-mail to an online mag, which then posts the spoiler. That, to me, doesn't meet WP:RS. This obviously needs some more consideration, and some more eyes on the articles. (I doubt there will be a resolution before Smackdown airs on Friday, knowing Wikipedia, so we'll probably have what I'd consider badly-sourced information in the lead of an article that may get lots of hits before then, but at least a discussion would be useful.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered that people who are writing about it attended the event? This is unnecessary. The event has taken place. The information is accurate. –Turian (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, so you've said over and over again on the talk page. The simple fact here is that online wrestling magazines using a fan report as the basis for a "hey, y'all, so-and-so won, according to a fan" should emphatically not be considered a reliable source, in my eyes, especially considering the fact that the show can and often is edited prior to broadcast. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
1. We aren't quoting anybody, so we won't have to worry about editing. 2. People could have attended the event and write about it. How is that not reliable? –Turian (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the event took place and what is being reported seems to be an accurate description of what happened. But, and I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend, there is no title change until it is aired on WWE programming or referenced on their programming or website. What happened Tuesday night was a television taping. They can air it in its entirety, making Swagger's championship official. We all know that is what will likely happen. But, for some reason, they could edit the program, they could even choose to completely not air it at all, and act like it never happened, which would mean Swagger was never a world champion. Bottom line, 10,000 people saw a television taping on Las Vegas on Tuesday night - but Chris Jericho is still the World Heavyweight Champion, at least until Friday. You seem to struggle with this basic professional wrestling concept, which has been standard for decades. -tazz20200 76.111.13.156 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) You know, I could go on and on and on about primary sources and the concept of tape delay and stuff, but I have better things to do than continue to argue this right now, especially as I see that I'm going to be stonewalled unto the end of time over it. (I certainly remember why I usually only limit myself to vandal reverts on these articles now.) Reread WP:RS a couple times, and see if any of the online dirt sheets meet it for something like this; in the meantime, I'm going to go do something productive and wait for other views here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And you are? They are not going to update it because they would lose viewers, as I have stated multiple times. I don't give a fuck about spoilers and neither does Wikipedia. I have no need to argue with anything else. If there are better sources out there, then add them. But what is not going to happen is the information will not be removed. –Turian (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not even an issue of spoilers - it's just the fact, and I'm sorry, but it is a fact, that Swagger is NOT the champion until it airs. Plain and so, so simple - what is the issue here? 76.111.13.156 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
And under what authority do you presume to place yourself under to make such a statement? I have sources. You don't. –Turian (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Where are your sources that show that title victories at TV tapings begin the day of the taping? You'll see on WWE's website that TV taping title reigns begin the day they are aired on television, not when they actually happen. As I said this has long been the case, going back to at least the NWA in the 1980s, and probably earlier, though I could be wrong. 76.111.13.156 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
And the TV announcers say it's Friday, when they recorded it on Tuesday. So we must believe them! /sarcasm –Turian (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The first example that comes to mind is John Morrison's Intercontinental Title victory in September of 2009. The taping was on Tuesday 9/1 but the match was aired on Friday 9/4. As per WWE's website, John Morrison became the Intercontinental Champ on Friday 9/4. http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/intercontinental 76.111.13.156 (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

According to The WWE[13], Chris Jericho is still champ.Inhumer (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Read Reliable sources and tell me how "a guy who claims he went to the event" is a reliable source. For this kind of information there has to be a reliable source or it's fair game to delete it IMO. Not a matter of it happened, or if hes the champ or whatnot, it's a matter of finding a reliable source for it.  MPJ -DK  18:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x3 Apparently I am either talking to myself or a dense wall. Read my statements above as to why that isn't enough. And what, pray tell, would you consider a reliable source? I consider the whole entire internet stating the same thing as a good source. I just picked one. Oh no, he must be lying, yet everyone else is saying the exact same thing! Nope, lies. See how silly you sound? –Turian (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is debating what happened at the Smackdown taping on Tuesday night. The point is that it is nothing that happened that night is official and actually "happened" until it is broadcast or referenced on WWE programming or their website. This is a most basic concept, and it is one of the foundations of the wrestling industry, as multiple shows have often been taped at once, or taped ahead of time. Just because you were there and saw it with your own eyes doesn't make it official. If you've seen it on TV, then it's legit. That may be unique to the wrestling business, but it's the way it is. 76.111.13.156 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I dunno how it can be reliable - it's only just a video of the freaking thing, so unless someone has mad editing skills (and should win an Oscar) I'd say that seeing is believing. How is that not good enough? As for "it has not happened yet", bull - it HAS happened, it IS a fact, he IS the champion - it just has not been officially acknowledged, which is different. The match took place, he did win, he was announced as the winner and did leave with the belt. Those are facts, indisputable.  MPJ -DK  19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Got any video of Pat Patterson winning the intercontinental title in Rio hanging around? The point that I believe people are making here is that until the event reaches television, it should really not be considered canon. This is the wrestling business. Strange stuff happens. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not WWE. We are not a branch of WWE. We go by facts, not by what information they feel like giving out. –Turian (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Very true! And the fact is that, until the show airs - as pointed out above, with regards to title dates being determined based on airing date - Swagger's not the champion. But whatever. I don't have the patience, time or inclination to argue the point further - it's obvious that it will never end, and Swagger will have lost the strap by the time some semblance of consensus forms in this mess. You have fun. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me that we cannot use WP:RS here, if the sites are concidered reliable sources for other information, I would see it as prejudicial to withhold the information. In reality, according to policy, while we should endevor to present accurate information, as long as it can be attributed to a previously established reliable source, it should be allowed, albeit, I would notate these changes in the body of the article, instead of the lead, to avoid confusion. As for "official" for quite a while Chris Benoit was not a World Champion, "officially", but there he was. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:SPOILER, spoilers are allowed on the basis of reliable information/sources. The event has happened, its not like the information is being speculated or made up. In the past this issue has come up with Edge doing the same thing with his MitB contract. We added the information on that basis. This is similar to the accepted championship guideline we abide by, which is that the day the title is won is the day of the taping not the day of the airing show.Truco 503 22:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We CAN use WP:RS. There's a list of acceptable sources on the Manual of Style page in this project. For those who attended the event - information can't be added on that basis because it violates WP:OR. I'm involved in this because the World Wrestling Entertainment article is also involved in this and I already reverted it twice because there wasn't a source. The latest edit by Turian I'm looking into because I think three of the four sources are unreliable. Just saying that "many sites are reporting it" doesn't mean a thing because it has happened that "many sites" are reporting the same information from the same source, and that source ends up being wrong. Have we forgotten what happened with the Rockers and the Hart Foundation and the tag team titles? !! Justa Punk !! 08:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are being more disruptive than helpful. We can use these references until the unchallengeable WWE ref gets placed in the articles. We can change it tomorrow, there is really no reason to freak. –Turian (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that response appears to show a lack of understanding of WP content rules, I rather think you are the one being disruptive. For the record, two sources are confirmed as okay. I'm about to take one out per below in the query about the two remaining sites in question. Once Smackdown airs in Australia (the first to see it) then the sources are no longer needed. !! Justa Punk !! 21:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Please stop on the disruption claims. In any case, we agree that if there is reliable source, then the information can be added, regardless of the airing of the event, is that correct? If so, the only issue is to find 1 reliable source that states it. If one cannot be found, then wait until tomorrow when it is reported. As far as any WWE references go, they can be included, but per my last reading of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, they should be used to empericly state anything as fact, they should be used as secondaey verification of previously reported information. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This WikiProject needs some kind of guideline regarding this. Currently, the disclaimer on most active wrestler bios warns against writing about matches that "have not occurred." It does not resolve whether "occurred" encompasses taped matches that have not yet been acknowledged by the promotion. Personally, I don't think it does - taping a pro wrestling match is the equivalent of taping a segment of a dramatized television show. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The match has occurred, of course it has happened already. This is about saying "Long John Silver will receive a shot at the Pirate World Order title next week, because he may not.  MPJ -DK  05:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Cant we compromise? "On March 31st in Madison Square Garden, Long John Silver won a number one contenders match against Captain Ahab." We state what happened when, where under what conditions. If the segment or show does not air, when it is supposed to, then we state that. Obviously this would exclude house shows. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Se now that's the way to phrase it, factual and not crystaballing, the Peglegged People's champion would be proud of that :)  MPJ -DK  18:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If a reliable source chooses to report something like this, then we should allow it because it's being reported by a reliable source. It is not up to us to determine if the writer is getting faulty information. If we're going to question a reliable source, then why did we apoint them reliable to begin with? We can not cherry pick the stories of a reliable source and say "this one is OK" and "this one is not OK." Either everything they say is credible, or nothing is. Mshake3 (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the whole "WWE says the title reign began on this date, so it did" argument is silly. WWE also says:

  • Brian Pillman was a WCW Cruiserweight Champion before that title actually existed.
  • Taka Michinoku was the first WWF Light Heavyweight Champion.
  • Shane Douglas was the first ECW Champion.

This is also the same company that has said before that at WrestleMania XX, Triple H lost his World Heavyweight Championship in a match "that also included Shawn Michaels." Not questioning the reasoning behind why they manipulate their own history, just saying they do it. If a bunch of people see me set fire to my house on May 1 but I say "well, I don't recognize that I set my house on fire until May 3," I'm still wrong. Jeff Silvers (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wrestlemania example isn't them changing history. Triple H DID lose the World title in a match that also included Shawn Michaels. That statement is still true. Just because they don't say who the other person was, doesn't mean that they're trying to change history or that it's a lie. I agree with the point you're trying to make, but that wasn't a good example. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


More proposed moves

Well I'm nothing if not a bandwagon jumper ;) (Actually it just reminded me to get off my duff and do this.) I have also requested a number of moves from real names to ring names for a series of luchadors who are all definitly better known under their ringnames both in Mexico out outside. I've actually put a request on each page, seperately as they're all for the same reason but not related articles as such. Please click the links to agree or disagree.

    •  Done Its his WP:COMMONNAME, but the bigger picture is that the term "Rafael García" should definitely be a disambiguation page because of the various people with that name. I moved both the article and the disambiguation page to the rightful locations. Raaggio 17:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks in advance.  MPJ -DK  13:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to bow to your seniority on lucha libre and assume every one of these luchadores are better known by their ring names. Tony2Times (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence ;) in Mexico they're usually even MORE secretive about their personal lives, wrestlers who have never been unmasked in their career often have not even revealed what their real name is. While they are more mainstream in Mexico and appear in newspapers, advertising and various television series they're almost always called by their ring name.  MPJ -DK  16:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that was my thinking for why their ring names would be better known, because it's still more respected mainstream. Presumably all of these luchadores either didn't have, or had but lost, masks but even so being made to announce your name at an unmasking once isn't gonna change the years of wrestling under a ring name. Tony2Times (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes they are all unmasked, but continue to use these ring names even after being unmasked, if the destination wasn't already a redirect I would have moved them as uncontroversial, but well them's the breaks.  MPJ -DK  17:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
After researching them all, I support the moves 100% per WP:COMMONNAME. Raaggio 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There might be problems with the other two, because after some research there is no clear cut common name for them. César could easily be under "Black Tiger III" as well as "Silver King". While Ortiz is known as Halloween, he was known in America as Ciclope, so I don't know about this one exactly therefore I didn't carry out the move. Anyone else have opinions on the matter? Raaggio 00:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Black Tiger III - Yes he worked as Black Tiger for a little, but the Black Tiger gimmick already has a page that lists all of them and he's worked as Silver King since the mid or late 1980s for WCW, CMLL, AAA, NJPW and a lot of other places. He worked as Black Tiger for a couple of years which is true but he's much more known as Silver King and he'll never work as Black Tiger again since there is a new black tiger. MPJ -DK  04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ciclope - He played the jobber character Ciclope in WCW in the late 1990s, but also wrestled as Halloween in WCW and everywhere else he's worked since then (10 years+) including the "big two" of Mexico where he's won titles and all over the US Indies he's been Halloween.  MPJ -DK  04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
While you guys are at it, shouldn't Jake Hager be moved to Jack Swagger? Who the heck is Jake Hager anyway? I know who Jack Swagger is. He's the World Heavyweight Champion and a former ECW Champion. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It is titled as Jack Swagger. –Turian (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh... so it is. Must have been moved in the last few days. My bad... Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of new ROH belt photos in articles

Allstarchampionshipbelts.webs.com has authorized the use of their ROH belt photos in Wikipedia related projects. I'm currently working on a confirmation. --UnquestionableTruth-- 02:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation from owner. The owner noted via email that he would take down the note once members saw it so here's a screen cap [14] --UnquestionableTruth-- 03:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is Neal Snow from All Star Championship Belts and I've given permission for any of our ROH belt pictures to be used for the Wikipedia site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.200.173 (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, this can be very helpful. I'll help upload some pictures. mainly an ROH TV Title photo right after I finish my re-expansion of the article for GAN.--WillC 03:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Will--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem, been wanting to get some good ROH Title pictures to match the TNA Title pictures. Plus will help solve a problem from the first GA review of the ROH TV Title.--WillC 05:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You may want to make sure that the owner agrees to a specific license so that they can go through Wikipedia:OTRS. See commons:Commons:OTRS for more information.--WillC 09:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Trent Beretta and Caylen Croft Merge?

I'm thinking of merging Trent Beretta and Caylen Croft into one page, since they're a tag team in the WWE. Does anyone agree to it or do they remain seperate?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say no as Barretta spent 3 years in NYWC winning four titles and also had that bizarre gimmick where he tried to win the Queen of FCW Crown while Croft has been wrestling for 7/8 years under his belt without Barretta. It'd be better if we could expand their pre-tag team time tbh but I think there's sufficient solo information to be kept apart. Tony2Times (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. How about just starting a separate tag team page for them?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they aren't notable. They have done nothing of notability in the WWE or outside the WWE for that matter. I closed the merger on Pavone's talk page per WP:SNOW. Raaggio 23:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter
An overview
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Professional wrestling articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Triple Crown Championship & Grand Slam Championship Merger (continued)

I created a prototype for the merger of the two articles here: User:Raaggio/Triple Crown (professional wrestling). What do you guys think? Raaggio 22:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That would do fine, but article name I'm not so sure of. Triple Crown and Grand Slam Championship seems kind of awkward. I think the key tables should go first before the champions table, like in today's FLs.--WillC 22:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we can do without most of the color scheming, but I'll place the key at the beginning as you wanted to. Personally, I dislike the whole color scheming all together. Is all that trivial information really notable? Does it really matter which brand someone belonged to when they achieved the Triple Crown? Raaggio 22:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
If the brand extension was followed to the letter it would be notable. But since it has lost significance since then, probably not.--WillC 22:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Then what could we do about the color scheming in the tables? Raaggio 01:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Remove it.--WillC 02:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the branding is notable in anyway. If the titles never moved across maybe, but even they do so it's not like there's a SmackDown Triple Crown and Raw Triple Crown. Tony2Times (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So guys, what do we do about the article title? Do we leave it at "Triple Crown Championship", should I move it to "Triple Crown (professional wrestling)" or are there any suggestions? Raaggio 12:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Triple Crown Championship" is fine. By definition a Grand Slam Champion is also a Triple Crown Champion, so I don't think it would be necessary to have it in the article name (it'd be like having an article called "New World Order and The Outsiders"). Jeff Silvers (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
We do have the articles New World Order (professional wrestling) and The Outsiders (professional wrestling).--WillC 02:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

List of People who have held more than one World Heavyweight Title in Professional Wrestling‎

Yeah, this was created a while ago. I've tried to redirect it but a user keeps reverting saying a discussion is needed so instead of edit war, here we are. Now imo this is obviously listcruft and not notable. Should we redirect, delete, or keep the article?--WillC 13:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We decided a while back with the huge List of World Heavyweight Champions tally type of list, that these were cruft and never could be fully accurate. Afro (Blah Blah Here) - Afkatk 14:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Crufty list where we'll never be able to agree on the criteria for inclusion - what is a "world champion" in wrestling after all? Delete, delete and delete.  MPJ -DK  18:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Prod it--Steam Iron 19:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Prodded. –Turian (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This should be speedied... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiple world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling (2nd nomination)--UnquestionableTruth-- 20:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Took care of it. --UnquestionableTruth-- 20:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Championships & accomplishments

I have a question about the following section. I have seen that the tag teams have a normal section, but a tag team breaks the section, because we have wroten the month and the year when the wrestler won and lose the championship. You can see the New World Order's section. Why the article has antoher section?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think someone tried this as an attempt to stop people adding all title reigns to stables, making it clear that they had to come from a certain time frame. Personally, I quite like it like that for a stable but I think consensus is not to do that as The Hardyz and DX have had theirs changed since being like that. Tony2Times (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lucha Libre AAA: Héroes del Ring

The information about the game is in this link. Information has been updated.

--XOTERS (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Titled Defences

I was planning on making a new page called List of ____ Championship Matches. I'v googled it and there is nowhere on the internet that actually has a full list of all title matches. I thought maybe if I made it then someone would delete because it too much like the list of world champions page. So I thought either I do the new page or, the title of the other page is changed to list of ____ champions and defences. I would then add to the page. I'll do a page for all the title. Just wanted to make sure it was ok before I go through all the trouble. JasarDaConqueror (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

  • the problem is that, as you said yourself, there is nowhere on the net with a full list of all title matches, which means it's near impossible to determine if the list is complete or not - after all how do you prove a negative? How do you prove that no other title matches took place than the ones you list?? I think you are dangerously close to WP:LISTCRUFT territory, if not actually in it. That being said - if you make a list in your own userspace and show the list full sourced with reliable sources then maybe. Frankly this is an impossible task to do for "all the titles", do you know how many there are? and how few reliable sources cover wrestling in enough detail for such a list?  MPJ -DK  11:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Another problem is for WWF/E, WCW and TNA at least, and maybe for the latter days of AWA and WCCW but I'm not sure, is the debate about whether house show/non televised defences count or not. The title matches at house shows almost never play into storylines so it feels like they should be discounted, but then it has been known for titles to change hands at non-televised events so they can't be entirely ignored. Maybe for ROH, IWGP and GHC Titles which keep track of every title defence it would work, but definitely not every title. I also don't know if it would look that good either. Tony2Times (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it'll save me the time anyway. JasarDaConqueror (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Active members list

It's the time of year to do a survey to determine which members of WP:PW are actively editing. I'll create a message to be sent to all the members and have a bot send it out. RaaGgio (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How does that work, a certain number of edits omung PW articles will keep them on the list? Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
No, a message is sent to each member and they confirm their membership by placing themselves on this list. RaaGgio (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind putting a template of the message here first?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 23:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time, WP:PW had a portal...

Why have we stopped updating the portal? I remember a few years ago when we were discussing to make a portal and some people like Naha objected due to the portal "eventually being abandoned by the project". I guess we all deserve a big "I told you so". RaaGgio (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nici usually updates it. She and I had plans to make it featured, but we never got around to it. Now that I think about it, maybe I'll try to make it featured.--WillC 02:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Can GAs be selected articles also? RaaGgio (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably, I'll look into it.--WillC 19:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Newsletter

Just a quick survey here. Who actually of the project reads the biweekly newsletter? RaaGgio (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I Do.--Steam Iron 18:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I work on and read it regularly.--WillC 18:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh okay, just asking because I added a notice for the Active members list, but if people don't actually read the newsletter, they won't see it. RaaGgio (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I tend to read it, I normally have already read the information but there's usually one thing each issue I haven't seen. Tony2Times (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Moves

Chris Mordetzky → Chris Masters

 Done With consensus among 6 editors with no opposition I think we can make the move.--C23 C23's talk 13:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chris Masters debuted in 2005 under this name and has continued to use it for 5 years. After being released in 2007, Masters began wrestling on the independent scene under the name "Chris Moore", but he still used the name "Chris Masters" on some events. He has wrestled in some main events and has actually achieved a small amount of popularity. On a relevant note, he also appeared with his "Chris Masters" name and gimmick during an episode of some Nickelodeon TV Show. I believe it is a strong argument to say that "Chris Masters" is his most common name. Raaggio 05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Support I don't see a problem with this move he's used the name for five years.--Steam Iron 09:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Support  MPJ -DK  13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Support --WillC 20:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Support C23 C23's talk
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terry Gerin → Rhino (wrestler)

' Done No opposition. Went ahead with the move. Ra[[User

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

talk:Raaggio|agg]]io 01:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Rhino wrestled for three years under this name in the final three years of ECW. After that, he debuted in WWE where he used a variation of his name (Rhyno) for four more years. He gained notability by winning the US Championship, Hardcore Championship, Tag Team Championship and competing for the World Heavyweight Championship. After being released in 2005 and competing at One Night Stand, Rhino debuted in TNA where he has been contracted for the past five years. In the past five years, he has used the name "Rhino" and has had many notable feuds and championship main events. "Rhino" is obviously his common name. The qualifier should not be an issue (WP:QUALIFIER) because Rhino is the most common name. The issue is similar to Eric Young (wrestler). Raaggio05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Support  MPJ -DK  13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Support--C23 C23's talk 16:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jason Reso → Christian (wrestler) or Christian Cage

 Done The clear consensus is to change Jason Reso to Christian (wrestler). Closed.--C23 C23's talk 22:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When Christian began wrestling in 1995, he utilized the name "Christian Cage". However, when he debuted in the WWE in 1998, he shortened his name to "Christian". Christian became a very popular wrestler winning various championships and competing numerous times in WWE main events. Although his gimmick changed a few times, Reso always maintained "Christian" as his ring name. Even after quitting the WWE in 2005, he moved on to TNA and continued using the name (with the "Cage" surname). For the next four years, he became one of TNA's top main-eventers under the "Christian Cage" moniker winning two world championships. He jumped ship to the WWE in 2009, dropped the surname once again, and became the headliner of ECW with two ECW title reigns on his resumé. I think it is obvious that Christian is the most common name. Due to naming conventions, a qualifier is necessary if we would rename the article "Christian" (like Eric Young (wrestler) and the aforementioned Rhino), but I think the best compromise is moving the article to "Christian Cage" which is not exactly the most common ring name, but it includes the most common one in its title (similar to Bob Holly). Raaggio 05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably should stay where it is or moved to William Reso. His common name is up in the air. Christian and Christian Cage are both equally known these days.--WillC 08:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with WillC on this one--Steam Iron 09:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Like MPJ-DK stated, "Christian" is the most common name end of story. Christian Cage was used for four years in TNA while Christian was used during his mainstream run in WWE from 1998-2005 (8 years) and from 2009 forward. Also, because Cage was just a surname, he was popularly being referred to as Christian during his TNA run. Raaggio03:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Christian (wrestler). People may pretend that his time in TNA got him as known as Christian Cage than Christian despite his much longer time in the WWE with more world wide exposure, but it's just not true.  MPJ -DK  13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Have people forgot not only during his 4 years in TNA was he using Cage, but he was also working on indy promotions and had a few appearences in Japan as Christian Cage? His return to WWE has been over looked and most forgot he was even there because he was on ECW. Also, a google search ofChristian Cage and one ofChristian Wrestler only is apart by 20,000. Common name is rather close.--WillC05:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
People forget nothing, a few additional indy appearances does not make it more common. IT's either the name he's worked under for like a decade in the biggest promotion in the world, with shows and tours world wide, TV ratings leader and top PPV seller - or it's the name he used for four years in a promotion that were happy to get as high ratings as WWE's third brand ECW. Also you cannot really use the name search for much, you had "Christian Cage" vs. "Christian wrestling", the first search term is not specific enough plus it would actually also include every single reference to "Christian" anywhere there was a cage match mentioned at all. Sorry but since both Christian and Cage are common terms a google search does nothing. MPJ -DK  06:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes WWE is the largest promotion, but Cage worked in England, Japan, Canada, and the US as Cage. TNA also aired in several countries all over the world. Common name would be established by published articles on the subject. Not the belief in what a person remembers someone as. Looking at Christian Cage searched results, not one single article on the first page says anything about a cage match or anything unrelated to Christian Cage. The search in general on Christian would bring up all sorts of subjects. Most pro wrestling writers still refer to Cage as Cage. Obviously, Cage's highest accolades were in TNA with two world championship reigns, a stable, several main event matches, and a DVD released on his wrestling career. Though, it isn't about what happened under the ring name, it matters how well published they have been under that name. Per common name, Google should be used to help determine a common name. Search results were under the exact titles that are being discussed. Christian Cage and Christian Wrestler..minus the parenthesis.--WillC 07:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
You do not use a qualifier in the google test, Will. Raaggio 15:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

He's worked in England, Japan, Canada and the US while working for the WWE as well - for longer time too. As for "how well published", the first 8 years of Christian he was published as that, then four years at TNA where he was Christian Cage or Christian and now two years again as Christian potentially with references to how he used to be known as Christian Cage. Prove how he's consistently referred to as Christian Cage after returning to WWE please because I believe that's flat out wrong. Search for "Christian Cage Wrestling" gives 217.000 hits, "Christian Wrestling" gives 1.310.000 more than four times as much.  MPJ -DK  07:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't we agree on using "Christian Cage" as his name? Note that it includes the name "Christian" in it. Therefore, it really represents both ring names. Raaggio 15:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm in favour of that. Tony2Times (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I cannot support Christian Cage. I wish I could, but unfortunatly, WWE has a larger fan base, and he was known as Christian in WWE. In addition he was known there for a longer time. Finally, it is unlikely for his tenure in WWE that he will become known as Christian Cage, therefore, the recognition of CC is unlikely to overturn recognition of the name Christian. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking at it from a wider range, we can say, most know him as Christian and as Cage, because for the past few years mainstream fans heard about him in TNA besides the casuals and the children. The names are about equal since Christian is just a breakoff of Christian Cage, since he was originally supposed to use that in WWE and at last minute chose to remove the Cage part. However, to remain fair it should stay where it is or be moved to his real first name William Reso. It is all heresy on common name if it can't be proved.--WillC 20:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
You keep insisting that he's as known as Cage but cannot prove it, now you're saying the opposite can't be proven either. Neither Jay Reso nor William Reso is the name he's most known as, but frankly in the end it's about which name he's listed as and which is just a redirect so I officially change my vote to "not caring" any more.  MPJ -DK  20:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
He's gone by Christian for almost a decade or so in the WWF/WWE. Those years outweigh any number of years spent in TNA. –Turian (talk)20:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Per Above. Also, Christian is known mostly as Christian we're not saying he's not known by some as Christian Cage we just think that's he's known more as Christian.--C23 C23's talk 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Around 2 million in the US alone watched him as Cage in TNA. Around the same have watched him as Christian since he returned to WWE on ECW. I don't think that is some. He has appeared in two world-wide promotions under two names. To establish a common name would be difficult and most likely breaking of a neutral point of view.--WillC 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Its not breaking WP:NPOV when we say WWE is more notable than TNA. Its just the fact of the matter. Raaggio 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah... if you think TNA is more notable... you might want to check that info. –Turian (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
So now you're saying that TNA gets the same ratings as the WWE? He's been a long time mainstay on Raw & Smackdown and even you cannot claim that the ratings are about the same - sure TNA and ECW were close in ratings, though ECW more often than not won, let's not even begin to talk PPV buys or the fact that in the 8 years before he went to TNA he appeared on shows that were multiple times higher rated than even the best ever TNA rating. It's not "not-neutral" to look at the ratings since ratings means "number of people who watch" and thus "number of people who see him wrestle as Christian". MPJ -DK  00:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is so easy to show that Reso is more known as Christian. Then actually show it. Don't give heresy and show bias which is easily seen during this discussion with the constant put downs of TNA and anything not WWE from this project. All I've heard is "because", and not here is the evidence.--WillC 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with notbility of TNA and WWE. This has to do with how known each name is. To establish a common name, the name has to be clearly justified. With two wide names being used by Cage. Neither can be clearly called the common name without being bias.--WillC 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Do a quick search. Most TNA ratings have a share of 1-2, while WWE has rating shares from 3-4. It is not bias; I don't even know why you are using that word. Your bias of TNA is evident. –Turian (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If I was bias of TNA, then the last episode I watched wouldn't have been 4 weeks ago and I would be going for a move to Cage rather than keeping it where it is. The nelson rating system is flawed you do know that? More people are actually watching the shows than are counted. And plus you have to incorporate the viewers from other countries, such as India which the system does not do because it is American based. I see the bias, there has always been a bias around here. If it isn't WWE, then it doesn't matter. MPJ has seen that with Mexican wrestling. I've seen it with TNA and indy wrestling. I can see it with your comments. But yet, still no one has shown anything to establish a common name other than ratings. When you have forgotten internet wrestling sites, etc. Just looking at a google search of the names being discussed, you can see the names are very close is published articles. Thus, a clear common name can not be establish. To choose any name is more popular, would automatically declare a bias since it isn't proven.--WillC 01:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am so biased everything I saw and use as a source is biased, including TV rating shares. I must be making this stuff up!–Turian (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Will, WP:DRAMA would like to see you in his office. Raaggio 02:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I just want the article to follow the right guidelines. ThinkBlue and I spent a good amount of time trying to get it to GA, so I kind of have this "editor's bond" with the article if you will.--WillC 03:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand, the guideline that needs to be implemented here is WP:UCN. No one is disputing that "Christian Cage" is not a common name for him, but the most common name is "Christian". Regardless of his time in TNA, Christian has been more time in WWE. Also, he currently is in WWE, and has been for more than a year. Most people will now him as Christian without Cage even if TNA viewers remember the surname. I understand where you are coming from, but the fact of the matter is that "Christian" is more common than "Christian Cage". Like I stated above, I'm in favor of whichever, because they're very similar titles. But regardless I'm not going to ignore the fact that "Christian" alone is the most adequate title. Raaggio 03:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
And I can see the idea of Christian being the most common name since WWE is the largest promotion in the world. However, we are talking about two world-wide promotions and one wrestler have two different names in each one where he has had big accomplishments in both. It would be better to just keep it where it is currently at until it is widely clear there is a common name. Lets say, when Cage wins the WWE or WH Titles. Then it would be common sense to suggest such a thing.--WillC 05:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
We both know Vince is to hard-headed to ever let that happen. We might try other consensus-seeking alternatives, but we cannot leave him under "Jason Reso". It is definitely not his most common name and heck, we don't even know if thats his real name. I think Christian Cage is a great solution due to the title including both of his primary ring names. However, others don't agree. In response, I have to firmly state my belief that "Christian Cage" is second to "Christian" which is his most common name. Raaggio 05:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
His real name is William Jason Reso, stated in all sorts of material. His friends just call him Jason. We are forced to keep it where it is or move it to William if we can't clearly prove a common name. I would agree with the Cage idea, but remaining in a more neutral role on the article title would be better. If it must be moved to one of them, I would say Cage due to your suggestion and the fact that his original ring name was Cage and WWE just wanted to break off the Cage for his gimmick.--WillC 06:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That is a falsehood. There is no guideline that says that we must "keep it where it is" if we can't find a common name. WP:UCN says if there are more than one name that might be considered common, that we must achieve a WP:CONSENSUS among the community. This is what we are trying to do right now. Raaggio 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You are totally right, it's complete guesswork that Christian has been with the WWE for 10 years, total rumor that he has spent most of those 10 years on Raw or Smackdown, utter supposition that those two shows have crushed TNA in various ratings ever since TNA begun and nothing but speculation that even the ECW shows consistently outdrew TNA. Let's not forget the figment of all of our imaginations that the WWE PPV buyrates are much higher than TNA's PPVs. You're right we're just pulling this stuff from our asses without any proof - after all it's not a very commonly known fact that Christian wrestled for the WWE before TNA even existed or that the WWE is indeed the world's largest wrestling organization with more international tours and more international exposure than any other wrestling organisation. I think it's horrible that we assume that ratings = number of people that watch, even if there generally are "More people watching than the ratings indicate" then we are such no-goodnicks for assuming that if TNA's ratings are actually higher than the ratings so are the WWE's and thus the numbers are actually comparable. Oh wait... what part of the argument for Christian isNOT a fact? Time in the promotion? Ratings?? Buy rates? International exposure? please tell me how that's all "hearsay" and does not in fact support the "most known as" argument?.  MPJ -DK  06:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And as for your "Internet search" thing - compare "christian cage wrestler" and "christian wrestler" to get a fair view of things. Also would you like me to find sources that say that the WWE have higher ratings or am I biased in suggesting such things? Everything that's been said by the "Christian (wrestler)" group are commonly known facts while your TNA bias has led you to argue that TNA can compete with the WWE ratings and buyrate wise, something which is not common sense.  MPJ -DK  06:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Will, you have it right on your page that you like TNA more than WWE and now you come along trying to prove TNA has better ratings so you can get the page to stay the same because you don't want him known as Christian when it is obvious that Christian is the most commonly used name and i'll give you proof. Christian worked for WWE for 7 years (1998-2005) under Christian before he went to TNA for 4 years (2005-2009) under Christian Cage and now he's back in WWE and he's been here for about a year that makes 8 years under Christian 4 under Christian Cage. Besides a few years in an un-noteable wrestling organization where he wrestled under Christian Cage. And about the ratings you've never heard on ECW or anywhere else that TNA almosttied ECW a few times but ECW came out on top and obviously ECW had lower viewers than that of Smackdown and Raw so obviously WWE would have better ratings than TNA so with a longer time under Christian and using it under the world's most viewed wrestling promotion it is pretty obvious that Christian is the most common name for him.--C23 C23's talk 14:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure consensus can be called on this one. Change it to 'Christian (wrestler)'. –Turian (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, consensus is not the same as 100% agreement after all.  MPJ -DK  22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Move it. We know that a millions watched TNA, we don't know how many knew Reso, that they watched his segments or didn't know him first a Christian. We are making a logical, and overall unbiased judgment that the common name is Christian.Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oleg Prudius → Vladimir Kozlov

 Done Because there seems to be a consensus here among 7 different users then I will go ahead with the move. Raaggio 20:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prudius debuted on WWE television in early 2007 in a non-wrestling role under the name "Vladimir Kozlov", but was taken off TV for a little over a year until his wrestling debut on Smackdown. During this year, he used the "Vladimir Kozlov" name in WWE's developmental territories where he wrestled in many of its main events. Shortly after his debut, he became one of the top heels of his brand and even challenging Triple H for the WWE Championship. He was then became part of a big faction and had some notable feuds upon being drafted to ECW. After ECW's closure, Kozlov was drafted to Raw and has not done anything of notability. However, in my opinion, 3 years with the same ring name and on WWE's 3 different brands is definitely enough to be considered the most common name. Raaggio 05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this one ether--Steam Iron 09:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Support  MPJ -DK  13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
How many people known him as Oleg Prudius? Most pro wrestler articles are title under the names they are known by. For instance, if you asked some of the WWE fans who Matt Sydal is, they couldn't tell you. But if you said Evan Bourne, then they would know who you are talking about. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe that is the point...? –Turian (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Per above.--WillC20:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm having trouble moving over the redirect. In need of assistance. Raaggio 03:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Contact an admin. The admin will have to delete the Kozlov page and merge the histories.--WillC 04:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, they are taking years to respond. Raaggio 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I would have just asked Nikki to do it.--WillC 02:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I did, but she apparently hasn't seen it or hasn't had the time to do it. RaaGgio (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

They have finally responded to both Chris Masters and Vladimir Kozlov and they have been moved.--C23 C23's talk 13:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sheamus O'Shaunessy → Sheamus

 Done Consensus achieved with 5 different users, so I'll go ahead and carry out the move. Raaggio 20:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This one isn't really much of a big deal, but on WWE television it is constantly noted that Sheamus "does not have a last name" and therefore having this non-notable fictional surname attached to his ring-name is counterproductive. Sheamus did utilize this name during his developmental run, but his run on ECW and Raw are much more notable and although a short time has passed since his debut, he has accomplished much (WWE Championship, match with Triple H at WrestleMania, feuds with Randy Orton and John Cena, etc.). I think it would be better to have the article under "Sheamus". Raaggio 05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree on this on its obvious that he is known more as Sheamus then Sheamus O'Shaunessy--Steam Iron 09:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Support  MPJ -DK  13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Support per commonname. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Per above.--WillC20:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paul Wight → The Big Show (wrestler)

 Not done After nine days, it seems that consensus is to keep the article at Paul Wight. RaaGgio (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Has used the name The Big Show for all but a few weeks of his 9 years in WWE previously known as The Giant for 3 years in WCW but I don't think a lot of people would go to an event and say "Hey, there's the Giant".--C23 C23's talk 14:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Support I don't see a problem with this hes been know as the big show for quite some time now.--Steam Iron 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose All of his movie credits and some of his TV credits are under "Paul Wight". Also, he has wrestled under Paul "The Great" Wight. Noticing that Wight is notable enough to be the title, let us avoid the qualifier and leave it where it is at. Raaggio 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course credits would be in his real name.--C23 C23's talk 20:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, some wrestlers do get credited under their wrestling names (The Rock and I'm pretty sure Hulk Hogan). But I think the biggest thing against Show having his name changed would be the five years he spent as The Giant during WCW's most watched period, including time as a World Champion, so I Oppose. Tony2Times (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as he has only been known as The Big Show while in the WWE.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 17:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shantelle Malawski → Taylor Wilde

 Not done Didn't achieve enough consensus for the move. RaaGgio (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Simple common name move, two time Knockout Champion and one time knockout tag champion. Been in TNA for about two years now.--WillC 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose She's done a fair bit, and continues to do so, under the name Shantelle Taylor. Tony2Times (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, to an extent here and there. But she also works as Taylor Wilde on the indy circuit. Add on she has gotten the majority of her exposure in TNA.--WillC 17:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
      • TNA doesn't grant her that much more exposure than her other appearances. TNA has lower gate numbers than promotions like Dragon Gate USA. RaaGgio (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Wow, arguing over if a promotion which has a world-wide TV show that pulls 1.6 million on average in the US with their largest numbers being in the 2 million range against a USA branch of a Japanese promotion that is barely being able to pull off PPVs and has no tv show. Gate numbers don't have anything to do with moving an article.--WillC 04:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Well as a 3-time champion in TNA I think she can be moved.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mike Mizanin → The Miz (wrestler)

 Not done Same case as Taryn with no support after 9 days it's going to stay Mike Mizanin.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 04:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Has used this name since he went to OVW 6 years ago and before used it as his nickname not known as any thing else except the Calgary Kid for 1 match.--C23 C23's talk 14:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment, he was on a bunch of reality shows using just his first name Mike. Nikki♥311 18:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose- He debuted in WWE under "Mike Mizanin" and at the time "The Miz" was just a nickname. He was on The Real World, on 5 differentReal World/Road Rules Challenge, on Fear Factor and on Battle of the Network Reality Stars under his real name. He actually won 2 of the Challenge series and won Fear Factor also. Both "Mike Mizanin" and "The Miz" are notable, but I think the priority goes with Mizanin because its his real name.Raaggio 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose given that his real name seems to be his more common moniker.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 17:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Taryn Terrell → Tiffany (wrestler)

 Not done After 9 days of no support I'm closing this discussion with the result of keeping it Taryn Terrell.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 04:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

She used her real name just for the Diva Search and in OVW and those only lasted 1 year and she has used the name Tiffany on ECW and Smackdown for 2 years but since she used her real name only in OVW I don't think I would here people calling her by her real name.--C23 C23's talk 14:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would wait on this one just a little bit longer seeing as shes only been with WWE for 2 years let her get a little more work under the belt before we move the page.--Steam Iron 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Apparently unbeknownst to the nominator, she was a Playboy model under her real name and also did other photo shoots with other companies. Definitely notable under her real name, and probably even more notable than "Tiffany". Raaggio 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose based on her activities outside of the WWE.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 17:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Angel Williams → Angelina Love

 Done With a consensus of 6 editors I think we can make this move.--C23 C23's talk 13:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While we are at it, might as well move this due to common name. Won the Knockout Title in TNA three times. Only competed in one major promotion, that being TNA, in a major role. Simple common name move.--WillC 04:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Support--C23 C23's talk 13:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adam Copeland → Edge (wrestler)

 Done With no opposition and a consensus among 4 editors I think we can make this move--C23 C23's talk 13:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While wrestling under the name Sexton Haedcastle for some time in his Early Career he wasn't in a noteable company and therefore more people would no him for the name he's used for 12 years in the WWE, Edge.--C23 C23's talk 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Support has been Edge for as long as I can remember.--Steam Iron 17:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - Yeah, Edge is obviously his common name. Raaggio 20:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Tony2Times (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nelson Erazo → Homicide (wrestler)

 Done 4 editors, no opposition, and 1 week I think we can move to Homicide (wrestler).--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 04:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The bulk of his career has been as Homicide. He was the first FIP World Heavyweight Champion and one-half of the first PWG World Tag Team Champions as Homicide. He has also worked in ROH, PWG, FIP, TNA, etc as Homicide. Held the NWA and TNA World Tag, TNA X Division, and the ROH World Championship as Homicide. Simple common name move.--WillC 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scott Levy → Raven (wrestler)

 Done No opposition after 5 editors and 1 week we can make the move.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk04:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Must I explain this one? Out of all of his ring names, this one has been used in TNA, ROH, WWE/F, WCW, ECW, NWA, etc. Common name clearly imo.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jessica Kresa → ODB (wrestler) or O.D.B.

 Done Same situation as Raven 5 editors, 1 week, no opposition moving to ODB wrestler.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 04:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Worked in several promotions as ODB, and is a 3 time knockout champion. Simple common name move again.--WillC 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say ODB (wrestler) as ODB could just as easily, in fact more likely, mean Ol' Dirty Bastard. Also, most of the time I've seen the acronym without full stops. Tony2Times (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Support- Like Raven, there is no doubt this is her common name after using the ring name in various promotions. RaaGgio (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Glenn Jacobs → Kane (wrestler)

 Done Stop re-opening this discussion! It's already been moved.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 04:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He has used the name Kane since 1997 and for the whole time it was in the WWE so I don't think people would call him Glenn Jacobs.--C23 C23's talk 14:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- There is another man, Lane Huffman who is a retired professional wrestler billed under the name Kane. Raaggio 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but he only wrestled under that name for a few weeks this Kane has wrestled with it for 11 years.--C23 C23's talk 20:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Support for the reasons given by Curtis23. I'd like to point out that in Jacobs' only major film role, See No Evil, he is credited either as Kane or Glenn "Kane" Jacobs. As far as the argument that Stevie Ray wrestled briefly as Kane, I doubt anybody would read "Kane, the wrestler" and think it might mean Stevie Ray. It probably warrants a disambig link on Jacobs' page if it's moved to Kane (wrestler), but the association isn't nearly strong enough to prevent such a move. Jeff Silvers (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Support, Huffman can get a tophat as it's only two people so no disambig needed. Mr Jacobs has been Kane for 13 years, has held a World Title for sadly one glorious day, was a top carder during the first year of Attitude Era upturn and has been there ever since which by far outshines his real name and his two former gimmicks. Tony2Times (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
top hat? Raaggio 23:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what it's called but I thought I recalled someone calling it that. Those notes in italics at the beginning of an article that say "If you were searching for the wrestler who used the ring name Kane in World Championship Wrestling, see Lane Huffman."Tony2Times (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you mean {{about}}. So something like:
This page is about the WWE wrestler. For the WCW wrestler, see Lane Huffman.
In any case, I Support the move. –Turian (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Known under several other names, and, as already mentioned, there is another wrestler known as Kane. That would necessitate additional clarification in the qualifier—"Kane (WWE wrestler)" or something to that extent—at that point, I believe that there is a more natural way of identifying the subject—by his real name, or at the very least, by the misspelling that Wikipedia erroneously claims to be his real name. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • SupportThere is no doubt though that Kane is the name he's most known as, has worked under the longest and is identified as. Should Hulk Hogan not be listed at such because he wrestled as "Sterling Golden"? Don't think so, neither does WP:COMMON. As for Stevie Ray working as Kane for a bit and this "needs additional clarification" - that's bunk, it can be solved with a hat note. Stevie Ray wrestled as Kane for like six months maybe at the beginning of his WCW career, it'd be plenty with a hat note. MPJ -DK  05:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - truth be told he was known as other names before his Kane persona, but Isaac Ynakem DDS and Fake Diesel are really the closest to his common name and they obviously aren't going to be his article title. Afro (Blah Blah Here) - Afkatk 18:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Response No, it is certainly not "bunk". This very issue has been discussed on Wikipedia many times, and the consensus seems to be that a specific qualifier is required when a generic one would apply to more than one article. For example, there have been multiple movies named "Avatar". As you know, the most recent one is obviously the most successful and the one that most people would be searching for if they type in "Avatar (film)" or something similar. However, that is a redirect to a section of the "Avatar" disambiguation page because each Avatar film has a specific qualifier—Avatar (2009 film) for the most recent, which is not given preferential treatment over Avatar (2004 film), despite the facts that most readers will not have seen the latter and that the latter was released under a different name in several large markets. In a case like this, and with Kane (wrestler), one is certainly more well known, but Wikipedia policy on naming conventions supercedes a WP:PW-wide "IDONTLIKEIT" vote. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
There are two Brad Pitts, and the actor takes the article title because he is more famous and more well known. Just because something has a similar name does not mean that a disambiguation is necessary. A few months with a stint is not enough to force a disambiguation. IDONTLIKEIT and neither does Wikipedia. Funny, huh? –Turian (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yet another response: Yes, there are two Brad Pitts. Please note that one is an actor, and the other is a boxer. Therefore, your example is fundamentally flawed. If they were both actors, the example would work, but it would disprove what you are saying. Let's run with that idea...if both were actors, you could not give the lesser-known Brad Pitt the article title "Brad Pitt (actor)", since that would apply to both. Likewise, you could not give the more famous Brad Pitt the article title "Brad Pitt (actor)". At that point, just as with the "Kane (wrestler)" problem, further clarification would be necessary in the qualifier. Perhaps one would be "Brad Pitt (American actor)" and the other would be "Brad Pitt (Kenyan actor)". If both were American, a different form of clarification would be necessary. Perhaps "Brad Pitt (born 1963)" and "Brad Pitt (born 1981)". In the case at hand "Kane (WWE wrestler)" would be the most logical choice, as Jacobs spent his entire time as Kane with WWF/WWE, and Huffman was only Kane in WCW. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Huffman is most notable under that name. Jacobs is most notable under Kane. There is no other point to really even bring up. –Turian (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok Gary I added a possible move as Kane (WWE wrestler). Is that ok with you?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 00:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  • "Comment- I reopened the discussion. We can't go around closing discussions when opposition is clearly visible. I for one agree with Gary. Per WP:DISAMBIGUATION, if "an article title could refer to several things" than further disambiguation is necessary. This automatically rules out "Kane (wrestler)" as a possible name. RaaGgio (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The "There are two wrestlers known as Kane so it needs to be more specific" IS bunk, Stevie Ray was Kane for a very short time as part of Harlem Heat's first six to eight months in WCW, a hat note is more than sufficient - the "WWE Wrestler" would only be necessary if the other article shared a name, it does not - a hat note is more than sufficient and it allows the article to be at the much simpler name "Kane (wrestler)" with a note on top for the 1 in 3 million who may be looking for Stevie Ray after waking up from a 17-year long coma. Also see WP:DISAMBIGUATION, third point under "Deciding to disambiguate" it states "The page at Michael Dobbs is about the primary topic, and there is only one other use. The other use is linked directly using a hatnote; no disambiguation page is needed." and in the example the articles actually share names, this isn't even the case here. So I'm sorry but throwing the "Disambig" rules around actually supports the "Kane (wrestler)" with a hat note supporters.  MPJ -DK  03:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Then we're good. Just because two users oppose this doesn't mean a consensus can't be determined, especially when the opposition clearly is the minority. No one ever 100% agrees with everthing... and yet we still get a consensus. Done. --UnquestionableTruth-- 04:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
      • You do know that consensus and majority vote are completely different concepts, right? And that the purpose behind a consensus-building discussion is that it allow people to flesh out various ideas rather than just voting for the one they liked from the beginning. The whole purpose behind Wikipedia's policy on consensus is to avoid just what some people are trying to do...stifle debate just because they don't like the alternative viewpoint and/or the other editors involved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why can't people see that consensus is achieved. The page has already been moved. Just get over it.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 15:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry Fujiwara → Mr. Fuji

 Done Looks like we have a move to Mr. Fuji by conesnsus.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

--68.45.16.61 (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment and support if you make it Mr. Fuji (wrestler).--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk21:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - By stating that "Mr. Fuji (wrestler)" is his common name, are you saying that he is best known as a wrestler rather than as a manager? Since the part of his career with which people are most familiar was his time as a manager during the "Rock 'n' Wrestling" and "New Generation" periods, I believe that would require the article title "Mr. Fuji (professional wrestling)" for consistency with similar article titles. Personally, I dislike the "professional wrestling" qualifier. Perhaps even more importantly, these excessive move requests need to stop.GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Naofumi Yamamoto → Yoshi Tatsu

 Not done I think this is a pretty decisive oppose.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think it's time to change Naofumi to Yoshi.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dustin Rhodes → Goldust

 Not done This looks like a decisive oppose. No move.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 01:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Most common name.--68.45.16.61 (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Same as everyone else.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chris Parks → Abyss (wrestler)

 Done I think there is sufficient enough consensus to move.The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 20:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Held the NWA World Tag and NWA World Heavyweight under Abyss, and been using it in TNA and other promotions for several years now. Common name move.--WillC 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Mild Support, he apparently wrestled for 7 years before TNA under a variety of names. If someone showed me evidence suggesting he was at all notable for any of this work I might oppose or go neutral, in lieu of that I support. (and is there really no reliable source for his birth date?)Tony2Times (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rodney Anoa'i → Yokozuna (wrestler)

 Done 2 weeks and no opposition I think we can make this move.--Curtis23's Usalions 21:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That's the only name he's notable by.--68.45.16.61 (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

*Neutral Actually used name for 6 years while in AWA he used another name for 8 years. I know this doesn't always mean it's not common name but just putting it out.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support per Turco.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 17:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carly Colón → Carlito (wrestler)

 Done I think after looking at this I think consensus has been achieved even with GFC's oppose so I think we can make this move.--Curtis23's Usalions 21:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

--68.45.16.61 (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose per the reasons given in the last 3 unsuccessful move attempts. Now, there are better things to do than propose endless move requests. I encourage you to find them. This got old a couple of weeks ago. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per GFC.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - I live in Puerto Rico and ever since 2004-2005, Carlito has been using the name "Carlito" in Puerto Rico also. He has been wrestling for 5 years in WWE under this name and although he has recognition in WWC (a Puerto Rico promotion owned by his father) under his past ring name "Carly Colon", he has gone to win that same world title under "Carlito". WWE is the only internationally-recognized promotion that he has ever worked for and has ever only had this name (except his days as "Carlito Caribbean Cool"). Everyone, even in Puerto Rico, recognize him as "Carlito" and seldom realize he used to be called "Carly". Also, the last move discussion was closed via WP:SNOW because "the use of a qualifier" was discouraged. Obviously, nowadays we are paying much more attention to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:QUALIFIER which actually encourages qualifiers for articles so they can be under their common name. If the current project's mentality would have been more evident in the past, this move would have happened a long time ago. RaaGgio (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Change to Support per Raaggio.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 01:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support -- I know Carlito has wrestled in Puerto Rico under Carly Colon and Carlos Colon, but he has also (like Raaggio stated) worked in Puerto Rico under Carlito. In addition, he has gained more international exposure and promotion under the Carlito name (US/IC/Unified WWE Tag Team Champions).--Truco 503 00:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amy Dumas → Lita (wrestler)

 Not done 2 weeks of no support equals no move.--Curtis23's Usalions 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

--68.45.16.61 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TJ Wilson → Tyson Kidd and Harry Smith (wrestler) → David Hart Smith

 Not done It seems that after a week no one agrees with this move so there will be no move.--Curtis23's Usalions 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since their now Unified WWE Tag Team Champions, I think it's time for them to be called by their in-ring name.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WWE Raw episode number on the infobox

I added a template in WWE Raw that would update the number weekly. Does that cause a problem or is it okay? Raaggio 04:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool with that, that template will help alot of our articles.--WillC 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm just saying two words "dog show" - according to the counter Raw has never been preempted even once since 1993? I do believe the USA network has done it in the past. Just saying that this may not be accurate.  MPJ -DK  05:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that's been taken care of. The show's start date was January 11 while the template's start date is May 24, essentially excluding any week when the show was pre-empted and giving us the correct value. If another occasion happens in the future, all we'd have to do is adjust the template's start date to May 31, etc. --  Θakster   09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I have just realised a potential problem with using an automated template though. The template adds another episode to the count right on midnight of the Monday rather than the actual airtime hours later, which goes against WP:CRYSTAL in that it assumes an episode would be aired that night no matter what, when a last minute cancellation could very happen. --  Θakster   10:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Crap, I also forgot that Wikipedia uses UTC so Raw technically ends at 3:00am Tuesday. I will change the template to change on Tuesday, but there are still three hours of apparent WP:CBALL violation. Hmmm what to do... what to do Raaggio 01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an occassion where we should ignore the rule.--WillC 03:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I think ignoring the rule would be best; is there no code to allow you to choose a specific time of day when it changes? Tony2Times (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I searched for it thoroughly. If it exists, it is buried in the deep vowels of Wikipedia. RaaGgio (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Just in case we don't find one, I've just made a modified version of Template:Age in weeks in my sandbox, which includes time. So for instance typing in {{User:Oakster/Sandbox 3|month1=05|day1=25|year1=1993|hour1=01|minute1=00}} should give at an hour before tonight's Raw start 880 and an hour after Raw's start 881. Now all I need is a decent name for the template for general use within Wikipedia. --  Θakster   19:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Template:Age in weeks2 would suffice. RaaGgio (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, it's at Template:Age in weeks 2 then. Hope this helps. --  Θakster   08:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

SmackDown moving to Syfy

According to the LA Times [15]. --UnquestionableTruth-- 03:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Woo, I'll finally get to see it; here in Puerto Rico, there's no MyTV. Add it to the article, LA Times is a WP:RS. RaaGgio (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe WWE can steal me back from TNA now, after they destroyed the Knockouts division, among other things, I have very little inclination to watch. (This goes to notability). Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought it was time for something that was not related to moving articles and not related to the WWE... so the the four of you that are still reading after that ;) I have begun expanding the January 4 Dome Show article with the table format for results and actually doing more than just listing the results. I started with the 1997 event cause I found a Power Slam magazine covering it and had lots of input and I plan on expanding others as well. But there are 19 shows all together, I was hoping that maybe someone else would pitch in with the article? Maybe a "common non-WWE collaboration" type of thing.  MPJ -DK  07:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm game, the last two events have featured TNA, so their Global Impact! DVD may have some usful information.--WillC 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Million Dollar Championship reactivation

Edits to Ted DiBiase, Jr., Million Dollar Championship, and List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment that reflect Ted, Jr.'s status as the current Million Dollar Champion (as of April 5) have been reverted on the basis that he might just be appearing with the belt as a prop. That said, Jerry Lawler actually referred to DiBiase as the current champion on that edition of Raw; he listed the previous champions (Ted, Sr., Austin, and Virgil), then said "and now, Ted DiBiase". Given the "unsanctioned" nature of the Million Dollar Championship it's unlikely we'll see a title history appear on WWE.com, so isn't a WWE employee actually calling DiBiase the champion a good enough reference? Jeff Silvers (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff and was gonna make the same point. It's an unsanctioned championship so WWE won't list him as champion, they don't list Austin or Virgil either and the commentators said he was the holder of it. Tony2Times (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"show off his father's Million Dollar Championship, which he brought with him to the ring" Really doesn't sound like WWE consider him to be the champion to me. Also, I looked up that segment on youtube again to remind myself of what the commentators said. Neither Cole nor Lawler said he was the current champion - they both said he got the championship from his father and went on to list the other champions. Jr never called himself the champion either. I've searched all the reliable sources for Raw results and they all just say he brought the belt out to the ring and cut a promo on his dad. No mention of him being the Million Dollar Champion. We can't add it without a source. Saying he's the champion is pure WP:OR and speculation on our part. In my opinion the obvious thing to do is wait and see if the situation is clarified next week on Raw. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You have me convinced. :D RaaGgio (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
unsanctioned? Really? The company has to agree for a title belt to appear on their broadcast. It isn't owned by WWE persay, but it certainly isn't a non-recognized title by WWE. Unsanctioned titles don't really exist. It is just a storyline.--WillC 03:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It's just a storyline. –Turian (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
So is anyone winning any championship in wrestling and in storyline this championship is unsanctioned. Just like the Intergender Tag Team Championship wasn't really unsanctioned by ROH but in storyline it was and guess what: it isn't on their title history. Tony2Times (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ted Junior's WWE bio is now listing the Million Dollar Championship as a career highlight; is this sufficient to source articles with? Tony2Times (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, in my opinion, yes. But I want to know what Nici has to say first. RaaGgio (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I wanted to hear from Nici too, save on reverts. Tony2Times (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
So is thing active or what?--UnquestionableTruth-- 01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I say it is active. If he is credited with a reign in his bio on WWE.com. Then that would make it official.--WillC 02:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I was hoping to hear from Nici but she might forget she posted her so I'm gonna go ahead and start sourcing it, hope no-one minds. Tony2Times (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm cool with it, I already updated the table.--WillC 09:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles

This list is now active. There are currently 110 Unreferenced Professional wrestling articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of all PPV events

Is the time line really needed Timeline of all PPV events Is sloppy and hard to read is it really necessary.--Steam Iron 05:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I feel it would be better in a list of all WWE PPVs. The table can be redone. I believe it was placed in there by a novice user or ip. List of WWE pay-per-view events really should be turned into a prose article imo.--WillC 05:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean?--Steam Iron 05:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That we create a List of WWE monthly pay-per-view events and move the above article to World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-view event titles. Then turn the above article into an article about the history of ppvs, and not a schedule. An actual article, rather than a list. The timeline can be placed in the new list. See the rough draft of what I'm talking about being done with TNA: Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-view event titles and List of TNA monthly pay-per-view events.--WillC 21:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That could be a good idea so one would be about the monthly events then the next one would be about all the ppv's WWE has ever held right?--Steam Iron 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
If the first one is an article, the second one is unnecessary, IMO. RaaGgio (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly, the second is alot like an episode list that tv shows have. Instead swtiched with PPVs, while the main article is history of event titles. See TNA Bound for Glory for an example to a degree.--WillC 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Still seems like a list to me; just one full of list cruft. RaaGgio (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
If a list of that nature is listcruft, then that means that plenty of lists over events and episodes would have been deleted for the same reason. Also, the list can be completed and fully sourced so right there establishes a bit of notability. List of WWE pay-per-view events would classify as listcruft and any lists of held events in any title article would aswell. The only difference, is that the proposed list would list every PPV event ever held by WWE.--WillC 04:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we figure some thing out for this page as some thing needs to be done as IP's are going nuts with this page--Steam Iron 18:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Get that page protected. There is no one around to expand it at the moment.--WillC 18:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Our featured topic, List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment' title is misleading. Its title infers that the encompassing articles would be the bios of the champions themselves. Instead, it encompasses the championship histories. I think a change is needed. Any thoughts? RaaGgio (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

List of current WWE Championships or List of current championships in World Wrestling Entertainment?--Truco 503 19:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we nominate...

... List of WWE Divas Champions for FL so we can complete the featured topic? RaaGgio (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it has to be at least 10 champions. I would have nominated it already if it was doable.--WillC 17:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Why does it have to be at least 10 champions? RaaGgio (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Lists have to be so long before they can reach an FL. People oppose all the time because lists are too short. Nikki♥311 02:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think thats bologna. I think Seven title reigns and one "Vacated" are enough to deem it necessary. If the title is retired right now, the list doesn't have a chance at FL because there were 3 less reigns then the social norm? If this was decided by consensus, I gladly challenge it, because I believe that we should focus on QUALITY not QUANTITY. RaaGgio (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I nominated an article with 9 reigns before, it failed. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIP World Heavyweight Champions/archive1. It isn't ready to be nominated. It really isn't a list. Just a group at the moment. If anything, it should be merged back with the main article due to a discussion last year that said lists can't be broken off until 10 reigns.--WillC 05:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
In addition - not all the sources are reliable third party sources either, with a WWE title that should definitly be a very strict requirement.  MPJ -DK  17:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Active members list

Guys, add yourselves to the "Active members" list. It will eventually appear in the newsletter for all the others who don't participate much at WP:PW. RaaGgio (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You got to remember that not everyone will be able to place themselves on this list. Not everyone visits WP on a daily basis and not everyone receives the newsletter. Question: With this, will the non-active members just be erased from WP:PW history?--Truco 503 19:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
No, this is the same thing as last year's. The normal list will stay the same while the "Active" list will be just a survey of how many people are contributing to WP:PW at this time. All the members who don't check WT:PW and also don't receive the newsletter don't seem like they are contributing "as members of WP:PW". RaaGgio (talk)

Titles

Okay, I'm not sure who knows this, but I just wanted to inform everyone, that just a few days ago we completed our second group of raised level championships. The first group was all the current TNA Titles. Those were all raised to GA status, and are the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, TNA X Division Championship, TNA Global Championship, TNA World Tag Team Championship, TNA Women's Knockout Championship, and the TNA Knockout Tag Team Championship. Also all but one TNA list is FL, due to it being one reign short..hopefully that won't be a problem soon. The FL lists are List of TNA X Division Champions, List of TNA World Tag Team Champions, and List of TNA Women's Knockout Champions. List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions is the only current title list that is not FL. The second group of current titles that have been raised are the New Japan Pro Wrestling titles. The IWGP Heavyweight Championship was already FL, while the IWGP Tag Team Championship, IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship, and the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship were all raised to FL.--WillC 07:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What's with the hectic moves?

So I'm gone for a couple of weeks and hell blew over the project. Can someone explain why there is a 'recreation' of the WP:PW/ANC on this talk page? --Truco 503 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, basically, that id Will's, C23's and my fault. I added 5 one day, MPJ-DK added some the next day, C23 added 6 two days later, then Will added 6 more three days after that. Don't worry, it will stop soon, because most articles are in their correct place. RaaGgio (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it was just a case of someone suggested one and then a bunch of people thought of ones they'd wanted to change for a while but didn't want to bring up. Tony2Times (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a symptom of a project that has lost its way. If history has taught us anything, someone will be proposing a new color scheme for the project page within a week. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not like if it hurts the project, Gary. Moving pages to their common name only improves the articles. And no one has proposed a new color scheme in like two years. I like this one though; remember when it was bright orange? That was freaking blinding. RaaGgio (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The appearance of the project should be the least of matters, but anywho. I'm guessing qualifiers are now approved?--Truco 503 03:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Since when were they not? WP:COMMONNAME & WP:QUALIFIER have been around for years. O.o RaaGgio (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I think not having qualifiers was a trend at one point. I remember a few years back Sting was moved to Steve Borden for that reason though if this is no longer a trend it may make sense to propose another move since Sting is clearly the common name.--76.69.169.96 (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I remember that trend; I always disagreed with it. Yeah, I am sure Sting (wrestler) would be the appropriate title for him too; it is clearly his common name. I have actually noticed that with the maturing of WP:PW, the editors have been more inclined to follow the guidelines established (like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS) instead of trying to create "trends" for themselves. Things have become much more cool because of it too. RaaGgio (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sadly I was the one who got it moved to Steve Borden for the wrong reasons. I'm for a move back. And weirdly, I was just thinking of a way to redesign WP:PW so it would be more efficient, but it was only a small thought. Ironic I guess.--WillC 08:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Split Shad and JTG

Since Cryme Tyme is now split up, it's time for Shad and JTG to have separate pages instead of using the tag team page. Does anyone agree?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder I feel ya but it's just like this.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 19:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

TfD: Wrestling PPVs

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 14#Template:Wrestling PPVs--UnquestionableTruth-- 22:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Team LayCool, should it exist?

Team Lay-Cool was created a while back, firstly I don't know if it's worthy of an article but I can see both sides of the argument so if anyone else feels more strongly than speak and be heard. Secondly, if we do keep it it needs some subediting en masse for almost every issue you could think of from grammar to references. Tony2Times (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I tagged it with CSD7 and CSD10. No indication of important, and duplicate of existing articles. There isn't much information to significantly differentiate from Michelle McCool and Layla El. If they stay together post-draft, they might have enough information in a few months. However, until then, it should be prodded. RaaGgio (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah my thoughts are similar. Tony2Times (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Apparently not everyone agrees as the speedy tag(s) have been removed, FYI.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry what? How come no one reverted that? The article met the criteria. No one has to "agree" to follow WP:CSD policy. RaaGgio (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of it the tag was removed by an ip so just re add the A10 tag.--Steam Iron 00:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm the admin that declined the speedy. Feel free to use PROD or AFD on the article, but it doesn't meet A7. A7 means that the article makes no believable claim to importance whatsoever, and that just doesn't apply here.—Kww(talk) 05:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, if you're so sure of yourself that you come here writing out orders instead of promoting discussion, where does the article claim importance?RaaGgio (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you saw my statement as "writing out orders". Part of the CSD process is that an admin eventually removes either the article or the tag: in this case, I removed the tag. The article claims that Team Lay-Cool is part of a notable franchise, the WWE. It claimed that one of its members, Michelle McCool, is current champion of the WWE. That's enough to rise above A7. A7 is intentionally an extremely low bar, intended to weed out articles like "Billy Bob is my neighbor, and he can crack walnuts with his bare hands". An article can fail to meet every notability guideline and still not be bad enough to be deleted under A7.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the slight attitude in my last post, I know you didn't remove the tag to stir up a problem or anything like that; I'm sorry. But I am pretty sure somewhere around notability guidelines, it says that "notability isn't transferable". If the only thing to assume importance is that they work for a notable company, is pretty much out of line and the individual success of one of them is also irrelevant. Her individual success doesn't transfer to the notability of the tag team. Her team has done nothing of notability and hardly even work tag team matches. Lay-Cool is more of a gimmick that hasn't done much and the article fails to point out "why the team in itself is notable" instead of just saying they work for WWE (which would make any referee or make-shift tag team notable). RaaGgio (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand that they aren't notable. A lot of people have tried to make failing notability guidelines a CSD category, and there has never been consensus to do so. I can see both sides: it might be simpler to avoid AFD altogether in more cases, but I'm glad that I'm not expected to have every notability guideline memorized, and suspect that there would be a lot of mistakes if admins were expected to do so.—Kww(talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd Annual Extreme Rules

I brought this up on the talk page for Extreme Rules, but it was ignored. This year's Extreme Rules pay-per-view is the "second annual" event under that name. It does not carry the lineage of One Night Stand per official WWE sources (WWE Magazine, WWE.com, etc). The two events need to have their articles separated. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment The two events do NOT share the same history. Doesn't matter where the term originated. From WWE.com's Extreme Rules Page: "Check out all the action from the first-ever Extreme Rules pay-per-view held in 2009." WWE Magazine also calls it the "second annual" AND Michael Cole has said it on tv. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment You're right, at the time, I was the one who pointed it out. I was going by the information that was available at the time. BUT, the facts have changed and WWE no longer considers the two events to be the same. There are multiple sources that state Extreme Rules is a separate event vs. the one source that was available then. WWE.com's Extreme Rules page directly states that last year's event was the "first-ever."Wwehurricane1 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with WWEhurricane1. A split is in order; the histories are different. RaaGgio (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
As do I. Time to split. Wikipedia editors don't control the history of WWE. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Split is necessary.--Truco 503 03:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

FCW needs cleanup!

I've just seen FCW's wikipage, and it appears to be vandalised by more than one user. Can someone come over to the FCW page, fix it and then protect it?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Questionable content in WWE article and History of WWE article

Over the past few days I've been arguing with User:Screwball23 over a certain section he added to World Wrestling Entertainment as well asHistory of World Wrestling Entertainment. (edit to WWE and edit to History of WWE) If you take a moment to read over the section you might find a similar problem.

The section is cited by acorn-online.com, ifight365.com, sescoops.com, wrestling-radio.com, and hollywoodreporter.com However I don't think Screwball123 fully understands what is wrong with the edits. I also don't think the user understands what's in the refs. First of all my main concern is with the term "PG Era" - a (as the user put it) fan coined term - No where in the reliable sources which do not include wrestling_radio.com ifight365.com or sescoops.com is the term used. You and I both know and cannot deny that the term is only used within the IWC. The use of the term as an official term for this "supposed" era - "supposed" is in quotation marks as I'll explain right now - I believe is Original Research. What this simply is to WWE as the reliable references cited is a simple change in programming. Finally TNA is irrelevant to the subject of the history of WWE. So how can a mention of TNA be warranted in the article? You are not going to find heavily weighed notes of other subjects in a an article of a single subject unless it is relevant to both subjects. You can argue that the subject of WWE may be relevant to TNA but it certainly isn't the other way around. Even then, the TNA articles make no mention of WWE. This "supposed" - again in quotation marks - Monday Night Wars II is original research.

I wanted to take this to the project to see what others thought and get a third opinion. --UnquestionableTruth-- 21:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)'

I definitely agree with you; he obviously has not read the WP:PW MoS and does not fully understand what is wrong with his edits. He has accused you of WP:OWN and of jealousy, but the fact of the matter is he is way out of line with his edits. This user has been editing since 2005 and is apparently well-informed with the workings of Wikipedia so he should know about avoiding a "battleground" mentality and ofWP:CIVIL (insinuating WP:OWN without assuming good faith is uncivil). Revert his edits, and if the need to revert a second time, you should post about him in WP:ANI; I feel he was a bit offensive with his post on your talk page. RaaGgio (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well I wasn't really taking offense to any of his remarks. Just brushed them off as... well nothing. I was simply questioning the content. What do you think though? --UnquestionableTruth-- 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
TNA has no need for mentioning in the article nor does fan-made terms. However, a mention of "change to PG" is notable, a whole section about "PG era" is absurd. There is no such thing as an "Era" in WWE unless WWE says there is (Attitude Era is only called that way because WWE calls it like that). His content he wants to add violates WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RL (and also violates the MoS). Revert his edits, but I have a hunch that he'll either edit war with you or make another offensive remark on your talk page which is why I said "if the problem persists", report him to ANI. RaaGgio (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You guys can cite policies all you want, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the edits. TNA is in an ongoing competitive ratings war with WWE over ratings, and there has been a change to PG. That is significant history for the WWE. Whether the term "PG Era" is fan-coined or WWE-made is not relevant; as far as I am concerned, the term "Change to PG" would be an adequate headline for the section. The links may not be as good as ones from the NY Times or Washington Post, but they still have first-person interviews with Vince McMahon. If it's coming from the Chairman, it is pretty reliable info. Vince lays out a clear direction his company has taken in avoiding vulgar, bloody action in the WWE, compares WWE to Disney, and calls WWE Entertainment a family-friendly affair. I even checked WWE.com and there are links stating there has a PG change[16][17], so 3Bullet16's argument that WWE needs to acknowledge it for it to be true is also defeated.

The competition with TNA is significant, and if you check TNA iMPACT!, you will see its move to Monday nights was documented on Wikipedia. The fact that Vince responded to TNA's competition by saying it was in a separate niche further solidifies the PG change, and Vince's quote is informative in that regard. I might remind you that there is no rule, contrary to 3Bullet16, saying that TNA can't mention WWE and WWE can't mention TNA.

I still firmly believe there is some ownership issue here. My edits were constantly reverted from the get-go. First, 3Bullet16's story was that I had no sources, then I reverted and told him to read them. Then he finally reads them and says the term is a fan's term and the word PG Era is not in the articles, so the entire section has to go. He tries to give me the runaround by telling me to post on this talk page, while he was the only person who wanted this material reverted. Every single argument he pulls is changing, and I know it's an ownership issue, and not the material. I'm reverting it again, because I know what I am doing is right, and it certainly does follow the rules of the MoS. --Screwball23 talk 17:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as the TNA thing goes, you do know that there are hundreds of channels that broadcast at the same time as USA broadcasts Raw, right? You also know that many of them have the same demographic as WWE Raw and compete for ratings with it... No article cites their competition unless their competition has directly affected the status of the subject. In this case, TNA has not affected WWE in any way: ratings are the same, the direction is the same, the quality is the same and the overall product is the same. TNA has had as much effect on WWE as Heroes (both broadcast at the same time and aimed at similar demographic). There is no "rule" that prohibits mentioning of TNA in the WWE article, but there also is no rule of the mentioning of "Heroes", "bologna", and "Kim Kardashian". Just because there is "no rule" doesn't mean its warranted in the article. Mentioning of TNA is cruft and stating it has effected WWE in any way is OR. The company's new direction is notable, but the problem is the terms you utilized in the article (like "PG era"). That is out of line. It is a fan-coined term and not an official one, however, the general change from TV-14 to TV-PG is notable (but only as an anecdote not as a whole section). RaaGgio (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The change in programming is noted (World Wrestling Entertainment#WWE Universe and change in programming)--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Why you think you have the authority to put the PG change as an anecdote and not a subsection is another ownership issue, and this change in direction is more than significant enough to put separately. The competition with TNA has tons of references, and if you look at TNA iMPACT!, you will see the time slot change is noted.--Screwball23 talk15:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it may be referenced but it has no place in the WWE article. TNA and WWE are separate entities with no relevance except that they both broadcast professional wrestling; there is no place for TNA inside a WWE article regardless the reliable sources. You are also accusing me of WP:OWN when I don't even edit this article? Your accusations are out of line (and frankly uncivil) and you are a blatant personification ofWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is a consensus among community members, stop ignoring it. RaaGgio (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no real consensus here. It's just you, unquestionable truth and 3bullet16 reverting good edits. Again and again, the pg era surfaces in news articles on wwe. I can see you want to take ownership of this issue, but you are fighting for nothing. Seriously, I want to add a subsection with references explaining the family-friendly shift in the WWE. McMahon has stated that the wwe is family-friendly nowadays, and has given interviews describing WWE and TNA in different niches of wrestling. And this nonsense argument that the WWE has never used the term, therefore it can't be used is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a collection of press releases and it seems like that is what you would need here. A press release by the wwe stating "THE WWE OFFICIALLY IS IN THE PG ERA!" just isn't going to be there. It's been a shift in programming, and it reflects a changing audience in WWE. Tell me, did the WWF coin the 'Attitude Era'? Did they coin the term 'Montreal Screwjob'?--Screwball23talk 20:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have not reverted any edits, I don't know why you continue with these accusations. Ownership of the article? I haven't even viewed the article for months before this thread popped up here in WT:PW. Why do you keep with the accusations? (Read WP:ACCUSE) Everyone here has assumed good faith except you; Bulletproof and I are conscious that you don't see the problem with your edits and are just trying to help you out. As for the article, No, WWE didn't coin them, but they now refer to the eras as such. If they give this era a name, then the name will be notable. For now, its post-Attitude era. And this era didn't begin with the PG-change; this "Era" begun some time ago maybe when Cena won the title. Itsspeculation to determine where it started and what its called as WWE hasn't stated anything of the matter. And frankly, it doesn't matter: You don't need to name it to write about it. You want to help? Write without being trivial and crufty. And there is a consensus in the WP:PW MoS on how to write in wrestling articles: Read it. As for content, if you just want to help, then I'd recommend finding something else to add to the article or just edit another article of interest. There are many articles that need improvement including all the PPV articles. You seem to be a WWE fan, go start writing and improving articles instead of lame edit warring; I'm sure you will be good at it. RaaGgio (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving concern

As we have recently discussed, discussions are archived automatically after they have been inactive for 7 days. Because the name change proposals have all been made into subsections, however, none of them will be archived automatically as long as any one of the discussions is ongoing. I would recommend that similar situations in the future not be handled in this manner (over a dozen subsections for separate topics). As it stands now, I think it is time to look over all of the discussions that have not had a response in 7 days and determine whether or not consensus has been reached. My impressions are that: Chris Parks has achieved consensus to be moved; Shawn Hernandez hasn't received sufficient replies to indicate a consensus and should remain at its current location; Rey Mysterio, Jr. and Sr. do not have a clear consensus to move; Naofumi Yamamoto has not received sufficient support to be moved; Darren Matthews is close—I would say it isn't clear consensus to move, but I have commented in that discussion and can't honestly say that I could close it in a neutral manner. All other discussions (including Dustin Rhodes) have received comments in the past 7 days and should not be archived yet. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think its that big a deal. I planned on manually archiving the ones that were closed like I did the others. RaaGgio (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I archived Yamamoto's, Rhodes', Shantelle's and Fuji's. There are only a few left and it seems like the people have stopped proposing moves to all is good with the world again. RaaGgio (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The Dustin Rhodes discussion was still active, as there had been a reply within the last 7 days. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. But conveniently, as of today, it would have been more than 7 days old. RaaGgio (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I closed the Chris Parks move.The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 20:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Frederick Sampson or Frederick Rosser?

Darren Young (wrestler) aka Fred Sampson, the start of the article seems unclear, there are a few names and you don't know what his real first name is and Online World of Wrestling is an unreliable source. I know his main ring alias was Fred Sampson and that's the name he wrestled as during his matches in 2005-06 for WWE. But other than that, seems very unclear. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WHC TITLE

Some one has moved the page can someone take a look.--Steam Iron 18:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Which one?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

the user has moved two of the championship titles Listed below--Steam Iron 18:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a TNA fan got a hold on them and has also disguised him/herself to be a WWE fan(that's just my theory).--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Luckily the user barely made any severe damage as I've been able to move them back to their old places. Problem solved. --  Θakster   19:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok Thanks I Would have done it but i was afraid i would mess some thing up.--Steam Iron 19:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. --  Θakster   19:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_76&oldid=1190135413"