Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 80

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82→Archive 85

What Happened to Ashley Valance?

What happened to NXT's second host, Ashley Valance? Did the WWE sent her to FCW to work on something, or did she get fired like Savannah?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about A.J.

Is it "A.J." or "A. J."? A user think "A. J." is correct when we all know that "A.J." looks correct. So, which one is it?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If only you guys went Commonwealth and dropped the fullstops altogether; it's A.J. as well documented on her profile whereas on FCW's roster there's no full stops but still no space. Before this she was Miss April Lee so those are the only two sources that matter. Tony2Times (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Women's Title situation

Okay, I've noticed alot of edits saying the WWE Women's Championship has been retired. However no source has been presented for this other then that the unified title history directs to the Divas Championship. The Women's Title is not listed in the retired section of WWE's site. The WCW, ECW, ECW Tag, ECW TV, European, Light Heavyweight, Cruiserweight, and the World Tag are the only ones listed. Using the Divas Championship History link as a source is incorrect since it isn't covering the information stated and like with the Tag Titles (the world tag was listed but ended up being retired) the divas title could end up being retired instead. I feel the situation should be handled like the tag title situation until one of them is moved to the retired section. However there is no end for a Unifed WWE Divas Championship page imo.--WillC 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, who said every title under the line means its retired? That's OR. And as for the title, yeah, I don't think its retired. Layla is champ. Feedback ☎ 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
What line? The line on WWE.com in the title history section that says "Retired Titles"?--WillC 03:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It's official, the Women's Championship has indeed been retired and Layla is considered the last-ever Women's Champion. Hope this helps. -- Θakster  10:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
That is a problem since it is listed under Unified Divas Championship on WWE.com. That article also never comes out and says "Women's Title is retired".--WillC 17:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the whole WWE.com feature has a gallery in which you're are asked to "pay your respects to" the Women's title and has an interview showing McCool's regret in holding the Divas title over the Women's title implies that they have indeed dropped the Women's title. The simple fact that Layla is declared the "last-ever" Women's Champion in the gallery solidifies the whole situation to me. And as for the title history section, only the Diva's title section features the new "Unified Divas Championship" header while the Women's title section simply has "Women's Championship" as its header. -- Θakster  20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We need to establish some form of consensus on this matter. That implies the title is retired, however the title is technically still alive in the Unified Divas Title which is the female equivalent to the tag titles. Add on that on the history section of wwe.com it still isn't listed under retired, and the history link is under the Unified Divas Title. In my view the title is still alive, with Layla being the last champion. However, McCool is the Divas Champion. Together they are the Unified Divas Champions, since in storyline they are co-champions of both titles. If we do anything, the facts should be stated. That the title is not listed under retired, but according to the gallery Layla is the last champion.--WillC 05:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is no one going to discuss this?--WillC 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, does anyone have anything to say?--WillC 20:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The Women's title is retired... let it gooooooooooo--UnquestionableTruth-- 21:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
easiest way to deal with it, can you find a reputable source that says the womens title has been retired? If yes, then it goes in the article as retired. We don't need to wait for WWE to set it in stone. Verifiability, not truth. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean Unquestionable TRUTH?
"May 14, 2010 - Sept. 19, 2010" What's more reliable than Layla's title reign page? Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 19:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
um, I don't know what the heck that page is talking about, but ANYWAY! We need to start relying on third party references over wwe.com references. Unless of course we want to admit that the ECW championship was not a World title... What were you trying to sat Bulletproof? Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I think he was punning on his name. It tickled me anyways. Layla's title reign page having a final date and there being no new reign means the title is inactive, if not retired. Elsewhere she's called the last champion. Are we seriously still discussing this? Isn't there an article name change that needs our attention? Tony2Times (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd say be WP:BOLD and do it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
What article name change? The Women's title and Diva's title pages can stay where they are... Why do they need to be moved? Feedback ☎ 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I take it you didn't understand the joke. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 12:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I get it. Its an outdated joke, the "Holy shit so many moves" era of WT:PW ended a few months ago. Feedback ☎ 22:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree finally. The title is inactive. It hasn't moved to the retired section yet, but it is inactive at this time.--WillC 17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WrestleMania (1985)

I know the event was originally called "WrestleMania", but we have to look past that. I firmly believe that per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be placed at WrestleMania I. Not only is it consistent with the other articles (thats part of the common name criteria), its also the name by which everyone calls it today, and thats what is important here. Most don't ever refer to the event as just WrestleMania, they always say "WrestleMania I". The even WWE.com refers to the show as WrestleMania I. So what do you guys think? Feedback ☎ 03:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think calling it WrestleMania I might be a bad idea, since most people call it "The Very First WrestleMania".--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well the article already says "(chronologically known as WrestleMania I)." Maybe we should follow the Super Bowl I article format. The name of the article is "Super Bowl I" but the lead makes note of the game's original name and then reads "later known as Super Bowl I." Its up to you guys.--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure why not, the navigation box at the bottom reads I already. Tony2Times (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This just doesn't matter. Who cares what it's called? If people can find it easily, it's just fine. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, you care A LOT to always be commenting in move discussions. You don't care, just ignore it. Keep doing whatever else you want to do. Feedback ☎ 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont see a problem with this.--Steam Iron 23:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Sooo we agree to move it then?--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I vote for it to be moved, if only for consistency's sake. Whose Your Guy (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead with the move after seeing the clear consensus here. Opposition to the move is still welcomed. Feedback ☎ 16:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE BIG TIME Discussing this on here as opposed to discussing this on the articles talk page probably kept people from knowing that this was going on.--Nascarking 02:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The official name for the event was WrestleMania not WrestleMania I. We go by WrestleMania (1985) because WrestleMania is used to list the history of WrestleMania.--Nascarking 16:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Note the Super Bowl I article. While the official name of the game at the time was "AFL-NFL World Championship Game" per WP:COMMONNAME and because it later became known as Super Bowl I, the article's name is Super Bowl I. --UnquestionableTruth-- 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
they didn't coin the term Superbowl until the 3 Super Bowl. And Super Bowl's I and II are not referred to as that by the NFL. They were referred to as the AFL-NFL Championship Game.--Nascarking 17:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh no they are indeed referred to as Super Bowl by the NFL. [1] As is WrestleMania I by WWE [2]--UnquestionableTruth-- 17:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it didn't become the Super Bowl until Super Bowl III and why are we talking about the Super Bowl on the project talk page wasn't this about what to make WrestleMania (1985)?--Nascarking 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Because I am applying that example to this situation as both are similar cases. Try not to be so narrow minded. The Super Bowl situation shows how WP:COMMONNAME is being applied and it is something that should be done with WrestleMania. It doesn't make any difference whether the AFL-NFL World Championship Game became known as the Super Bowl at Super Bowl II or Super Bowl III. The fact that the games are now commonly known as the Super Bowl is all that matters. Same thing with the first WestleMania being commonly known as WrestleMania I. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we believe the page is at its proper place.--UnquestionableTruth-- 18:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your right besides I'd rather not get into a lengthy discussion like what happened with WrestleMania XXV.--Nascarking 18:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on change in policy

This whole pointless debate on whether to delete Survivor Series (2010) or Keep It has gone to a stalemate. No matter how this turns out I'm starting to think we may have to change our policy on when we start PPV Articles. The next one that's up to be started is Tables Ladders & Chairs: TLC (2010) which is currently in redirect but judging from the Survivor Series (2010) battle this may carry over to further PPV articles. I suggest we start bringing up articles 5 to 6 weeks before the event so we can avoid this Survivor Series Debate again.--Nascarking 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I agree Nas. But, how about starting them right after the last PPV ends?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The event should be started as soon as there are reliable third party sources that say its scheduled to happen. Cue a lot of users telling me Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and that the schedule can change and all the yada yada. I have my reply to that. We would be creating these articles for PPVs that are indeed scheduled to happen so its not C-Balling (and that's what the article say: scheduled). And yes, the schedule is changeable, but Wikipedia is changeable also. Survivor Series changes its name to WWE Extreme Pillow Fight, well, we can move the article when that happens. Wikipedia is editable 24/7 so whenever a reliable source comes up with a change in schedule, the articles can reflect that. Keep in mind that the schedule can even change a day before. John Cena could pass away the day before Bragging Rights and WWE cancels the event. That's a very extreme situation, but its just an example of how anything can happen at any time and how Wikipedia's live-editing system is prepared for that. By having all the articles created for scheduled for all the scheduled PPV events, these debates won't arise. Feedback ☎ 20:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mikey what PPV are you referring to because if it's a TNA PPV then I don't know when they happens, I don't follow TNA. I only follow WWE. So are you referring to TLC (2010)?--Nascarking 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Feedback, I think personally if we can prove they're scheduled to take place through the arena website, wwe.com and ppv providers then that'd be enough grounds to keep them until a third party website comes along, like PWTorch or WrestleView. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 15:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Afro that's what we've been doing but they won't accept it. American Airlines Arena and Ticketmaster.com are selling tickets for the event how is that not more than enough for now?!--Nascarking 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What to do about the Survivor Series (2010) Situation

The debate has gotten into a stalemate and neither side is making any progress but at this point I'm about out of ammo and if I don't get anything done soon we can't save the article. At this point I'm trying to work on a compromise that we have the article redirected to the Main Survivor Series article until the the 1st RAW after Bragging Rights (2010), Because usually someone is announced the #1 Contender for the WWE Championship that very 1st Raw. If someone can give me something that can give us what we need to prevent the article from being deleted please tell me NOW because I don't want to have the article deleted. I'd settle for a redirect as long as it's to an article we know and for only 2 or 3 weeks. But if we can keep the article from being deleted without the redirect option tell me NOW because time is running out.--Nascarking 21:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just don't delete it? Keep it as a stub with the generic lead section and scheduling info and when the creative build-up begins, you can start writing the background section. Feedback ☎ 21:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Read the deletion debate and see what the whole argument is about. I think is has something to do with the fact that we have no Independent Sources. Even though we have sources that keep it running for right now, and our independents don't start running till about 3 weeks till Survivor Series.--Nascarking 22:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are making this into a much bigger deal than it is. If it gets deleted or redirected, it can be remade at a later date when more sources are available. The world isn't over. Nikki♥311 05:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the world isn't over. Those guys at the deletion debate should learn that. Its so stupid they want to delete an article that is going to begin expansion in only a few weeks. But I guess its not the desire to have it deleted thats driving them... The fact that they caused something to happen on Wikipedia gets their adrenaline running, because they don't experience that level of control in their lives. So, to them, congratulations, you got an article deleted. Good job. Masturbate to the idea of control. Its going to come back up in a few weeks and it WILL become an FA and when that happens, I hope that Nascar informs them on their talk page so they can see how fucking productive deleting the article went. Feedback ☎ 05:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
But that's just it, why should the article have to be deleted if it's gonna start expanding in less than 3 weeks. I can settle for a redirect on the article but will not let the page be deleted.--Nascarking 16:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Page that needs deleting

"Dashing" Cody Rhodes & Drew McIntyre - Does this really warrant having its own article? Maxwell7985 (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well they are the Tag Team Champions.--Nascarking 01:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
At Present they are a put together team if they prove to be a more notable tag team in future then a proper article can be made, but at present they fall in line with the likes of Shawn Michaels and John Cena, Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit, yadda ya, I've redirected the page to what I believe is the correct place in short. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 04:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Tony2Times (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Redirect is fine Tony.--Nascarking 19:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you should delete it. You know, cuz the very existence of that article is going to destroy the foundation of Wikipedia as we know it. No, the internet shall suffer solely because of this article. We must delete it. God forbid someone expands it and makes it a Good Article, imagine the repercussions? the consequences? Jimbo will shut down WT:PW and Wikipedia as we know it. Feedback ☎ 21:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree the page must be destroyed, we must travel to mordor and throw it in the pits from once it came. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 14:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

All professional boxers have BoxRec.com links in their articles. Why shouldn't professional wrestlers have something similar? Internet Wrestling Database ([[3]]) is BoxRec's wrestling equivalent, having a searchable database for each wrestler that features their matches, titles, and other information. I think adding a relevant Internet Wrestling Database link to all wrestler's respective External Links sections should be a priority for this project. BoxRec already has a template, can we make something similar for Internet Wrestling Database links? TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a few questions 1.) Is it a reliable site? 2.) If so what makes it reliable how do they check there facts. If I know more about the site I might go with it.--Steam Iron 03:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't include this as a reliable source going by the FAQ, the FAQ lists a number of sites which are deemed unreliable or their reliability is yet to be proven. Q. What sources did you use to obtain the results?. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 14:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Swagger Soaring Eagle

What's with the mascot for Jack Swagger? Should the mascot be added to the SmackDown roster and more importantly, WHO IS THE SWAGGER SOARING EAGLE?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Who gives two shits really? Would you search an encyclopedia for that type of information? Feedback ☎ 17:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes --86.159.53.75 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Um...I don't think the eagle is a wrestler... --☯The Dark Lord of Wiki☯ (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
He apparently doesn't care if the guy is a wrestler, an actor or an actual eagle, he just wants to know who is in the suit. And, apparently, that is encyclopedic information as well. Feedback ☎ 21:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
lol. MM, your logic escapes us! Whatever, topic closed. --☯The Dark Lord of Wiki☯ (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

FCW Title

The FCW Tag team title has his own article. Why the FCW Heavyweight title doesn't have it?--83.36.37.38 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Heavyweight title should have enough reigns to be made into an article now, 10 pretty much is a minimum. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 22:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I had expanded all the FCW articles at one point, but then discovered there weren't any sources covering them. So I merged all of the articles with the company article. If the title can be sourced reasonably well, I would say it is notable enough for its own article.--WillC 04:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.cagematch.de/?id=5&nr=592 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.112.254 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Cagematch isn't deemed reliable.--WillC 05:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Triple H

I believe that this article needs protection due to repeated vandalism. (MgTurtle (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

Alright then, bring it up on the page protection board: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Members of the wrestling project can't just protect a page due to a post here. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
He is obviously searching for a consensus to request the page protection. Before doing so, he wants to hear other people's opinions on wether or not it should be protected. What he doesn't want to hear is someone sassing him or instructing him on what to do. If he would have gone to WP:RPP without telling us, I wouldn't have had the chance to say that I oppose because its the same IPs over and over again and IP blocks would be the way to go. Feedback ☎ 01:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
My post wasn't "sassing" him at all. I told him the correct route to go. Look at the page protection board and then the relevant projects, I can bet you now there isn't talk page discussions in place. Page protection board can be used first just fine, so get over yourself. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You both need to quit fighting on this page, etc. You both snap at eachother, and you are both making yourselves look bad. Just remove emotions from conversations on here. Just state opinions regrading the topic, not insulting eachother, etc. As for the protection, I say just post it on the page protection link, and let an admin decide.--WillC 07:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with FB here, I don't think he was looking for a link to a place he already knows about. He obviously wants some opinion on the matter. And my opinion is to go ahead and nominate it for protection. --☯The Dark Lord of Wiki☯ (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Move Harris and McGillicutty to Raw Roster?

Since Hell in a Cell, Husky Harris and Michael McGillicutty have been appearing on Raw. Should I move Harris and McGillicutty to the Raw roster on the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees or wait alittle more before moving them?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I would advise against that until WWE.COM lists them as part of the roster. --☯The Dark Lord of Wiki☯ (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
They haven't wrestled (although they will on Monday). Place them in the Other On-Air talent table. If they join Nexus tomorrow, you can add them to the wrestler's section. If not, we'll have to wait a bit and see if they stay on Raw. Feedback ☎ 00:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this really warrant an article?

Ricardo Rodríguez (wrestler) - the article is two sentences long 65.29.231.61 (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although I'm sure it's possible to find more notable information to add. I say if there isn't any more added within, say, two weeks, it should be up for deletion. --☯The Dark Lord of Wiki☯ (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I've spoken to him on Twitter. He's from Mexico, and he was signed to WWE from Knocks Pro Wrestling in USA. I don't know his real name but I doubt he'll tell anyone to keep kayfabe alive. I don't know if this is farfetched, but what about adding a "Ricardo Rodriguez" section into Dos Caras Jr.'s article with all the minimal information we got on him and when more becomes clear we can split him into his own article. I think that's the way to go here. Feedback ☎ 00:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Why does this article not fail WP:CSD#A7? Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
He does. I agree on a Speedy Deletion. Feedback ☎ 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah delete this article and keep it from ever becoming a good or even a featured article. 2012 would happen because we delete this article or Jimbo shuts down our project all because we decide not to delete the article. We have always made articles bigger over time and this dosen't need to be shut down.--Nascarking 03:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Its different in this situation, because there aren't reliable sources to cover this article while there are reliable sources to cover all of Drew McIntyre and Cody Rhodes' activity. We simply just do not know what this guy has ever done and what he is doing because there isn't any reliable 3rd party sources to back it up. Feedback ☎ 03:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and placed an A7 tag on it since tbe article doesn't assert the notability of the subject. Whose Your Guy (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Dashing Cody Rhodes & Drew McIntyre article

  • Keep I agree with Feedback on that we shouldn't delete the article or have had it redirected because we have always expanded articles and made 67 of them Good Articles and 8 Featured Articles. It just needs time to be expanded. So my vote is keep.--Nascarking 21:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
There a non notable team if they continue to be a tag team and do more things they'll have notability till then its a no go.--Steam Iron 03:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
(1) Why start a new section when this can be easily discussed in the above. (2) as I've already mentioned this falls under a long lists of put together Tag teams, examples, Shawn Michaels and John Cena, Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit, Chris Benoit and Edge (who held gold multiple times). Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 14:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The world governments will unite to shut down the internet to make sure no one gets to view such an article. Its obviously non-notable, its not as if millions of people know who this tag team is and what they've done. The very existence of such an article will cause the 2012 Apocalypse. Delete it now! "Drew McIntyre and Cody Rhodes" passing GAN? I can't even begin to imagine the backlash. Imagine if it passes FAC and gets featured on the main page? Oh, Jimbo help us. Feedback ☎ 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Dumb sarcasm isn't the answer here, Feedback. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Explain to me how a team that defeated 5 other tag teams in a tag team turmoil match at Night of Champions (2010) and has managed to defeat any challenge thrown in their path isn't notable. Granted they aren't DX or Evolution or even The Dudley's, but they could go somewhere and we should keep that article open for that reason.--Nascarking 22:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Ummm because of WP:CRYSTAL. Odds are they will go the way of most random WWE pairings by breaking up after they lose the titles and never team again. Nikki♥311 03:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"Odds are"? Probability is the mathematical art form of speculation Nikki. You're contradicting yourself. Feedback ☎ 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't stop her being right. Tony2Times (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Um, yes it does. That's what contradicting means. If she's right, she's also wrong because of the paradox. The article should be created, expanded and nurtured. It can be a GA if given the proper care. Feedback ☎ 20:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe they will Nikki maybe they won't, the odds are the same with Laycool and yet we have an article for them (don't quote me as saying they shouldn't have one). As is with the Nexus and as we all know every stable will destroy itself at some point in time. The point is if this becomes more than just another Mark Henry & Evan Bourne random pairing and could go long term like DX (although personally, they will never be anything like DX), then we need to have an article for that scenario.--Nascarking 20:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
She's still right that almost all randomly assorted tag teams in WWE exist for only one title reign. Miz&Morrison was the last one to stick, before that I can't remember. Clearly Laycool don't have an article which renders that point moot but even if you wanted to discuss it, LayCool have existed much longer, are the central focus of the Divas division on both shows rather than being thrown in matches of little consequence and unified two titles so they've done way more than McIntyre and Rhodes who've been in 6 matches together and less than half of note (winning titles, defending them from the former champs.) There's nothing to nurture because they've done one sentence worth of interest. Tony2Times (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
If winning the Tag Titles is not enough to warrant them an article then by that logic The Hardyz haven't done anything other than revolutionize The Tables, Ladders & Chairs Match and win a bunch of Tag Titles.--Nascarking 23:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Feedback: Whether I was contradicting myself or not is not the issue here. The team should only be included if they are notable as a team (meaning the team passes WP:GNG). As it is, they are two notable individuals who happen to team together and have won a title. Why make a new article for something that can be summed up in a small paragraph in the individual existing articles? Find an existing article to nurture and bring to GA. @ Nascarking: Are you kidding? The Hardys teamed together for years, are related, and have third party reliable sources that focus more on their time together than their singles' careers. Nikki♥311 03:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that is the issue at all. Nikki, you and I both started here around the same time in 06/07 (I used to go by Lex94 by that time). I think we're the oldest members of the project currently active. Davnel, The Hybrid, The Chronic, Naha and all the others aren't around anymore, but you and I have seen the project grow and change throughout the last 4 years. The policy constantly changes when it comes to WP:PW and I believe this should be one of those grandious situations. There is no reason to go about deleting many articles because they're premature and other lame excuses. The main issue here is that people think they're all high and important because they get a say on Wikipedia. They just love the fact that they get to be in charge for once in their damn lives and when they see a discussion go their way, they ecstasize in joy. I presume you are obviously different from meatheads like those and that the "oo, look at me!" feeling doesn't affect your opinions on trivial situations such as these.
There is "Significant coverage" in many 3rd party sites and almost all of them are "Independent from the subject", "Reliability" and "Sources" is at the discretion of each reference but I'm sure that there are reliable ones like SLAM and others and WP:GNG states that consensus among editors is the main channel to establish "Presumption". Those are all the GNG so I don't see how the subject of this article doesn't meet them. Let's just keep the article and let it expand. Why the hell not? Feedback ☎ 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Insulting people by calling them meatheads is uncivil. Let's have a discussion without you bashing others. It's not the end of the world if everyone doesn't edit Wikipedia just like you. That rant wasn't needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It was very ambiguous and in fact, I had no one in mind when stating such a comment. That has changed now as it is quite obvious that you take it to personal offense because you fit the description to a T. And what really isn't needed is someone like you swaying discussion from the main topic to some side-complaint without contributing to the discussion at hand in any way whatsoever. Noticing that your first and only post in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, the article, the discussion, the guideline or anything relevant whatsoever, its safe to say you don't give two shits about the consensus that is being searched for here so why don't you go do something you do care about like getting blocked for harassment. Feedback ☎ 21:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Look isn't it as long as they hold the titles they are as notable as anyone?--Nascarking 21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing is there notable as individuals but not as a team and others have said this.--Steam Iron 21:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Grow up already Feedback. Are you that obsessed with me that you have to dig up old crap? Go find other people to harass. You are acting very immature. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Woh... Seeing as how the only comments you've made in this discussion, ahem... "Dumb sarcasm isn't the answer here..." "Let's have a discussion without you bashing others... That rant wasn't needed..." "Go find other people to harass. You are acting very immature." have actually contributed absolutely nothing... yeah "LETS" have a discussion... well maybe you should actually participate in the discussion. And it seems the only harassing going on is you butting in ever so often to police some individual or random comment. --UnquestionableTruth-- 02:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Feedback was out of line. There is no excuse for that, period. He's taking this site way too seriously. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No, you're taking this site way too seriously. If you feel your only duty in this project is to police around a talk page, then I'm telling you right now, that sheer annoyance and instigation brought upon by your actions is completely unnecessary.--UnquestionableTruth-- 06:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I had a reply typed out that focused on policy. It was lost in an edit conflict because of this stupid drama. Grow up, people. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

People can we get back to the subject of what this is about. You can attack Feedback another time but right now we've got an issue to settle and we're getting a bit off subject.--Nascarking 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback is out of line, period. As for the tag team: not notable at this time. Last time I checked, every brief team that held tag gold didn't have articles here. Drew and Cody are no different than all those teams. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Problem is Feedback wasn't out of line... secondly, don't pretend to be engaged in the primary discussion.--UnquestionableTruth-- 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this discussion still going on? I thought it would've been over a long time ago, no one brings up this type of thing when Angle and Sting hold the TNA tag titles but when Cody Rhodes and Drew McIntyre get the WWE Tag Titles big discussion. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 06:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a clue about what Feedback did and I don't give a damn, all I care about right know is trying to settle this issue of what to do with this article. If yall wanna fight, do it somewhere else, not on here and put this whole discussion off topic like yall've already done.--Nascarking 17:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The article should be a redirect at this time. If the team has the titles for a while: make it an article again. Truth, get the hell over yourself. You don't own the board, so stop badgering me and thinking Feedback is just fine. He called people meatheads above, that's very out of line. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow the fact that you honestly believe the words you type on your little keyboard... I haven't seen a bigger train wreck since your recent Wikiquette alert --UnquestionableTruth-- 20:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Find someone else to bother and leave me the hell alone. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh likewise. All of a sudden the harasser becomes the victim.--UnquestionableTruth-- 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Half of this discussion has had nothing to do with the subject. The team isn't notable enough for their own article, it is simple as that. It is too soon, all third party refs are not covering them persay, but events that happened on the same episodes and PPVs they appeared on. There is no books, magizine articles, and website columns discussing their history, impact, etc. They have done next to nothing together. Once they have more feuds, matches, etc then notability could be justified. Until then, all information can be posted on the individual articles. There is only about 5 sentences at most referring to the pairing.--WillC 07:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Per notability guidelines, the team does not have to be the main topic of the references so that isn't a valid reason for opposing. Feedback ☎ 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"Rhodes was feuding with Matt Hardy while McIntyre was engaged in a rivalry with Christian leading to them forming an alliance. At Night of Champions they won a Tag Team Turmoil match to capture the WWE Tag Team Championship. They have defended them since then." That is all there is to say on the matter, three sentences doesn't warrant an article. The debate about them is longer than the article possibly could be even. It just isn't sufficient information for an article when the information exists already on other articles, regardless of notable sources. Three sentences is not an article. Tony2Times (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, well said Tony.--WillC 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony, half of this debate has been about something Feedback said that pissed everyone off, so not much of this is bigger than the Rhodes & McIntyre article.--Nascarking 23:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I only pissed one person off, everyone else pretty much agreed he was overreacting. As for the McInRhodes article, just forget about it. Its obvious we won't get a consensus either way which means it won't ever be made into a full article. Feedback ☎ 05:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Settle WrestleMania Main Events For Good

I've got a few issues with you guys listing more than one main event on some of the WrestleMania events. Particularly WrestleMania III listing 2 Main Events when there was only one (Hulk Hogan vs Andre The Giant). WrestleMania XXIV Listing The ECW Title Match as a Main Event over Shawn Michaels vs Ric Flair. And WrestleMania XXVI listing all that many Main Events. I can agree with Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker & Batista vs John Cena for the WWE Championship & Bret Hart vs Vince McMahon but not Chris Jericho vs Edge for the World Heavyweight Championship.--Nascarking 00:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well there is such a thing as co-main events or multi-main events in combat sports cards, and it can be argued that each brand has their own main event being promoted. --UnquestionableTruth-- 02:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That's ridiculous, each show has only 1 main event. Everything else could be "featured matches" or something like that. The Main event of WM26 was Michaels/Undertaker, WM25 was Orton/Triple H, WM24 was Edge/Undertaker, WM23 was Michaels/Cena, etc. Feedback ☎ 02:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
As ridiculous as the winner of the Royal Rumble winning a main event spot at WrestleMania only to go to the second-to-last or third-to-last or even fifth-to-last match on the card like at WM 26, 22, and 23?--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that fact is irrelevant due to WWE's inconsistencies being evident throughout their long history. Title reigns like Jericho/Chyna and Antonio Inoki disappearing from their books, stipulations like Jericho retiring at Night of Champions being ignored, etc. WWE is very inconsistent, but that doesn't mean we have to be. Feedback ☎ 02:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
See I highly doubt that's even an inconsistency at all. I'll remind you that sports cards are known for having co and multi main events. It can can also be argued that the winner of the Rumble really wins the main event spot of their brand at WrestleMania. Finally you should know that it isn't our job to be consistent at all. It is to be accurate... for the same reason WrestleMania 2000 is WrestleMania 2000 and not XVI... or WrestleMania X-Seven being X-Seven and not XVII...--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've always considered "The Main Event" to be the final match on the card. Because only one match can be the final one, that means that only one match can be the main event. That's how I've always seen it, but I imagine there could be differing opinions. The current state of Main event agrees with my definition, but its an unsourced article so I guess that doesn't count. I agree we can be inconsistent, but I guess we should auccurately define the term "main event" before establishing a consensus. Feedback ☎ 05:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Heh its not our job to define what a "main event" is. The last part of main event even makes note of multi-main events being promoted at times. I agree with what you consider a main event to be but that's not really relevant. The very fact that cards do promote co-main events is what matters and that is what makes multi-main events possible. What should be discussed is which (professional wrestling) matches are main events. I believe that if it is promoted as a main event (whether it be by a brand or the promotion itself) and can be verified, then it can be classified as such.--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. I have no choice, but to agree. But there are still questions left. WWE doesn't necessarily market the show utilizing the word "main event" so how do we know for sure which matches are main events? Are all world title matches main events? Are all matches featuring common main eventers main events? Etcetera. Feedback ☎ 06:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Well we have a given, and that's that the winner of the Royal Rumble is guaranteed a main event spot at 'Mania, and since there have been times when another world title match not involving the Rumble winner closes a WrestleMania, we can say that each brand has their own main event involving their world title. But like I said whatever is verifiable.--UnquestionableTruth-- 07:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazing!!! You 2 didn't even remotely get the point I was making, you just flew right over. If you two actually had read what I typed, you would've seen I was suggesting changing WrestleMania III to just one Main Event. WrestleMania XXIV someone explain to me how the ECW Title Match was a Main Event over what was billed as Ric Flair's Final Ever Match in his career. WrestleMania XXVI is just a little too clustered with Main Events because I'm pretty sure everyone was there to see Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker in The Heartbreak Kids last ever match. That was the big one of the night.--Nascarking 21:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Woh, alright then well change the WrestleMania III thing, but a brand main event is a brand main event...--UnquestionableTruth-- 22:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I know the Shawn/Flair thing was a big deal and all, but it wasn't marketed as a main event, and it was being booked as a mid-card feud at best. The match's legacy really began AFTER the match was over. Like a Steamboat/Savage deal. Feedback ☎ 02:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree with it being booked as a mid-card feud or it being a legacy match seeing as the night before Flair spoke for what, 40-50 minutes being inducted into the HOF and that was a centre-piece and there were long talking segments leading up to it. However, I will agree it wasn't a main event match in the sense that WrestleMania XXIV wasn't promoted notably on that match, whereas it was promoted around the Mayweather/Show. But again I have to disagree that it being a brand title makes it a main event seeing as half the participants weren't decided till the night itself. Was the match even announced ahead of time? It wasn't a marquee match, the event wasn't promoted off the back of that match, it is in no way a main event. Being a brand title doesn't necessarily make it a main event. Look at SummerSlam (2008) where, even before the show and the match order was revealed, the emphasis was not on either the WWE Title or the WHC, but on the first time Batista/Cena match and the feud ending Hell in a Cell match, both titles were mid-card and almost an afterthought. That ECW Title match was really just an afterthought, as much as I like Kane. Tony2Times (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Brand Main Events? This isn't the Brand Extension PPV's WWE stopped brand specific PPV events 6 years ago. Why would we do Main Events around the Brands? Another note comparing the ECW Title Match at WrestleMania XXIV to Ric Flair's final match, the latter match (Ric Flair vs Shawn Michaels) makes the ECW title match a Mid Card Match at best since it was the 4th Match in the Card.--Nascarking 01:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That was not Ric Flair's final match although it was marketed as "what could be Ric Flair's final match". And we have to have a limit at how many main events a show can have. I always thought 1 is the maximum, but if you want to make it 2 then sure. But 3? or 4? Come on, we might as well say the PPV was marketed around every single match. Feedback ☎ 01:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
2 things Feedback, 1st if you read through my earlier comments I clearly said Ric Flair's Final Match in WWE because I don't really follow TNA and I don't know if he's been in another match since then. 2nd, I agree with you that the Main Event's list are just too cluttered they need to be 2 or 3 Main Events Max and 1 to 2 Min. But some of them have 4 5 and even 6 Main Events.--Nascarking 02:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple compromise, add the last match on the card and the most hyped match. If they are one in the same, just list one. It is a table, used as a quick reference. All "significant matches" do not have to be listed. Afterall the section is called "Main Event", not "Brand Matches" or "Important Matches". All Mania's usually have co-main events, so it will be just standard easy practice.--WillC 06:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC) WrestleMania XXV I say add just have Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker, John Cena vs Edge vs The Big Show for the World Heavy Weight Championship, and Triple H vs Randy Orton for the WWE Championship. WrestleMania XXVI just have Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker, Batista vs John Cena for the WWE Championship, and Bret Hart vs Vince McMahon.

Hustle

I see in the Hustle (professional wrestling) article that the promotion is defunct (althought isn't when was it), but in http://cagematch.de/?id=8&nr=48&view=events#events is written that Hustle celebrated events in 2010. Is Hustle back? --84.79.153.47 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidently. Tony2Times (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WWE Events at Verizon Center not there

Someone's removed every WWE event that's been held there from the article. There's not a single mention of it hosting Survivor Series last year, the last ever taping of Saturday Night's Main Event, and even all the times Smackdown and Raw have been there.--Nascarking 00:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A case could be made for Survivor Series, but the rest of that seems pretty unimportant. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
What about The last SNME, it took place at the Verizon Center?--Nascarking 01:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I would just place Survivor Series under the other notable events as its one of the big ppv's but other then that leave it be.--Steam Iron 02:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Venues on List of WWE PPV Events

About everyday when I check the list of events, the venues seem to change with it as well. Something tells me that a lot of the venues on the list might be incorrect because none of them have a source except WrestleMania XXVII. I could be wrong about this but could someone look at the list and make sure that it's correct?--Nascarking 22:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WWE events held at the Ford Center

All the WWE events that were held at the Ford Center, The links need to be changed to Oklahoma City Arena cause of today the Arenas name has changed and as I don't have time do it some one else will need to.--Steam Iron 21:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no they don't. We should call the arena by it's name at the time of the event, just Like we don't say Bruno Sanmartino was a WWE champion, he was a WWWF World Heavyweight champion. Crisis.EXE 14:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Also per WP:NOTBROKEN we don't. Afro (Talk) 18:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No what im saying is we need to change the link Like this [[Oklahoma City Arena|Ford Center]]--Steam Iron 19:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No, we don't. It redirects there, and that's perfectly fine. Crisis.EXE 19:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I shall repeat myself till Iron gets it or at least reads what I'm linking to, "also per WP:NOTBROKEN we don't". Afro (Talk) 20:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record I've already fixed it on Unforgiven (2005) so it goes to Oklahoma City Arena instead of Ford Center.--Nascarking 21:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad Nascar, bad. See WP:R2D for crying out loud. Feedback ☎ 04:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
What's the point of linking them to Ford Center when they'll just redirect to Oklahoma City Arena anyway? And for future reference I don't read those wikipolicies cause 1, I don't have the kind of time to read those. & 2, even if I did I still wouldn't read them because my friends say why read a book when you can watch WWE Classics.--Nascarking 04:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you just confess that you don't desire or plan to follow or even read the Wikipedia guidelines? Feedback ☎ 05:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I figure I just need to know the basic guidelines and if I need to know anything else I'll read it but I'm not gonna spend hours reading every Wikipolocy when A, I probably won't retain it all and B, SportsCenter probably on.--Nascarking 22:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, when editing on Wikipedia, you're expected to give two shits about what you're doing and these policies are here to guide you. You're not expected to read them beforehand, but when someone like Afro points it out in the thread, you should READ before doing anything. And now that I've showed you the existence of the guideline, you should be able to retain that small piece of information and not wrongly edit again. Saying you don't care about the guidelines is basically admitting to bad faith editing. Feedback ☎ 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't think I don't give a damn about what I'm doing on here. I actually do care about what I edit on here. If you look at my over 1,100 edits.--Nascarking 00:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I've always felt that R2D was stupid. Yeah, they're fine and don't need to be fixed. I get that. On the other hand, fixing them does no harm. None of the reasons for not fixing them actually matter. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, but I think that R2D sets out to prevent people from opening long threads on a talk page about fixing redirects. And because of Nascar's dedication to not read the guidelines, R2D has failed in this occasion. Feedback ☎ 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Feedback if your done ripping on me about what I said 2 days ago I've read R2D and Gary's right it's a bit pointless in some cases. But can we get back to the issue at hand this is getting way off track and I don't want to get lost on the rails like we did with the Rhodes & McIntyre discussion.--Nascarking 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nexus and the WWE Tag Team Championship

I know the Nexus has the WWE Tag Team Championship since Bragging Rights, they did a swap of team members holding them tonight on Raw. Are the Nexus holding the championship under the "Freebird Rule" or are they just swapping out Cena and Otunga with Slater and Gabirel? Cause if it's under the "Freebird Rule", then Nexus should only have one entry in the List of WWE Tag Team Champions.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WWE.com lists the two as separate entries. [4] So my guess is no Freebird Rule.--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm with U-Truth on this one. Feedback ☎ 06:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
According to WWE.com Slater and Gabirel won the title from Cena and Otunga fair and square well maybe not fair square but they won it hints no "Freebird Rule".--Steam Iron 06:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, the Freebirds were 3 dudes. The Nexus is currently 8 if you count the injured Skip Sheffield. I think thats too much people to count as a Freebird Rule. Feedback ☎ 06:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The Spirit Squad was 5 members, IIRC and they fell under the Freebird rule, did they not? Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Look shouldn't we be going by what WWE.com says it its and drop it? Because if WWE says it's 2 separate reigns then list it as 2 separate reigns.--Nascarking 23:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
5 is fine, but 8? Come on, that's a whole roster. Feedback ☎ 21:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is if WWE counts this as 2 separate reigns then it's 2 separate reigns and if we don't put it don't as that, we're the ones wrong.--Nascarking 21:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)\
I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on that and reposting it isn't going to do anything. Feedback ☎ 22:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't know the point your trying to make and let's just go by what WWE.com is saying already.--Nascarking 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WWE Raw

I've re-added the clean up and secondary sources templates to this page, further discussion can be seen on Talk:WWE Raw. Nascarking keeps removing them - insisting that the article is "FINE". No, it's not. The refs are almost all primary sources, there's too many tables and whole areas are largely unverifiable (what's a "Special" episode anyway?). --Jtalledo (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Million Dollar title

Hi. Where is the soucre that says that Goldust is the Million dollar champ? The soucres in goldust "championships" section redirect to the Million Dollar Championship artice and, in the article, the soucres are the 10 and 11, the same soucres of Ted DiBiase Jr. regin. I never read that Goldust is the legit champion. Also, a lot of people has stolen titles and never was official champions, like Booker T (TNA WHC, Samoa Joe) AJ Styles (Legends Championship, Booker T before Styles won officialy the title), Sting (TNA WHC, RVD)...--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Feedback ☎ 09:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

WrestleMania

I don't know if this has been discussed before but how come there isn't a section about WrestleMania Weekend on the WrestleMania article? The last couple of years WrestleMania & SummerSlam have become more than just a one day event, they've become a whole weekend of events, for example: WrestleMania Art, WrestleMania Pro-Am Golf Tournament, WrestleMania Fan Axxess (I'm surprised there's no article on that) The WWE Hall of Fame Ceremony the night before, and Monday Night Raw the next night. I'm not saying we need to make articles for all of these (and I know we already have an article for the WWE Hall of Fame) but there should at least be a section saying what goes on during WrestleMania weekend because it's become more than a one night event, it's I think a 4 day event and I'm going by how long WrestleMania XXVI Fan Axxess was.--Nascarking 23:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude be WP:BOLD and add it if you feel its notable.--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If someone could tell me when WWE started doing WrestleMania Axxess I can get this moving. I just can't figure out what was the 1st year they started doing this.--Nascarking 22:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
That's why you're supposed to research it: use the internet. World Wrestling Entertainment has their own website. Google it for crying out loud! Feedback ☎ 01:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Like I hadn't thought of that. I've been looking everywhere for just one thing for the last 24 hours.--Nascarking 20:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I found what I was looking for so I'll get started on this.--Nascarking 20:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion on Natalya

Sorry on that I kind of realized that wasn't what I wanted to do but isn't it about time we move that page to her ring name? She's been wrestling under the name for I think most of her career.--Nascarking 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, I approve the move, I bet it's going to be either Natalya (professional wrestler) or Natayla Neidhart.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and again sorry for going ahead without discussion. It was really not what I wanted to do and I was totally embarrassed that I made such a simple mistake.--Nascarking 01:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a consensus. Get it moved back. I'm beginning to lose faith that you'll ever "get it". You just don't know how things work around here. Feedback ☎ 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm 16 and have only been here for a year.--Nascarking 21:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Duration of contributing has nothing to do with matters of this, age shouldn't be a concern either. Afro (Talk) 04:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Unified WWE Tag Team Championship

Why do we have a page for the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship? Shouldn't it be merged with the WWE Tag Team Championship? I mean we have WWE Undisputed Championship redirect to WWE Championship for a reason right?--UnquestionableTruth-- 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it should. But people like to oppose things just so they could get a satisfaction of "getting their way". So good luck TRYING to seek a consensus on such a simple [and obvious mind you] matter. Feedback ☎ 22:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind merging it with the Tag Team Championship. It's basically that the WWE Tag Team Championship was called the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship for a year and a half before consolidating back into the WWE Tag Team Championship.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The difference is the Unified Tag titles represented two live and active championships, while the Undisputed Championship only refered to one active title. And as I've always said, we have a precedence for this situation in the J-Crown article. You need to get rid of that article first before getting rid of this one. Mshake3 (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Coolsss then. Pages have been linked towards this discussion. Here we go:
  • With all the shenanigans of the tag title situation done and over with, and now that we seemingly have a clear perspective on the issue, I believe it is redundant for there to be an article for the WWE Unified Tag Team Championship. It can be argued that the situation mirrors that of the WWE Undisputed Championship, in that the unified title was essentially the WWE Championship. Here we now know the WWE Unified Tag Team Championship was essentially the WWE Tag Team Championship. Now the only difference between the two cases is that for the WWE Unified Tag Team Championship, the World Tag Team Championship remained active within the unfied title until being retired during the reign of David Hart Smith and Tyson Kidd. However this is already noted in the related articles. As for comparing the J-Crown situation with this, it can be argued that the J Crown deal involved over 7 championships from 5 different promotions and was therefore far more notable and more complex of a situation to explain in all related articles than the Unified Tag Team Championship situation.
  • Would the project support or oppose the merger of the WWE Unified Tag Team Championship article into the WWE Tag Team Championship article? --UnquestionableTruth-- 03:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I see no problem with this, from the start there shouldn't have even been a page for the unified tag titles from the start marge them and lets call an end to this.--Steam Iron 03:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Like I said, It's basically a temporary name of the WWE Tag Team Championship.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I'll support it.--Nascarking 22:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I stand by the J-Crown argument, but linking the Unifed name to just one of the titles is just completely inaccurate, as it equally refered to both sets of belts. Mshake3 (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose-- Unless the Unified Tag Team title and its history are established clearly as a unique championship, and until the title's lineage has been clearly defined by reliable sources, we should hold off on creating a "List of WWE Unified Tag Team Champions" article. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)]]
    • hold off on creating a "List of WWE Unified Tag Team Champions"??? WTF Um that's not what this discussion is about. The title histories of the World Tag Team Championship, the WWE Tag Team Championship, and the supposed Unified Tag Team Championship are already clearly defined by WWE.com. Reigns for the World Tag title include all Unified reigns and end at Tyson Kidd and David Hart Smith's reign [5] while reigns for the WWE Tag title also include all Unified reigns and continue through the current reign of Nexus.[6] --UnquestionableTruth-- 05:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Useless page.--WillC 15:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - The Unified Tag Team championship just seems like an extension to the WWE Tag Team championship. Afro (Talk) 22:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done HOMIE--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nascarking

I've previously left talk page messages for Nascarking, but this user seems to have little interest in following Wikipedia guidelines. I was particularly perturbed by this edit, which had no rationale for deleting these templates whatsoever, and is particularly insulting. Such actions are highly uncivil, and I thought I'd leave to comment here before going to WP:RFC. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Start warning him about and if He keeps doing it have him blocked from editing for 24 hours.--Steam Iron 00:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
My advice is that you talk it out with Nascarking. Let him know what the issue is and why it is important for him to address the concerns of whoever added that template. Don't just tell the user it's not ok for him to remove the templates. That's the biggest mistake most people do and it usually leads to a simple misunderstanding escalating into something ridiculous. Let him know WHY it's not ok for him to remove those "article concern" templates. Communication is key. Of course I also understand that there's only so much one can do. If the other party simply refuses to communicate we'll request a third opinion or take it from there.--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
His intentions are of good faith, but he has already admitted to not planning on reading any Wikipedia policy even if brought to his attention. Although I hate to bring this up because I think its somewhat discriminate, but he is a teenager and a stubborn one at that. I don't know how he interacts with authority so I don't know how he will react in an ANI or RFC. Inform him of this thread and let him speak here before taking further action as this could all probably be resolved with a simple compromise like getting him a mentor/adopter. Feedback ☎ 04:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I've left a comment regarding this subject on his talk page, if he continues I would suggest taking whatever measures seem appropriate. Afro (Talk) 04:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Childress if your gonna throw me under the bus get your facts right. I never once said I had no desire to follow the Wikipedia Guidelines, I did say I'd read them if I'd need to. And shouldn't something like this be discussed on my talk page in PRIVATE and not in public Jtalledo. I don't appreciate that you can't just talk to me in private. And before you say you did, you brought the issue here a week or two ago without even leaving me a message.--Nascarking 22:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Though talk pages are not private as such, I do agree like Bulletproof has said also that this should have been handled on the talk page before it was brought here. Afro (Talk) 05:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Come on, who cares if it was on the talk page or not. Talk pages are viewable by anyone as well. Anyway, I think Nascarking seems very familiar.... But only the users who have been here for more than 2 years will understand me. Feedback ☎ 17:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Granted they are but they're more private than this. Jtalledo could've just discussed this with me instead of on here where now everyone is talking about it. He left a message on here before he ever came to my talk page and left a message.--Nascarking 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nexus

I want to bring Nexus' article into line with Evolution's and Fortune's for example by changing the caption in the infobox from their motto to "the logo of Nexus" but I keep getting reverted. Can someone do it? The Madras (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

After checking the history, I see it was Nascarking who reverted your edit. Can't say I'm surprised. I agree with you, you should go ahead and do it again, I don't think Nascarking will revert you again. Feedback ☎ 18:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally I quite like having the motto there. Clearly that is the logo of Nexus, it goes without saying. There's nowhere else for the motto to go in; I'm not saying it has to go in but they really do say it a lot. Tony2Times (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not place the motto inside the infobox like most mottos are placed? (Like in Harvard University)Feedback ☎ 18:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think it's ok having the motto in somewhere, but not in the caption, it should be a description of the image. I'm going to revert it now. The Madras (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
If it could be added into the infobox I think that'd be good, but I tried adding a motto line and nothing showed up. Tony2Times (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You have to edit the infobox template and add a Motto line there. Infoboxes only let you add what their template allows you to add. Feedback ☎ 17:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

PPV Buys

I think we should add "PPV Buys" to the infobox of every WWE PPV. WWE does a Quarterly earnings report for the company's stockholders on the corporate website every four months that includes the exact numbers of PPV Buys so I think its safe to say we have a reliable source for that information. I also think it is very notable. "Buys" for PPVs are just like "Box Office" for Movies. Feedback ☎ 17:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. -_- Feedback ☎ 21:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I meant to raise this just last week, I'm in agreement. I think some people wanted it in the reaction section but it's a stat and fits easily in the infobox. Tony2Times (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
We can include it in the reaction section also, but I agree it should be added. Afro (Talk) 02:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participation!

Hello!

As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WWF Light Heavyweight Title?

Hi. One day, a Ip tell me that the WWF Light Heavyweight is an active title in the mexican independet circuit. He send me a poster http://superluchas.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/iwrg-vs-aaa-por-la-copa-mexico-bicentenario-1810-2010.jpg . I investigated and is very similar with the IWRG Intercontinental Welterweight, same champion, the same defense of the poster... http://www.cagematch.de/?id=1&nr=55899 http://www.cagematch.de/?id=112&search=true&s_Tag_von=01&s_Monat_von=03&s_Jahr_von=1998&s_Tag_bis=07&s_Monat_bis=11&s_Jahr_bis=2010&s_Matchart=(^%7C / |^Dark )(IWRG Intercontinental Welterweight Title)#search What do you say?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well,I do. This is very weird, but this "WWF Welterweight Title" is indeed active. WrestleView points out that no one ever even heard of the title before it was unified with the IWRG Intercontinental title in March. Right now, it seems as if this Dr. Cerebro guy is the current WWF World Welterweight Champion and recently defended it (or is going to defend it) against some guy named Escoria. There's a few commenters here who are very curious about what this title is, but they never received an answer. I don't know if its the same as the Light Heavyweight title, but there's no Reliable source to confirm it. Feedback ☎ 21:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Until you can find a reliable source, there's no reason to go into this. Afro (Talk) 02:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You robots and your sources. Besides, how do you know this is a World Wrestling Federation title? --☯The Dark Lord of Wiki☯ (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
We don't, but what else would those letters stand for? All we do know is that the WWF Light Heavyweight title was being defended on the indie circuit prior to 2000 and there could be a possibility that that incarnation of the title has been revived. (And I think its perfectly legal for them to do it since WWE doesn't own the WWF letters anymore which means they obviously can't sue). Feedback ☎ 00:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well now that's not entirely true. The World Wrestling Federation trademark is still owned by WWE. The WWF trademark is not. In this case I guess it depends on what the "WWF" in the Mexican title means.--UnquestionableTruth-- 08:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The ECW FTW Championship was defended by Chris Chetti outside ECW. Also, I don't know any promotion with the WWF. Also, in the poster you can read IWRG Campeón, AAA retador (IWRG Champion, AAA Challenger), so I try to found in the IWRG. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Titles in Spanish

Hi. I think that we must write the name of the mexican championships in spanish. All of Mexican names are in spanish, but the championships are in english. In Mexico dont' exist any english name for a title, the english name is a creation of the english websites and magazines. For example, Asistencia, Asesoría y Aministración, Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre or Desastre Total Ultraviolento are in spanish. Místico, El Santo, el Hijo del Santo are in spanish. Also, the CHIKARA Campeonatos por Parejas is in spanish. Outside Professional Wrestling, you have Plaza de Toros de Las Ventas, Puerta de Alcala, Plaza de la Constitución.. all the spanish names keep in spanish, sometimes, with the english translation. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See: English Wikipedia Feedback ☎ 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I repeat. All the lucha libre things (promotions, rudos/tecnicos, wrestlers, events, ppvs...) are in Spanish, why not the championships?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Because this isn't the Mexican Wikipedia this is English Wikipedia. Which means we write not just wrestling articles, but every article on this website in English. You want Spanish, go to the Mexican site if there if there is one.--Nascarking 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Mexican Wikipedia? So Spanish is just for Mexicans? ...... Ignoring Nascar for a bit, I think WP:ENGLISH will answer your questions. Feedback ☎ 00:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that was pretty fucked up... --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but we have a lot of Spanish names in english Wikipedia, like Campeonatos de Parejas de CHIKARA, Místico, Asistencia, Asesoría y Administración, Verano de Escándalo. Why, the only thing that is in english, are the championships?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Because those are the common names for English-language speakers. That's what we call the titles. However, we don't call CMLL, the World Wrestling Council, we call it CMLL. Its as simple as WP:COMMONNAME with some inspiration from WP:ENGLISH. Feedback ☎ 00:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Normal, because World Wrestling Council it's a different promotion. The CMLL is Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre in english, spanish, french, italian and portuguese wikipedia.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, "Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre" is a direct translation of "World Wrestling Council" as well. Even if you don't know Spanish, you would know that by reading the lead section of the article. It worries me that you take your time to discuss some articles without in fact actually ever reading them. Feedback ☎ 14:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It's the same reason why we don't call New Japan Pro Wrestling "新日本プロレス" or the IWGP Heavyweight Championship "IWGPヘビー級王座". Afro (Talk) 13:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
In the article, the english translation is "Worldwide Wrestling Council". I know spanish because i'm form Spain. The amtter is that is don't read Funaki, New Japan Pro Wrestling or Akebono with japanese letters, i only read names in spanish in promotions, wrestlers, events... articles, but no in the titles artilces. That is my only question, why promotions, wrestlers, events in spanish and titles in english. And don't tell me that is English wikipedia, because i read spanish names in the articles of wrestlers, events, promotions....--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well its to my understanding that many of the Spanish names listed on Wikipedia have been promoted as such in English context, it only makes sense to list them as such on the English Wikipedia, as example Lucha Libre AAA: Héroes del Ring. Afro (Talk) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Feedback ☎ 10:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Billed from issues

I'm curious to know if it's more or less policy that "billed from" information in the infobox is removed if it is unsourced? This has had the effect of being one more way to trivialize important work a wrestler may have done in a territory before WWF's national expansion, and/or the individual joining WWF/WWE or another national-level promotion. Or, is the problem ultimately that any sources requiring any real work are simply disregarded? Most of my wrestling-related reference material has been sitting in storage for years, otherwise I'd help you out a little more.RadioKAOS (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WWE Tribute to the Troops

I've found a source that says Tribute to the Troops is happening in Fort Hood this year. [7]So where do we go from there?--Nascarking 21:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's a reliable source, then add it to the article. If it's not reliable, can't add it.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
If only WWE already announced it themselves... Oh wait, they did. [8] Feedback ☎ 22:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem on SmackDown's page

I was wondering, is it notable to have the Bragging Rights matches on the SmackDown page or not? I think is not notable because 1, it's just a tag team match and 2, the Bragging Rights trophy is just a prop.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say either remove it or put the same thing on Raw's page with RAW's info.--Nascarking 01:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I don't think it has any prestige after two years where both matches have been different (one fall finish and elimination) so it shouldn't be there. Tony2Times (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Trivia vs. Relevance

Hi. I have seen some information that i think that is irrelevant. For example, I wrote long time ago thing like "first canadian champion", "first samoan champion...." in the WWE Championship article, but an user delete it. Now, i see the same information in the articles WWE Divas Championship and WWE WHC. I think that the procedence (african-american, canadian, mexican) is irrelevant. Also, i think that thing like "Taker vs CM Punk, first time that a Championship changed hand in a hell in a cell match", "JBL have the 8th regin as wwe champion in Smackdown history" are irrelevant. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. That information is pretty trivial and should be removed from the Notes section. Only venues, events, dates, match types, and number of title reigns seem notable to me when concerning 'list of reigns' article. Feedback ☎ 09:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The only other information that I would consider relevant/notable is whether a match was named a "match of the year" by an established wrestling publication/online forum (e.g., Wrestling Observer, Pro Wrestling Illustrated). If we do that, it should be limited to the major publications. Agree with Feedback with the rest of what he considers notable information. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)]]
You need to be more specific on this like where the 2 lines are located. You just started rambling on and on about the Divas Title history that you haven't given us a clue on anything else. And do you mind explaining where you found your last 2 lines. I don't know where the latter line is but I do know where the Taker vs CM Punk line is from. It's describing Hell in a Cell (2009) and that information is very relevant.--Nascarking 20:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Feedback, the one about Taker & CM Punk is relevant, it's describing the Hell in a Cell match back in 09 when Taker won the title from Punk. it was the 1st time a title had ever changed hands in a Hell in a Cell Match.--Nascarking 16:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

But i'm talking about the Hell in a Cell match article. Another example,at Genesis 2010, Daniels was cheered and Val Venis, booed. I thing that thing like this are good for fans, but isn't relevant for Wikipedia.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Nascar, who cares if it was the first? "The first whatever" is trivia. Are we supposed to mention that it was also Punk's first Hell in a Cell? Should we also mention it was the first time the Hell in a Cell was the opening match on a PPV? Should we also mention that it was also the first time Paul Bearer managed Undertaker in a Hell in a Cell? I don't know if you get it yet, but its all trivial information. Feedback ☎ 21:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright if it's not important then neither is before that match a title had never changed hands in a Hell in a Cell Match. Does that sound trivial NO it's NOT. That match made history that night as it was the 1st time a title had changed hands inside that demonic structure that has ended careers, broken bodies, and I quote this line from Jim Ross from Unforgiven (2006) "DX has just shoved Mr. McMahon's face up the The Big Show's ASS!!!" JR's words not mine. No wonder it's so hard to win a title in that Cell when that kind of stuff is happening and when Edge interferes and cost you the match like he cost Taker back at Survivor Series (2007).--Nascarking 22:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
... Feedback ☎ 15:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree that it is trivial. Nikki♥311 23:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Surprising a time when I agree with Feedback. SRX and I tried to get that line removed several times, but TJ continued to re-add it time and time again.--WillC 19:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
TJ? ....Spyke?--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree it's trivial in the reigns list. Maybe in the Hell in a Cell (2009) article it should be mentioned it was the first time a title change hands inside, maybe on Ron Simmons own page it should be mentioned he became the first black World Champion in America but not on the reigns itself. I think it's a shame there was no title change in the 2006 Cell match though as, "First time Big Show's head was inserted inside Mr McMahon's derriere" is definitely the kind of thing we should be putting in the notes section(!) Tony2Times (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Goodie, I guess we are at an agreement. This is good, allows me to redo the WWE FLs to become up to date with the guidelines. From what I've heard, there is a bunch of old FLs being reviewed. If the WWE lists come under review at their current states, I could see several of them being demoted.--WillC 22:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

SmackDown article is a MESS!!!

I don't know if yall have noticed but the SmackDown page is a total mess. The table's in my opinion are out of order and the article to and a few dead links.--Nascarking 22:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker at The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania

Can Bulletproof explain why he keeps removing any mention of Shawn Michaels & The Undertaker's match at The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania? It was hands down Match of the Year and arguably the greatest match in the history of WrestleMania, it has a Slammy and other awards to go with it. But there is literally no mention of it. The only reference to it in the article is this short line "At WrestleMania XXVI, the professional wrestling career of Shawn Michaels came to an end as he faced The Undertaker in an acclaimed re-match of their encounter from the previous year." There is nothing to mention how legendary the match was.--Nascarking 23:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

21 October 8 August 28 July 24 July 14 July Those are the last 50 revisions involving Bulletproof on the listed page, no removal of content regarding your concern. This is obviously a smear attempt or not anything recent which would be cause for concern. Afro (Talk) 00:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
With the recent discussion regarding you, I am actually surprised you didn't decide to take this up on his talk page. Afro (Talk) 00:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay 2 things one, this isn't a personal issue like the discussion above involving me so it doesn't need to be on a talk page and 2 its not a smear attempt I would've brought this up sooner but with the discussion above I couldn't.--Nascarking 00:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty personal wHen yO're addRessiNg onE editor by name and asking if he is able To explain his actions. Its pretty hypocritical to state that discussions that address you personally shouldn't be posted here and then you go ahead and do exactly the saMe thing to someone else. I don't cAre if you've beeN here for a year or if you're just 16, you should practice what you preach. Feedback ☎ 03:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Not on the scale you guys did to me and why is this about personal discussion or whatever this is supposed to be about Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker at The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania and why it's not mentioned on the WrestleMania article. See this is a huge problem here, when someone brings an issue here it almost always goes completely off topic and we start fighting over something that shouldn't have happened.--Nascarking 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
What the fuck are you talking about?!--UnquestionableTruth-- 22:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to add article to it. I'm talking about how we just went completely off topic with this and we're doing it again now. Another example is with the Dashing Cody Rhodes & Drew McIntyre Article discussion not long ago and how Feedback said something that made everyone get pissed off and we never got back on topic.--Nascarking 23:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You don't want to go off topic yet you're bringing up what I can assume are sore wounds. Afro (Talk) 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This will be my last comment on this topic. I wanted to get something done here but as usual someone misinterprets what I'm writing and says something else. We're basically a train that went too far off the tracks and they can't get it back on the right line. Why bother bringing an issue here to talk about it when no one will understand. Again this is my last comment on this topic.--Nascarking 00:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a WP:SOCK situation BTW in case anyone didn't catch that. --UnquestionableTruth-- 08:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
You've opened a Request for Checkuser to verify that? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
What will CheckUser do? The IP Address is obviously renewed and even if it wasn't, the guy could have probable moved in the 12 months. All a negative CheckUser result will do is give false assurance that he isn't a sock. Feedback ☎ 07:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It will do a hell of a lot more than tossing around unproven accusations. Unless you've got some proof, your behaviour is uncivil. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything uncivil about trying to uncover some truths. Feedback ☎ 02:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Correct. I have other details I'd like to present but my schedule has recently gotten tighter. --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
@Feedback: Then user Checkuser to try to uncover some truths. I'm definitely with you there. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

TNA Title pictures

Would someone mind deleting File:TNA Immortal Belt Closeup.jpg and File:TNA Immortal Championship.png since we have no agreement to use these.--WillC 04:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

IDK, I think it could qualify as a Fair Use picture. Its not as if everyone has the chance to just take pictures of the titles at house shows. Well... I did have that chance (I took pictures of the Million Dollar, US and WWE Championships while they were being contested), but I was just in a very lucky seat. Change the licensing to Fair Use, but only keep 1 of the pictures, use it solely on the title's page and at a low resolution. Feedback ☎ 11:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It would be better to get permission, rather than go as fair use. Since we have images of the old title belt, this is more so a character prop.--WillC 23:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes I keep forgetting this is a temporary title on the lines of Stone Cold's older belt. Where did we get all the old WWE title designs? Surely they can't be all Free Licensed pictures? They have to be Fair Use. And if Stone Cold's Smoking Skull belt is Fair Use then I see no reason why this one shouldn't be. Feedback ☎ 23:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, keep the picture. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
A free use picture should become avilable soon if the design is that important. Breaking licensing guidelines, to just have it is not be a good reason. With all other images of designs we have gotten that are not free use, we have went through the proper channels in order to obtain the ability to use them. This should be no different.--WillC 04:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Its not breaking licensing guidelines at all. Read WP:FU. Feedback ☎ 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently the images are too high in resolution and size, so thus they don't fall under fair use nor do they fall under creative commons at this time. I don't see anyone replacing them with license correct images so they have to be deleted.--WillC 14:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And you're correct when saying that we probably won't ever get a free licensed image. That's actually part of FU if I'm not mistaken. If a free version does not exist, we can use a non-free alternative under those specific guidelines. Because the image will probably be only used in an infobox or in a thumbnail, I don't see why we can't lower the resolution. And other than that, I don't see any other problem with the image except that we don't need 2 of them, 1 will do just fine. I don't know if this is what's going on, but you seem to be complaining just for the sake of complaining. It qualifies under Fair Use. Let it be. Feedback ☎ 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the images are useless. The different design in no way will be kept, just like Edge's WWE Title belt. It is not necessary to show the different design at this point. It would be better to just wait for a free use picture since one is bound to show up on Flickr soon. Also, I would like to to gain permission for use, that way the images could be used in other articles besides just this one.--WillC 18:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You say the images are USELESS yet you desire them to be used in other articles? I think its obvious you have no idea what you're saying. Feedback ☎ 18:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In their current state they are as fair use. With permission more possiblities open.--WillC 18:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wwhat other article [possibly Jeff Hardy's] other than the TNA World title's would you want that image for? Feedback ☎ 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WWE Raw over Monday Night Raw

I pretty sure yall've heard this more than a thousand and 6 times but I'm gonna make it a thousand and 7. Why exactly do we list The RAW Article as WWE RAW over Monday Night Raw. [9]WWE.com the companies official website titles it as Monday Night Raw and the announcers always say Monday Night Raw at the beginning of the show if The Nexus aren't attacking someone at the beginning of the show. I just don't understand why the show isn't called Monday Night Raw.--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Its at WWE Raw per WP:Common name there are a few of us myself included that believe it should be at Monday Night Raw as WWE Smackdown should be at Friday Night Smackdown. But Every time one of us brings this up it always ends in No consensus. It will one day it will be ether moved with consensus to do so or the last us who want it moved will just quit fighting to have it moved.--SteamIron 08:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Those are not the common names. In a world view, the common name are SmackDown and Raw.--WillC 04:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with Raw (TV Series), but WWE likes to say they are an "episodic TV show" and not a series even though they're obviously the latter. Anyway, all providers label it as "WWE Raw" so that has to be the actual production name. Feedback ☎ 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The reason we did this a year ago is because, internationally in other English speaking countries, the shows are known as WWE Raw, and WWE SmackDown. ECW was just known as ECW, which is why we use (WWE) at the end of that article to disambiguate. It is because of this that these are the show's common names. [10] [11] --UnquestionableTruth-- 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just outta curiosity, do you guys believe that WWE Raw is more Common Name than Monday Night Raw?--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 21:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you just opt to not read Bulletproof's comment? Feedback ☎ 03:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I hate to sound bitey, but do you expect anything less Feed? Afro (Talk) 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Touché, Afro... touché. Feedback ☎ 07:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF?

Can anyone explain this to me? http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/Microgalleries/Maryse/?&pic=9 I looked at the article, and theres no reference to it, though I don't think that is something that happens that often... Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sharmell did it once I believe as well. Feedback ☎ 11:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
During the WWE Money In The Bank PPV in Raw's eponymous match, Maryse tried grabbing the briefcase for Ted, Jr until Morrison pulled her down. There's a SDvRaw storyline where Trish Stratus interferes in a Ladder match and actually retrieves the belt, just as an aside. Tony2Times (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember that. Trish interfered in a title match, but the GM made a triple threat to settle it. Trish then won, but Stephanie Mcmahon reversed the decision. I thought it was a pretty lame storyline... Trish actually defended the WWE title against Mickie James! Feedback ☎ 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. What do you want explained? Mshake3 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

List of WWE PPV Events Locations

I think there's a problem with the PPV Events Locations. Extreme Rules, Over the Limit, Fatal 4-Way, Money in the Bank, SummerSlam (2011), Night of Champions, Hell in a Cell, Bragging Rights, Survivor Series (2011), & TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs all have unsourced locations or are they sourced from something? I didn't pay much mind to it till someone added Madison Square Garden to SummerSlam and no one even removed it or put a source on it. I haven't found anything on MSG's website about SummerSlam 2011 which makes me think there's a problem.--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 23:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

so find sources then.--SteamIron 23:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Like I hadn't thought of that, I've been searching all weekend for a single source for Madison Square Garden about it hosting SummerSlam 2011.--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 00:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
If you havent found one then remove it and place TBA in its place.--SteamIron 00:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This is going to sound BITE-y, but how ignorant can you be to not search WWE.com for the locations? They obviously have them. Feedback ☎ 01:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Then find them for me. Especially if they're so easy to find. Prove your point. Mshake3 (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
That would be against the rules. Feedback ☎ 07:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Then why would you call us ignorant and tell us they're on WWE.com when they aren't? Mshake3 (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Us? When did I ever refer myself to you? Feedback ☎ 03:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Setup Nexus page for tonight?

I want to setup the Nexus page for tonight's results from Survivor Series (2010). Should I wait until after the match to move John Cena into the former members or do it now?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm... No shit? Feedback ☎ 00:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Has this page always been Nexus without a The? Wade always calls them The Nexus, without wanting to start a petty mass-page move campaign, this page should be moved. Tony2Times (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is the information you seek: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nexus_(professional_wrestling)&diff=379358737&oldid=379358444. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:THE, he only uses the "The" when grammatically necessary in a sentence. (I.E. "You insulted the Nexus.") However, he avoids it when grammatically possible ("You're either Nexus or against us"). Also, I disagree as they most usually avoid the article. I've heard many times "I will end Nexus" from John Cena. Oh, and when WWE.com uses the article, its always in lowercase which proves its not part of the name. Feedback ☎ 01:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Question about the TBA on Other Accomplishments section on the WWE article, shouldn't we have Kaval listed as winner of NXT till someone else wins it? Same with the King of the Ring one, shouldn't it say William Regal until after King of the Ring on Raw this Monday?--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 15:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Tony2Times (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You don't like my edits Nas? I did that just so it will be easier to edit.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It's just that TBA isn't a Latest Winner. If it was the first time there was going to be a winner, it would be TBA or N/A but the Latest Winner is Regal and Kaval. It's nothing personal. Tony2Times (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Old height (and weight) listings

I was wondering this for a while now. This ref[12] billed Big Show as 7'2 and 500 lbs. Should this be mentioned at all in his article? What's really interesting is the height as comparison to his now 7'0 listing. I'm not sure whether it should be in the article at all, we probably just go with the current listing. --The Taerkasten (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been no responses so far. But what I want to know is if we should take these listings into account? --The Taerkasten (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Until WWE bills The Big Show's weight any different we don't change it.--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 21:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What about his height? Off the record, I find it interesting that they billed him at 7'2 back then and now he's just 7'0. But again, it's probably not relevant here.--The Taerkasten (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
... What? Oh Sorry, I fall asleep when people talk about things that don't matter. Feedback ☎ 23:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there was any need for that remark. I was merely making a comment.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the topic below you Feedback.--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If anyone hasn't noticed there's an edit war occurring on the Hell in a Cell article and it is spiraling downhill for me because I got into an edit war with an IP over the match from King of the Ring (1998).--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 23:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW Hell in a Cell has been completely locked for 3 days.--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 00:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Need Help

There's an IP jumping back and forth between Hell in a Cell & King of the Ring (1998). I'd stop it myself but I've already done 2 reverts on both pages and can't afford to make another.--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 22:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Really you've gone and got your self into another edit war, as for the edits by the IP there's nothing wrong with them it seems to me that You are just reverting edits for the hell of it.--SteamIron 00:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dcheagle and apparently the admins do to as I see you've been blocked for 72 hours. Hopefully, you'll come back with a better attitude. Feedback ☎ 01:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel like we need to notify some one and have him striped of his rollback user right--SteamIron 03:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
...He has rollback? Do they just give that out to anyone? Feedback ☎ 05:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes he's got rollback and Reviewer rights. Ive been here for almost two years and it took me some seven months to gain rollback rights but Ive never been blocked ether so I had no problem getting it. As for Nascarking I have no idea which admin gave him the rollback rights but they need to be removed as he shown that he cant use the tool in the correct way. As for the Reviewer rights they gave them out like candy to any one how asked including me but once again I've done nothing wrong and use the tool in the correct way. I may brink this to the attention of an Admin.--SteamIron 05:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that he didn't actually use the rollback tool when he was edit warring, he's not done enough to have it removed... yet. If he keeps edit warring, I'm sure you'll have no problems finding someone to remove it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the somewhat snide comment but should it be distressing when I see him refer to the WP:PW as "my project"? Afro (Talk) 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I see y'all been talking about me while I was away for 3 wikipedia days which is 4 days here in Tennessee. Moving on I'm gonna take some time away from editing wresting articles. Probably be back around WrestleMania time.Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 04:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that Mr. Voices in your Head say RKO... Feedback ☎ 21:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

About time?

Is it about time we change Bryan Danielson to Daniel Bryan now? If not, when will it be the right time to change?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think its arguably his common name... but the last time he wrestled as Bryan Danielson was a month ago. I think it can wait til that "1 month" gap becomes 6 months. Feedback ☎ 22:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, how about we change Stu Bennett to Wade Barrett?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It hasn't been changed? Weird, I remember during the "Let's move everything!!!" era earlier this year, either you or I recommended all Nexus members moving to their current names. I think Skip Sheffield, Michael Tarver, Darren Young, Justin Gabriel, Heath Slater, Wade Barrett, Husky Harris and Michael McGillicutty should all be under those names (no matter how much I hate almost all those names). Other new guys like Alex Riley, Trent Beretta and Tyler Reks should be under those names as well while Alberto Del Rio, Kaval and Daniel Bryan should wait because they are definitely notable around the whole world with other ring names (Dos Caras Jr., Low Ki and Bryan Danielson). Feedback ☎ 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE: I see Kaval is under "Brandon Silvestry". Unacceptable, that is not his WP:COMMONNAME. I recommend a move to Kaval (wrestler) now. Feedback ☎ 02:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Only Justin Gabriel, Heath Slater and Darren Young were changed, not the others.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
What would WP:BOLD do? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Your point is null Gary. As a matter of fact, I already applied BOLD and moved them myself. ;) Feedback ☎ 06:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Elaborating on that, the only ones left to move are Stu Bennett to Wade Barrett and Kevin Kiley, Jr. to Alex Riley. The names already redirect to them, but because they used to redirect elsewhere (Wade Barrett (soccer) and Alex Riley (comedian) respectively), I am not able to move it. An admin will need to take care of those two moves. Feedback ☎ 06:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I figure that most page moves don't really need discussion. From the article I've been working on lately, some of the pages I've been visiting have been in places that just aren't compatible with WP:COMMONNAME. For example, Jim Barrell wouldn't even be known by that name to many of his fans; he is almost exclusively known as Boris Zhukov. Juanita Wright should be at Sapphire (wrestler), and Warrior (wrestler) is clearly known better as Ultimate Warrior. Of those, only the Ultimate Warrior move is even worth discussing, but I can't imagine a WP:BOLD move meeting with opposition. Naturally, I bring these up only as examples, as I have no interest in moving pages myself. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of regins of Nexus

One question. In the article of List of WWE Tag Team Champions, Gabriel & Slater are in his first regin as TT Champions, but... at combined regins, we have to wroten an 1, because are the first regin under the combination of Slater & Gabiel or a 2, because is the second regin of member of Nexus, as a stable? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

# Team Reigns Date Days held: Location Event Notes Ref.
33
 The Nexus
(David Otunga and John Cena)
1
 October 24, 2010 1 Minneapolis, MN Bragging Rights (2010) [1]
34
 The Nexus
(Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel)
2
 October 25, 2010 5131+ Green Bay, WI Raw Match was won once David Otunga layed down in the center of the ring to be pinned, which he did after Wade Barrett forced him to. [2]
Your post is redacted very poorly and I hardly understand your question. Rephrase please. Oh, and proofread. Feedback ☎ 20:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Pedigree presumably doesn't speak English as a first language, I'm pretty sure s/he's apologised for this in the past. Clearly s/he's asking whether or not we should count Slater&Gabriel's WWE Tag Team Title reign as the second or first because the wrestlers have never won the title before, but the stable they are in have (when Cena and Otunga won it.) I'd probably say go by wrestlers rather than stables. Tony2Times (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't speak English as a first language either and although my writing isn't perfect, I try to at least sound coherent. Back on topic, I checked what we did with Four Horsemen and we went by wrestlers so I agree with you. Feedback ☎ 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is Jacob Novak?

Since he was announced to appear on NXT 4, I been wondering who Jacob Novak is. I know he's in FCW like the others, but who is he, where he comes from, and what's his real name? I've seen his work in FCW on YouTube.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OnlineWorldofWrestling says he comes from Kent, Washington although he's billed from Seattle in FCW. Other than that, not much info on him except that his birthday is Nov. 7. Feedback ☎ 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A move discussion

Gary asked a lot why people posted move discussions here instead of in the article pages, but obviously, it seems as though people don't patrol the article talk pages a lot as I opened a discussion at Talk:Nick Nemeth and no one has answered. I'd like to carry on the discussion, because although they seem like obvious moves (Kevin Kiley to Alex Riley, Nick Nemeth to Dolph Ziggler, Mike Mizanin to The Miz & Stu Bennett to Wade Barrett), there should be a discussion that took place before an admin can go ahead with the moves. Here's the link to the discussion. Feedback ☎ 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes to all of them, Alex Riley being the only one of soft approval, for want of a better term. Tony2Times (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you post that in the discussion? Feedback ☎ 00:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I said yes for all three. Maybe we should add Celeste Bonin → Kaitlyn (wrestler) to that list.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes to the others no to Celeste Bonin she hasn't been using that ring name long.--SteamIron 03:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
And Ultimate Warrior if anyone feels like doing it. Tony2Times (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Cena & Otunga's first reign". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2010-10-24.
  2. ^ "Slater & Gabriel's first reign". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2010-10-27.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_80&oldid=1254520079"